# Is a 150mp Canon EOS R camera on the way? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 9, 2020)

> It is being reported that a possible high-megapixel EOS R body from Canon may come with a 150mp sensor.
> I don’t think the idea of a 150mp sensor in a consumer product from Canon is too far-fetched. While I think it’s more likely we’ll see something around 100mp, I would welcome any crazy amount of megapixels.
> The Canon EOS R6 will be 20mp, the Canon EOS R5 will be 45mp, an Canon EOS R3 at 150mp? Sure, why not?
> Maybe it’ll shoot 16k? (joking)
> This is a third-party rumor, I haven’t heard anything about this from my sources. So please take it with a grain of salt.



Continue reading...


----------



## padam (Mar 9, 2020)

This rumour is about three weeks early.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 9, 2020)

I could consider a megapixel monster to go with a set of tilt shift lenses. But the suggested 45MP of the R5 already feels excessive. I did try out a 100MP body before but it was the larger sensor that made the image and not the pixel count.


----------



## zonoskar (Mar 9, 2020)

Probably sensor-shift technology.


----------



## bbb34 (Mar 9, 2020)

I'll wait until Canon puts the cards on the table. They will most likely get my money for either R5, RS, or 5D5, but only after I can make an informed decision.


----------



## Mark3794 (Mar 9, 2020)

Well after all even 8k looked impossible from canon in a mirrorless body.. Now i'll believe anything, where is my 10-1000 f1.0?


----------



## docsmith (Mar 9, 2020)

If true, this would be ~15,024 x 10,016 pixels, it could make a 50 inch print (horizontal) at 300 ppi and 100 inch print at 150 ppi. That is 8.3 ft....

Ok...so we know Canon likes to target markets. 

This is for the near sighted rich people who want to print wall sized photos of their puppy dog market???

I know this is just prompting all the "art gallery sized print" comments, but, if Canon does this, I see it as more of a statement camera. In terms of practicality, that is very small. 

BTW...where does diffraction kick in on this bad boy? f/1.4???


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Well after all even 8k looked impossible from canon in a mirrorless body.. Now i'll believe anything, where is my 10-1000 f1.0?


If an RF zoom it will be a f/7.1 lens


----------



## Flighest (Mar 9, 2020)

Oooff Size very big


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2020)

docsmith said:


> If true, this would be ~15,024 x 10,016 pixels, it could make a 50 inch print (horizontal) at 300 ppi and 100 inch print at 150 ppi. That is 8.3 ft....
> 
> Ok...so we know Canon likes to target markets.
> 
> ...


Using existing cameras/pixel-densities data from TDP I would guess around f/3.5 so a f/4 big white lens would be just fine. But this would exclude the use of teleconverters (at least the 2X ones) and f/7.1 zoom lenses.

I would say a 80-82mp camera would be more practical. It would have the 90D's DLA (f/5.2)


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 9, 2020)

docsmith said:


> If true, this would be ~15,024 x 10,016 pixels, it could make a 50 inch print (horizontal) at 300 ppi and 100 inch print at 150 ppi. That is 8.3 ft....
> 
> Ok...so we know Canon likes to target markets.
> 
> ...


A 75MP DPAF Canon sensor is a 150MP sensor in fact. Well, in DPRAW mode at least if each half frame is 75MP large then combined image is 150MP. 
On an another note, 150MP is a seriously medium format territory. I do not discount a possibility of a Canon entering MF market.


----------



## wtlloyd (Mar 9, 2020)

Not a practical resolution in a hand held 35mm format body. The technique demanded to get the most of that pixel size, as anyone knows who has shot with a 5DS/DSr...


----------



## Timedog (Mar 9, 2020)

Are full frame lenses really resolving much of anything at that pixel density?


----------



## $winter (Mar 9, 2020)

wtlloyd said:


> Not a practical resolution in a hand held 35mm format body. The technique demanded to get the most of that pixel size, as anyone knows who has shot with a 5DS/DSr...


dont forget you have IBIS onboard


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 9, 2020)

wtlloyd said:


> Not a practical resolution in a hand held 35mm format body. The technique demanded to get the most of that pixel size, as anyone knows who has shot with a 5DS/DSr...


With a 5 Stop of IBIS tech, handholding becomes a possibility.


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 9, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Well after all even 8k looked impossible from canon in a mirrorless body.. Now i'll believe anything, where is my 10-1000 f1.0?


Its waiting for the pickup truck to be reinforced for transport.


----------



## Treyarnon (Mar 9, 2020)

Make it a 3 layer 'foveron style' sensor, with 50MP on each layer, and take my money Canon!
(for the record, I have about the same amount of money as the odds of this coming true - 0 )


----------



## docsmith (Mar 9, 2020)

tron said:


> Using existing cameras/pixel-densities data from TDP I would guess around f/3.5 so a f/4 big white lens would be just fine. But this would exclude the use of teleconverters (at least the 2X ones) and f/7.1 zoom lenses.
> 
> I would say a 80-82mp camera would be more practical. It would have the 90D's DLA (f/5.2)


I am expecting a scaled up 90D/M6 II sensor, which would be 82-83 MP as well. 



SecureGSM said:


> A 75MP DPAF Canon sensor is a 150MP sensor in fact. Well, in DPRAW mode at least if each half frame is 75MP large then combined image is 150MP.
> On an another note, 150MP is a seriously medium format territory. I do not discount a possibility of a Canon entering MF market.


You may be right on the math and this is someone who saw a 150 MP file (or 160 MP and approximated) and really it was just an image using both subpixels from a 75-83 MP "high resolution" camera we've heard rumors about.

That actually seems likely to me. But, if Canon is going medium format....great.


----------



## Accutance (Mar 9, 2020)

Timedog said:


> Are full frame lenses really resolving much of anything at that pixel density?



That the resolving capability of optics limits any useful increase in sensor resolution is a myth. More pixels means more resolution even if the optics aren't all that good. Check opticallimits.com for comparisons of lenses tested at both 21MP and 51MP. Even weak corner resolution is improved at 51MP. Roger Cicala also mentions this briefly in his blog.


----------



## Lenscracker (Mar 9, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I could consider a megapixel monster to go with a set of tilt shift lenses. But the suggested 45MP of the R5 already feels excessive. I did try out a 100MP body before but it was the larger sensor that made the image and not the pixel count.


Maybe this rumored sensor is larger than the standard 35mm FF size. Or, it could be a Foveon type of sensor.


----------



## peters (Mar 9, 2020)

"Maybe it’ll shoot 16k? (joking) "
Since they suddenly announced an 8k consumer photo camera, this somehow doesnt sound as absurd as it did some month ago :-D


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Mar 9, 2020)

Lenscracker said:


> Maybe this rumored sensor is larger than the standard 35mm FF size. Or, it could be a Foveon type of sensor.



Canon medium format sensors and lenses would make a splash. Mirrorless medium format bodies are much more compact than their mirrored counterparts. And the lenses I use that scream high MP are also not the ones I put on a wildlife and sports focused body.


----------



## Canon1966 (Mar 9, 2020)

I wonder what happened to the 70-80mp camera that was previously mentioned? Just a rumor I guess.


----------



## melgross (Mar 9, 2020)

Sure, it’s possible, but what kind of per pixel IQ could we expect from that, and can lenses be made sharp enough for that rez? We’re hitting the point of max resolution now, as the laws of physics are telling us that we’re running right near the edge.


----------



## Mark3794 (Mar 9, 2020)

docsmith said:


> You may be right on the math and this is someone who saw a 150 MP file (or 160 MP and approximated) and really it was just an image using both subpixels from a 75-83 MP "high resolution" camera we've heard rumors about.


I think you got it right: someone saw a 150 mp file from dpraw or pixel shift


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 9, 2020)

Timedog said:


> Are full frame lenses really resolving much of anything at that pixel density?



Absolutely.
L lenses easily do 250 MP so 150 would be a piece of cake.








Canon Unveils a Monster 250-Megapixel Sensor


Canon today announced that it has created a monster of a CMOS sensor with the world's highest pixel count (for its size). The DSLR-format sensor manages




petapixel.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 9, 2020)

melgross said:


> Sure, it’s possible, but what kind of per pixel IQ could we expect from that, and can lenses be made sharp enough for that rez? We’re hitting the point of max resolution now, as the laws of physics are telling us that we’re running right near the edge.



L lenses handle it just fine.








Canon Unveils a Monster 250-Megapixel Sensor


Canon today announced that it has created a monster of a CMOS sensor with the world's highest pixel count (for its size). The DSLR-format sensor manages




petapixel.com


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



This is a dream come true.
Hope it is 150 mp.
Likely beyond my budget but that tech will be applied to other sensors in cameras I can afford.


----------



## bergstrom (Mar 9, 2020)

all the megapixels in the world can't save a picture if they're not sharp. AF points are key. MP are secondary.


----------



## knight427 (Mar 9, 2020)

[CRGoS] (grain of slat)


----------



## TMACIOSZEK (Mar 9, 2020)

Those would be some crazy big files to edit. Not the sort of thing you'd want to use for something like a wedding, of course. But I bet the landscape shots would be extraordinary.


----------



## Maximilian (Mar 9, 2020)

Too much much MP for me.
But if some desire so much then good luck for you.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 9, 2020)

zonoskar said:


> Probably sensor-shift technology.


150 MP would indeed leave enough room for sensor-shift stabilization instead of IBIS, but the sensor would have to be made a bit bigger than 35mm to provide FF images.


----------



## Aaron D (Mar 9, 2020)

Timedog said:


> Are full frame lenses really resolving much of anything at that pixel density?


Yeah, and I've been suspicious of medium format lenses being able to resolve 100MP even--I think I've read they don't.... So this seems a bit useless.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Mar 9, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> Too much much MP for me.
> But if some desire so much Theben good luck for you.


Same with me. You will have to carry a complete workstation with you to get the images post-processed. Plus, DLA (diffraction limited aperture) would have to be f/3.5 or something like that I guess, so you could forget to shoot e.g. landscapes the classic way (f/16 or 22) and get substantially more real image information out of such a camera than out of a, say, a 5D3. Plus, you would have to shoot even moderately moving subjects with 3x higher (am I right?) shutter speeds than with a 50 MP camera to freeze them sharply on the pixel level. I think if Earth moves closer to the sun, Canon should bring out such a monster


----------



## Jim Corbett (Mar 9, 2020)

The file size would be ~250mb... that's 175 floppy disks for one shot. I'll pass...


----------



## Rampuri (Mar 9, 2020)

"Maybe it’ll shoot 16k? (joking) " 
16k video @ 7,4925 and 6,25 fps confirmed


----------



## Accutance (Mar 9, 2020)

People keep writing that more MP won't mean more resolution due to limiting optics and diffraction. That's a myth. Sony's A7r IV generates 241MP files by pixel shifting with _visible improvement_ over it's base 61MP. Most of their lenses aren't any better than Canon's. 

More MP just means any optical aberrations, including diffraction (which is always present) will be imaged with more pixels.


----------



## Adelino (Mar 9, 2020)

I would buy it! But I don't buy this rumor!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 9, 2020)

To put it in perspective, a 150 Mpx FF sensor has the same pixel density as a 20.2 Mpx 1" sensor as used with great success in many Canon and Sony cameras, and with a diffraction limited aperture of f/3.9. There is very good IQ with these below about 400 iso and they give acceptable images at higher isos.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 9, 2020)

No need to stitch frames for panoramas.


----------



## Berowne (Mar 9, 2020)

Timedog said:


> Are full frame lenses really resolving much of anything at that pixel density?



Yes: More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments


----------



## wtlloyd (Mar 9, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Same with me. You will have to carry a complete workstation with you to get the images post-processed. Plus, DLA (diffraction limited aperture) would have to be f/3.5 or something like that I guess, so you could forget to shoot e.g. landscapes the classic way (f/16 or 22) and get substantially more real image information out of such a camera than out of a, say, a 5D3. Plus, you would have to shoot even moderately moving subjects with 3x higher (am I right?) shutter speeds than with a 50 MP camera to freeze them sharply on the pixel level. I think if Earth moves closer to the sun, Canon should bring out such a monster


This is what I had in mind, although I limited my comment to the hand-held aspect of 35mm format. This sensor could be good in the studio, but anything that moves (and that includes landscape!) would require very high shutter speed.


----------



## felipeolveram (Mar 9, 2020)

RELEASE THE R5 ALREADY


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 9, 2020)

wtlloyd said:


> Not a practical resolution in a hand held 35mm format body. The technique demanded to get the most of that pixel size, as anyone knows who has shot with a 5DS/DSr...



My technique for shooting handheld with a 5Ds is simply "don't adjust your Tv expectations from crop" since pixel density is similar to the 7D. If I'm shooting without IS then I still think of 1/(1.6 x focal length) as my minimum shutter. Of course that's with the 24-70 as everything else has IS. And any future high end R bodies will no doubt have IBIS.

Even I think 150mp would be a bit too much for a 35mm sensor size. But you wouldn't be at a disadvantage with it and there are lenses/situations where you could exploit the full resolution. I would be pretty happy with 75-100mp as I'm pretty happy with 50mp now.

As others have pointed out, this rumor is probably due to someone misunderstanding a number for a 75mp DPAF sensor.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 9, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> so you could forget to shoot e.g. landscapes the classic way (f/16 or 22)



Why?


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 9, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> Plus, DLA (diffraction limited aperture) would have to be f/3.5 or something like that I guess, so you could forget to shoot e.g. landscapes the classic way (f/16 or 22) and get substantially more real image information out of such a camera than out of a, say, a 5D3.



You get more real image information out of a 50mp sensor than a 22mp one even at f/16. Resolution and diffraction "limits" do not work they way people generally believe they do. This is an artifact of the terminology we use, i.e. "limit" and "limited."

The final resolution of any imaging system is going to be less than the weakest component. But improving *any* component improves the final result, bringing it closer to the theoretical best of the weakest component.

Put another way, a 50mp sensor at f/16 is not as sharp or detailed as the same sensor at f/5.6. But it's still sharper than a 22mp sensor at f/16. Both cameras are "limited" by the f/16 aperture, but the higher resolution sensor still pushes the final result closer to the theoretical best it can be for f/16.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 9, 2020)

Just think of all the chores you can get done while processing the photos. When processing a project of stacked images, you can mow the grass, go grocery shopping, or go on another photo adventure.


----------



## melgross (Mar 9, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> L lenses handle it just fine.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’d like to see some evidence of that. A lot of properties of this sort of photography is done in single color where it’s easier. I seem to remember Canon saying that they were naming lenses that would work with a 200mp sensor, and that would make sense.

the question is where is that sensor now? We do know that current lenses do break down as the image gets more off center. So in that one third middle portion, it might do fine, but elsewhere it will be a problem. Additionally there are problems with every camera, and every lens in regards to planar parallelism. This gets worse as resolution goes up. Don’t pretend these aren’t issues.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 9, 2020)

tron said:


> Using existing cameras/pixel-densities data from TDP I would guess around f/3.5 so a f/4 big white lens would be just fine. But this would exclude the use of teleconverters (at least the 2X ones) and f/7.1 zoom lenses.
> 
> I would say a 80-82mp camera would be more practical. It would have the 90D's DLA (f/5.2)



Diffraction isn't a brick wall. If the DLA is f/4, it doesn't mean you can't use lenses slower than that. Besides, pixel densities are still much higher for smaller format sensors, and people seem to manage fine with them. It's just diminishing returns.



melgross said:


> Sure, it’s possible, but what kind of per pixel IQ could we expect from that, and can lenses be made sharp enough for that rez? We’re hitting the point of max resolution now, as the laws of physics are telling us that we’re running right near the edge.



Well nobody is viewing single pixels, but whole (or cropped) images, so that question is rather academic. The history of digital photography surely teaches us that increasing resolution can go along with improved IQ overall, though as I say above, you get diminishing returns, so doubling the res isn't going to improve other areas anything like that much. But there is no 'point of max resolution'.

File size is the main disadvantage.


----------



## Diko (Mar 9, 2020)

@CR, give a glass that would support that resolution. And THEN I will call it a substantial rumor


----------



## masterpix (Mar 9, 2020)

I am not sure who needs 150MP sensor, and since pixel size will limit the sensor flexibility and therefore the dynamic range. I suppose that arthcitectes and fashion photographers will "jump" on the new sensor.

WIll the R5 will be acompanied by simialr 5Dv4?


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 9, 2020)

Canon1966 said:


> I wonder what happened to the 70-80mp camera that was previously mentioned? Just a rumor I guess.


It met a 2 mp camera and bred


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Diffraction isn't a brick wall. If the DLA is f/4, it doesn't mean you can't use lenses slower than that. Besides, pixel densities are still much higher for smaller format sensors, and people seem to manage fine with them. It's just diminishing returns.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No objection that's why I mentioned 2X teleconverters and not 1.4X ones to the f/4 lenses. In fact I have used 2XIII teleconverter with a f/4 lens (500II) at f/9 with my 5DsR with success. Due to the use of 2X contrast took a hit but that's a whole different issue (in some other shots it didn't). In fact some of these 1000mm shots had given me wonderful results.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 9, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I dont think 100+ mp is unrealistic. Why?
- smart phones have 100+ already
It does not mean we have 100mp images. The pixels can be used for electronic IBIS i.e. the sensor is larger than FF and while the image through shake is projected toout-of-sensor area, the FF frame is read.
That is a better and potentially more accurate (since faster) way of IBIS. Additional benefit: No moving parts which is good for durability. This technique will come for certain (but maybe not yet in the RS)


----------



## joestopper (Mar 9, 2020)

zonoskar said:


> Probably sensor-shift technology.



No.
Here they talk about sensor size, not image size.


----------



## caffetin (Mar 9, 2020)

Anyway, they are cooking something


----------



## Canon1966 (Mar 9, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> It met a 2 mp camera and bred



That was funny!


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 9, 2020)

Diko said:


> @CR, give a glass that would support that resolution. And THEN I will call it a substantial rumor



The vast majority of cameras on the planet have a pixel density higher than a 150 MP small-format sensor. And even if you dismiss phone cameras, 20MP 1" sensor cameras make great images at a similar pixel density, as has already been mentioned in this thread.


----------



## Dragon (Mar 9, 2020)

With that kind of sensor, Canon could win all the DXO Mark lens tests . Seriously, it is not a bad idea when you look at the issues with Bayer grid reconstruction. Such a sensor would dramatically reduce the occurrence of false color and other nasty artifacts arising from deBayering. As an example, when was the last time you saw Bayer artifacts on a 1/2.3 P&S sensor? Of course, many of those are over 500 MP FF density. 150 MP is essentially the same density as a 20 MP 1" sensor. With 4-way pixel shift just to cancel any remaining artifacts from the Bayer grid, this could produce some truly awesome images. No real need for the 8-way shift to try to get additional resolution. It does look like Canon is queuing up to change the game in a bunch of areas at once. I don't think we have yet seen all they are working on in sensor performance, either.


----------



## scyrene (Mar 9, 2020)

Canon have been pushing the high MP envelope with prototype sensors for a long time (though nothing much recently). However, my personal opinion is a ~83MP sensor with the same pixel density as the 90D is still the most likely for a 5Ds(R) successor.


----------



## tron (Mar 9, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Canon have been pushing the high MP envelope with prototype sensors for a long time (though nothing much recently). However, my personal opinion is a ~83MP sensor with the same pixel density as the 90D is still the most likely for a 5Ds(R) successor.


And since a mirrored implementation of this pixel density exists (90D) one can only hope for a 5DsRII  
OK OK this is just a personal wish...


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 9, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Such a sensor would dramatically reduce the occurrence of false color and other nasty artifacts arising from deBayering.



That's a quite important point. One could simply think of a 150MP-sensor camera as a ~38MP-sensor camera that actually has full-resolution rather than half- or quarter-res chroma channels (although the red and blue channels would still have a stop less _DR_ than the green channel).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 9, 2020)

justaCanonuser said:


> to shoot e.g. landscapes the classic way (f/16 or 22)


On full frame, f16-22 isn't a classic way though, f8-11 would be a more typical range, depending on the focal length.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 9, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> Put another way, a 50mp sensor at f/16 is not as sharp or detailed as the same sensor at f/5.6. But it's still sharper than a 22mp sensor at f/16. Both cameras are "limited" by the f/16 aperture, but the higher resolution sensor still pushes the final result closer to the theoretical best it can be for f/16.


It probably does, but I wonder if there will be a practical difference between 150Mp and say 80Mp. I suspect it'll win so little at a very high cost. For example, the pixel area will be >4x smaller than on a 30Mp sensor and such a sensor will have issues with well capacity and dynamic range.


----------



## Treyarnon (Mar 9, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> On full frame, f16-22 isn't a classic way though, f8-11 would be a more typical range, depending on the focal length.


Back in the film days, we used to use F16-22. Its only since digital came along that we opened up to the F8-11 range.
Ansel Adams used to shoot at F64 didn't he?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Mar 10, 2020)

More likely pixel shift mode for R5.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 10, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> Make it a 3 layer 'foveron style' sensor, with 50MP on each layer, and take my money Canon!
> (for the record, I have about the same amount of money as the odds of this coming true - 0 )


A billion to one? I will be your friend.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 10, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> Back in the film days, we used to use F16-22. Its only since digital came along that we opened up to the F8-11 range.
> Ansel Adams used to shoot at F64 didn't he?



Ansel Adams used to shoot large format. 8"x10", 4"x5". Are you aware how that affects the depth of filed compared to a full frame camera?
It's not about digital vs. film at all, it's about depth of field and circle of confusion vs diffraction limit.


----------



## deleteme (Mar 10, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> More likely pixel shift mode for R5.


I have been waiting for this info as everyone else with IBIS seems to add the feature.


----------



## TracerHD (Mar 10, 2020)

I recommend a 250MP sensor, with "pixel/sensor shift" we could get 1GigaPixel with only 4 shots ....


----------



## Sator (Mar 10, 2020)

Berowne said:


> Yes: More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments



Thank goodness someone posted this link to Roger Cicala's post.

It strongly questions the dogma that "sensors are out-resolving lenses". The resolution limits of each format remain uncertain at this stage. It is possible to determine what the reasonable resolution limits of each format are, but that would be a very costly experiment to run.

As for the business of diffraction degrading optics down to a certain f stop these figures get quoted more like dogma rather than science. Never are the mathematical calculations (along with the justification of implicit assumptions used in the calculations) shown so that others can double-check how the f stop limit of usability was derived. Instead, all you get is an f stop number quoted at you like the number "42" given as the meaning of life in _The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_. Even if the theoretical calculations were to be shown (so that they can be independently verified), they are still hypothetical and speculative in nature. You still need to run the empirical experiment proving that the degradation from diffraction is significant.

I also agree with Roger Cicala about the DxO Mark stuff about perceptual megapixels being nonsense ("those of you who believe in perceptual megapixels or that the earth is flat" Roger and out). DxO Mark has never published an externally verifiable methodology for how they measure this, once again making the numbers they post no better than the _ex machina_ assertion that the meaning of life is "42".


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 10, 2020)

Sator said:


> You still need to run the empirical experiment proving that the degradation from diffraction is significant.


With my EF 16-35 f4L, say at 16mm, f8 is sharp, f11 is acceptable in most cases (although I prefer f9 or f10 when possible), f16+ clearly shows loss of sharpness compared to the same scene shot at f11. 
Sometimes I'm forced to use f16+ for misc. reasons, but prefer to use f11 and wider. Also I prefer to focus stack rather than increase the f-number, if possible.



Sator said:


> I also agree with Roger Cicala about the DxO Mark stuff about perceptual megapixels being nonsense ("those of you who believe in perceptual megapixels or that the earth is flat" Roger and out). DxO Mark has never published an externally verifiable methodology for how they measure this, once again making the numbers they post no better than the _ex machina_ assertion that the meaning of life is "42".



In terms of resolution/sharpness measurements, DxO is somewhat useful if you want to figure the 'sweet aperture spot' of your lens. But I agree that in general the perceptual megapixels thing is an obscure metric and scientifically speaking, a random number because the calculations aren't published, aren't peer-reviewed and aren't falsifiable.


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 10, 2020)

Not such a far fetched rumor at 100mb. 

Fuji, Hasselblad seem to enjoy the market why not Canon.


----------



## kten (Mar 10, 2020)

GoldWing said:


> Not such a far fetched rumor at 100mb.
> 
> Fuji, Hasselblad seem to enjoy the market why not Canon.


they are medium format though which are completely different market


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2020)

So did anybody here ever see a decent/sharp/detailed image from an iPhone? Good enough to print to 8” x 10”? I think that is a pretty reasonable print size and I know from that 12mp iPhone camera you can get very detailed high quality prints.

Now ignore everything you think you know about DLA, pixel density, airy discs and all the other garbage people talk, scale that iPhone sensor up to full frame and you have a 420mp sensor @ f11 and the same relative size print enlargement is 50" x44". 

Yes print your iPhone image out to 8"x10" and you are holding a crop of a 420mp f11 ff sensor print to 50"x44".

Those numbers should end this regularly repeated thread of dismay, angst, disinformation and ignorance (but it won’t). Now I doubt there are many people that need to print or crop to those extremes but to my mind 150mp doesn’t seem any more extreme than 50mp sounded a few years ago, mind you Canon we’re playing with the idea of extreme pixel density and ways of reconfiguring detail way beyond the airy disc limitations many years ago,.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes print your iPhone image out to 8"x10" and you are holding a crop of a 420mp f11 ff sensor print to 50"x44".


a phone sensor isn't that easy to scale up (or should I say, enlarge with the same pixel density). I suspect electronics will be getting more and more tricky to do, also the production cost will grow exponentially. But most important thing is, even in case we enlarge them, the phone sensors are only 10 or 12 bit ones. Tiny photosites just don't have enough well capacity. That limits the dynamic range and overall IQ.

Have you ever worked with raw files from phones, before they're processed into jpegs? I have, and they're tear-shedding.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> a phone sensor isn't that easy to scale up (or should I say, enlarge with the same pixel density). I suspect electronics will be getting more and more tricky to do, also the production cost will grow exponentially. But most important thing is, even in case we enlarge them, the phone sensors are only 10 or 12 bit ones. Tiny photosites just don't have enough well capacity. That limits the dynamic range and overall IQ.
> 
> Have you ever worked with raw files from phones, before they're processed into jpegs? I have, and they're tear-shedding.


And none of that was my point. My point was we can already see what shutter speeds we need, what apertures work, what even much greater pixel densities actually look like, that even moulded plastic lenses are plenty good enough to resolve much higher pixel densities than 150 mp on a FF sensor etc etc. We have that information in the palm of our hands (literally), we don't need people telling us it can't be done when it can, it is, and the IQ boundaries are very much further away than even the latest rumor.

So people stop wringing your hands about a rumored 150mp 135 sized sensor it will happen (Canon have been showing off their fully working 120 mp APS-C sensor for so long they don't do it anymore and they had a 250 mp APS-H sensor announcement several years ago), the sky won't fall, all the images won't be mush, the shutter speed doesn't need to be 1/16,000 sec, apertures we now use will work fine, the lenses you own won't be 'out resolved', DLA is nothing more meaningful than the Defense Logistics Agency and is yet another made up bullshit term for you all to obsess over.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 10, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> Back in the film days, we used to use F16-22. Its only since digital came along that we opened up to the F8-11 range.
> Ansel Adams used to shoot at F64 didn't he?



Yes but that was on large format ! Assuming 10x8 as large format then to achieve a FF equivalence in dof, f/64 is equivalent to only around f/5.6. To achieve a decent dof through the image you have to use tilt and change the plane of focus.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2020)

To be accurate 8" x 10" has a 0.143 crop factor, so f64 on 8" x10" is equivalent to f9 on a ff camera. It also means a 12", or 300mm, lens is a slightly wide standard lens giving the fov of a 43mm lens on a FF camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> To be accurate 8" x 10" has a 0.143 crop factor, so f64 on 8" x10" is equivalent to f9 on a ff camera. It also means a 12", or 300mm, lens is a slightly wide standard lens giving the fov of a 43mm lens on a FF camera.


I knew you'd be able to give the actual figure !


----------



## GoldWing (Mar 10, 2020)

kten said:


> they are medium format though which are completely different market


I think their exclusivity and a portion of their market could go to Canon regardless of format. Large agencies will adopt with a vendor like Canon because of the support. Hasselblad nor Fuji can compete with Canon there. Hasselblad will not be dethroned at the top of their game. The H6D-400c is an amazing tool and Hasselblad's Color System is probably the best in the industry. New Hasselblad as 50MP for under $6,000 USD. I do think Hasselblad saw an opportunity here the x1D proves it. I see no reason why Canon can't compete if they can get "Color". Look at the C500 Mark II and the color rendition, any doubt that Canon could replicate that? I don't. An advantage to Hasselblad with workflow for still photography. Any doubt Canon could standardize workflow? Why not? I do think Canon could monetize the enhanced systemic workflow with stills the way they have with cinema.
I would not hesitate to look at a Canon 100MP product regardless of format. Give me focus, DR, Color and resolution at a fair price with support and I'm there!!!


----------



## AlanF (Mar 10, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> To be accurate 8" x 10" has a 0.143 crop factor, so f64 on 8" x10" is equivalent to f9 on a ff camera. It also means a 12", or 300mm, lens is a slightly wide standard lens giving the fov of a 43mm lens on a FF camera.


According to my calculations, an 8x10 inch has a 0.142 crop factor in width and 0.118 in height relative to 24x36 mm. By diagonal, the crop factor is 0.129. So, which is the correct crop factor to use? I believe it is 0.129.


----------



## uri.raz (Mar 10, 2020)

Lenscracker said:


> Maybe this rumored sensor is larger than the standard 35mm FF size.



The camera market is shrinking, and MF camera manufacturers aren't doing any better than 35mm camera manufacturers. Canon is invested in the RF line of lenses. I think it unlikely Canon would venture now into a new camera line.



Lenscracker said:


> Or, it could be a Foveon type of sensor.



Possibly. IIRC, Canon demonstrated a 250 MP APS-H sensor, maybe it plans on putting it in an EOS-R camera.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 10, 2020)

AlanF said:


> According to my calculations, an 8x10 inch has a 0.142 crop factor in width and 0.118 in height relative to 24x36 mm. By diagonal, the crop factor is 0.129. So, which is the correct crop factor to use? I believe it is 0.129.


Either way 10x8 is a bloody big format and puts agonising over 50,80 or 150 mp into perspective !

It's also a good example of how larger formats bring restriction in practically and why FF is such an incredibly flexible format in this digital age. It's a bit like the successful evolution of Homo sapiens - small enough to be warmed by fire, big enough to control it.


----------



## Joules (Mar 10, 2020)

These threads blow my mind every time.

As long as you are taking only a single picture and your sensor doesn't have a resolution so high that your aperture is 'diffraction limited', you are literally throwing detail away. How can people spend multiple thousands on fast lenses like the RF 28-70mm 2.0, 70-200mm, or worse, big white primes and be like "I'm fine getting only a portion of what I've payed for". For the first two lenses, there are obviously reasons other than detail to buy them. But the big whites are all about reach, are they not? 

Given perfect optics, a 200 mm f/1.4, 400 mm f/2.8 and 800 mm 5.6 will all deliver the same amount of detail if your sensor resolution is so high that it is diffraction limited at all these f-numbers. They all have an identical aperture size. But the wider lens is easier to carry and makes subject framing easier thanks to the ability to change the framing later more freely.

Of course we don't have perfect optics and 150 is not enough to be diffraction limited at f/1.4. But each step in the direction of better corrected lenses and higher resolution sensors is a step closer to this world where each fast lens you own can be used instead of an additional longer, slower lens you would have to pay dear money for otherwise.

And that's without considering the better color detail, easier noise reduction, reducing or eliminating moire drastically and other advantages people have already mentioned.

Saying "I don't need it" is absolutely valid. Failing to see that there is a point in going to these higher resolutions is strange but understandable. But there are use cases that benefit from more resolution and the technology that enables them is not some marketing BS.

On a completely different note: Could it be that this camera will come be the successor to the high resolution R camera with the rumored ~ 80 MP? So, nothing that will materialize any time soon? Canon seems to really like the 1.33 times resolution increase as a step they take currently:

18 * 1.33 = 24 (60D* -> 80D)
24 * 1.33 = 32 (80D -> 90D)

20 * 1.33 = 26 (6D -> 6D II)

22 * 1.33 = 30 (5D III -> 5D IV)
30 * 1.33 = 40 (5D IV -> R5 ?)

84 * 1.33 = 112 (High Res R -> High Res R II ?)
112 * 1.33 = 150 (High Res R II -> High Res R III ?)

* The 70D and 7D II are an exception because the used the first Dual Pixel sensor generation and therefore probably have special constraints. The 1D X series not matching the pattern has obvious reasons.


----------



## SteB1 (Mar 10, 2020)

I'm sure I remembered some years back when Canon were displaying the experimental APS-H 150mp sensor, that they actually said this would appear in a camera in the near future i.e. the resolution, not the format.

It also fits with Canon's apparent new business strategy as regards FF mirrorless cameras. That is to very aggressively try to win back market share with cameras that have higher specifications than that of the competition.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 10, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> I'm sure I remembered some years back when Canon were displaying the experimental APS-H 150mp sensor, that they actually said this would appear in a camera in the near future...


I think your memory is faulty. A quick search shows Canon announced a 120 mp sensor in 2010 and a 250 mp sensor in 2015. Neither was targeted to consumer cameras. Rather they were intended for surveillance cameras and to be sold to third party manufacturers.


----------



## zonoskar (Mar 10, 2020)

joestopper said:


> No.
> Here they talk about sensor size, not image size.


It is a rumor. How would you determine the sensor resolution when nobody tells you what it is, you look at the image size. If this image was created using pixel shift tech, one could be confused to think it was the sensor size. As we have no clue on either way, my guess is on sensor shift tech in stead of a 150Mpix sensor.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 10, 2020)

melgross said:


> I’d like to see some evidence of that. A lot of properties of this sort of photography is done in single color where it’s easier. I seem to remember Canon saying that they were naming lenses that would work with a 200mp sensor, and that would make sense.
> 
> the question is where is that sensor now? We do know that current lenses do break down as the image gets more off center. So in that one third middle portion, it might do fine, but elsewhere it will be a problem. Additionally there are problems with every camera, and every lens in regards to planar parallelism. This gets worse as resolution goes up. Don’t pretend these aren’t issues.



Google the Canon 250 mp sensor and photo of an airplane at 11 miles away. PS an L lens was used.


----------



## jolyonralph (Mar 10, 2020)

docsmith said:


> BTW...where does diffraction kick in on this bad boy? f/1.4???



Around about f/5

So f/4.5 is the most sensible limit assuming you're just going for max resolution.

If your eventual aim is to resize down to a smaller image and you're only interested in using the higher resolution source to produce a cleaner final lower megapixel output without bayer filter colour confusing pixels (which can be important when you have very fine detail) then you can use much higher f stops without worry.

A 150mpx camera isn't a general purpose camera by any means. But it's certainly not just for producing poster -sized prints.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 10, 2020)

jolyonralph said:


> Around about f/5
> 
> So f/4.5 is the most sensible limit assuming you're just going for max resolution.
> 
> ...


That is just wrong. A lens could easily be capable of resolving more detail at f8 than f4.5 so in that case f8 would give you the most resolution, the fact that the sensor can resolve detail with a shorter wavelength than the airy disc diameter is irrelevant.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Mar 10, 2020)

kten said:


> they are medium format though which are completely different market



Are they? Not with the GFX 50R selling for $3499 new. They are not different markets, they are different use cases.

The biggest surprise moving to a 80-100mp sensor will be the _more apparent_ shallow DOF. Since you'll be able to zoom in so much farther, all of a sudden DOF seems too thin even at f/16. Already seen photographers try the GFX 100 and fall back to full frame because they don't want to focus stack.


----------



## The_Alpha (Mar 10, 2020)

*For all who said "L Lenses resolve such high resolutions": No they don't.*
Lens Rentals has 2 awesome Articles, where they tested some Lenses at ultra high resolutions,
and only the sharpest Lenses you can get right now (eg Sigma 135mm, Zeiss Otus 85mm)
get in acceptable regions (purple line, 200lp/mm).
To go even further, they only get acceptable at this resolution stopped down, and only in the center of the
Image.

I'm quite sure you won't get much more sharpness out of a 150mpx sensor, but what you will get is more freedom
when editing the Image, and that's already an aspect i love about my 5DsR.

The Lensrentals Articles:








Experiments For Ultra High Resolution Camera Sensors


GEEK ALERT!! Let's be absolutely clear; this is not a useful article in regards to your technique. It won't help your photography or videography become better. It won't help you choose equipment any time in the next couple of years. It won't provide any fodder for your next Forum War. It's just...



www.lensrentals.com












More Ultra High-Resolution MTF Experiments


GEEK ALERT!! Let’s be absolutely clear; this is not a practical or useful article. It won’t help your photography or cinematography become better. It won’t help you choose equipment any time in the next couple of years. It won’t provide any fodder for your next Forum War. It’s just a geek...



www.lensrentals.com






PS: I don't even wanna see how bad wide angle lenses would be on this test :-(


----------



## riker (Mar 10, 2020)

Incredible how people can take something like that serious. R5S is most likely going to be around 75MP. Can't imagine anything above 80-100MP, it would be scifi from a technical perspective and a business perspective as well.


----------



## kten (Mar 10, 2020)

GoldWing said:


> I think their exclusivity and a portion of their market could go to Canon regardless of format. Large agencies will adopt with a vendor like Canon because of the support. Hasselblad nor Fuji can compete with Canon there. Hasselblad will not be dethroned at the top of their game. The H6D-400c is an amazing tool and Hasselblad's Color System is probably the best in the industry. New Hasselblad as 50MP for under $6,000 USD. I do think Hasselblad saw an opportunity here the x1D proves it. I see no reason why Canon can't compete if they can get "Color". Look at the C500 Mark II and the color rendition, any doubt that Canon could replicate that? I don't. An advantage to Hasselblad with workflow for still photography. Any doubt Canon could standardize workflow? Why not? I do think Canon could monetize the enhanced systemic workflow with stills the way they have with cinema.
> I would not hesitate to look at a Canon 100MP product regardless of format. Give me focus, DR, Color and resolution at a fair price with support and I'm there!!!


as much as I agree having Canon options available would be nice in the current market it'd be crazy to think they'd do it because it means developing another mount, set of bodies, lens line up and pile on all research specific to that market both tech and marketing wise. All while hassy and phase are covering the top with already fleshed out lines and the likes of fuji and pentax on the lower side of medium format. The markets are shrinking and that area is firmly in niche use pro camp that is already established so is a slow growth slow release cycle one as it is. Not that I'd not be nice to see Canon in that arena but given how conservative their track record is going in on such a gamble seems unlikely.


----------



## jam05 (Mar 10, 2020)

Correct. Being that smartphones are now being sold with 108mp cameras. This 150mp isn't too farfetched.


----------



## dtaylor (Mar 10, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> For example, the pixel area will be >4x smaller than on a 30Mp sensor and such a sensor will have issues with well capacity and dynamic range.



Will it? We haven't seen a correlation between pixel size and DR in a long time. I don't engineer sensors for a living so I'm at a loss as to explain why, but the data suggests something else dominates DR in today's sensors.


----------



## Mark3794 (Mar 10, 2020)

It's possible that the 150 mp is just a high resolution mode with pixel shift in the R5 and they got confused with the rumors?

Meanwhile more R5 pics (i can't have enough of them)








拡大画像 021l | キヤノン「EOS R5」の実機を見た！　超望遠ズーム「RF100-500mm」も


キヤノンが開発発表をしたプロ向けの高性能フルサイズミラーレス「EOS R5」。初お披露目となる予定だったCP+は残念ながら中止になってしまいましたが、実機をこの目で見る機会に恵まれました。100-500mmの超望遠ズームレンズも！




news.mynavi.jp


----------



## wtlloyd (Mar 10, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> Back in the film days, we used to use F16-22. Its only since digital came along that we opened up to the F8-11 range.
> Ansel Adams used to shoot at F64 didn't he?


8x10 sheet film


----------



## BeenThere (Mar 10, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> It's possible that the 150 mp is just a high resolution mode with pixel shift in the R5 and they got confused with the rumors?
> 
> Meanwhile more R5 pics (i can't have enough of them)
> 
> ...


Some nice close-ups of the 1.4X and 2X extenders plus the RF 100-500 lens too. The lens must have fairly close focus capability because the focus range button shows 3m to infinity in one position: the other position is “Full”.


----------



## tron (Mar 10, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Some nice close-ups of the 1.4X and 2X extenders plus the RF 100-500 lens too. The lens must have fairly close focus capability because the focus range button shows 3m to infinity in one position: the other position is “Full”.


Same range selection with 100-400II then. Encouraging but we have to wait for Canon specifications.


----------



## Mark3794 (Mar 10, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Some nice close-ups of the 1.4X and 2X extenders plus the RF 100-500 lens too. The lens must have fairly close focus capability because the focus range button shows 3m to infinity in one position: the other position is “Full”.


It's written on the barrel 1.2m close focusing distance at tele end (500mm)


----------



## SteB1 (Mar 10, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I think your memory is faulty. A quick search shows Canon announced a 120 mp sensor in 2010 and a 250 mp sensor in 2015. Neither was targeted to consumer cameras. Rather they were intended for surveillance cameras and to be sold to third party manufacturers.


Yes, you're right that the APS-H working prototype Canon displayed 5 years ago was 250 megapixel, and the sensor they put on sale was 120 megapixels. I'm aware that the latter was not marketed for consumer cameras (for use in surveillance etc). However, there was definitely a Canon official at the time of the demonstration of the working 250mp prototype, there were actual images from it, who said that in several years a sensor like this would find it's way into a camera. The context was a consumer camera. Of course it was vague. However, this and several other pieces of information at the time suggested that Canon envisaged very high resolution consumer cameras in the future. This is significant. It takes a lot of time for things being developed in R&D to work their way into consumer cameras. It doesn't mean this technology will be used, there may be technical challenges or limitations. But again the important point is that Canon has been actively thinking along these lines for quite a long time.

Overall, what this means is that a sensor of this resolution or similar could quite feasibly find it's way into a consumer camera in the near future. It doesn't mean this rumour is correct, or indeed this will certainly happen, but it does mean that it is a real possibility, and not just a fanciful idea someone has dreamed up.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 10, 2020)

Among all the rumors regarding the R5s, the 83MP sensor seems the most credible one because:
- it corresponds to the size of the FF sensor with same pixel density as the new APS-C in the M6II
- it is a reasonable step up from the 50MP of the outgoing 5DSR without being disruptive i.e. file sizes can more or less be managed without having to buy new hardware.

What appears strange though:
- while rumors on the high-res body were very hot last fall, there are no more concrete rumors
- and this even in a situation where they stopped producing the 5DSR

What do we conclude from this? .... Maybe Canon has a huge surprise for us: When the R5 is officially announced they also announce the R5S and both are available by mid year ...


----------



## armd (Mar 11, 2020)

Yawn, if it is pixel shift my a7riv already does a 241 MP image. Not very practical.


----------



## cpsico (Mar 11, 2020)

I have no interest in a camera like this


----------



## Dragon (Mar 11, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> That's a quite important point. One could simply think of a 150MP-sensor camera as a ~38MP-sensor camera that actually has full-resolution rather than half- or quarter-res chroma channels (although the red and blue channels would still have a stop less _DR_ than the green channel).


Actually, the deBayering algorithms work pretty well, but they work better from a false color perspective when there is less detail within the Bayer quad. With 37.5 MP at the quad level, you are already to the point that lens MTF has dropped quite a bit and at the 150 MP level it has dropped a lot. Very few lenses would need an AA filter with this sensor.


----------



## Silvertt7 (Mar 11, 2020)

to me it's like this.... being able to do it is one thing. why would you do that is another issue..... 

I started off with Canon but I'll give an example with my A7RIV. 

The A7RIV is 61mp. It's got a lot more resolution than I need (there was an insane sale, less than 2k brand new from B&H which is why I got it). The major downside to this resolution for me is the ISO performance. It's not good. If you set ISO to 1600 and you look 1:1 or do an aggressive crop you will see the noise. It is definitely visible, nothing subtle about it. If you leave it at its maximum resolution (so no crop) and if you don't look 1:1 you won't see it. But here's the thing, on a big resolution camera one of the primary benefits is the cropping, which I do make use of. So if a SONY sensor, which the photo community agrees makes great dynamic range sensors, has issues with ISO noise on a 61mp camera, how in the world is CANON going to have great low light ISO performance on a 150mp camera? I don't believe for a sec that they will. It would be very much geared to base ISO 100 duty. Perfect light or studio light and total junk in any kind of less than optimal lighting. 

like i said, just cause you can do it doesn't mean you should. they would be much, much better served lowering the resolution (sub 100 for sure) and improving ISO noise performance. just my 2cents.


----------



## Silvertt7 (Mar 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> On full frame, f16-22 isn't a classic way though, f8-11 would be a more typical range, depending on the focal length.



I agree. F22? What? I've shot many landscape photos and I never take shots at F22. F16 is my max, F11 is my default.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 11, 2020)

Now this is something I think I can understand: 

Roger Cicala Mod  Carleton Foxx • 5 months ago 
Well, if you assume internal consistency, that would be true. But really, it would be more like "we combine EPA gas mileage, 0-60 times, curb weight, luggage space, cornering ability, subjective attractiveness, and seat comfort as measured by our ideal ass size" and rate this car a 92, so it's the car you should buy. Even if it's valid, are many people really interested in that ideal combination of cornering ability and luggage space? 

Jack


----------



## Yasko (Mar 11, 2020)

Marketing. Each subpixel is now a pixel


----------



## Sator (Mar 11, 2020)

The_Alpha said:


> *For all who said "L Lenses resolve such high resolutions": No they don't.*
> Lens Rentals has 2 awesome Articles, where they tested some Lenses at ultra high resolutions,
> and only the sharpest Lenses you can get right now (eg Sigma 135mm, Zeiss Otus 85mm)
> get in acceptable regions (purple line, 200lp/mm).
> ...



Again thank you for quoting these studies by Roger Cicala.

However, at no point does Roger ever state that in order to get meaningful improvements in image quality from a 150MP sensor that you have to get the lens to perform at a particular level at 200lp/mm. Nor should you be quoting Roger as having made such a statement. In fact, what he says is quite different to what you are inferring. 

The fact is we do not have experimental evidence from which it can be deduced that in order for a 35mm format sensor of X number of MPs to perform well the lens must resolve a certain amount at X lp/mm. That data doesn't exist. We simply do not know what the practical resolution limit of 35mm format is.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 11, 2020)

armd said:


> Yawn, if it is pixel shift my a7riv already does a 241 MP image. Not very practical.


You are correct. a7iv isn’t a very practical camera.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 11, 2020)

cpsico said:


> I have no interest in a camera like this


Why bother posting though.


----------



## joestopper (Mar 11, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> I agree. F22? What? I've shot many landscape photos and I never take shots at F22. F16 is my max, F11 is my default.



I do lots of landscapes and as unusual as it sounds, my best landscape lens is the RF 28-70 (sure I am waiting for the RF 24 f/1.2 to be released some day).
While typical shots are f8 to f11, I have done f22 with this lens. The results are incredibly good. While this would be a huge compromise with any EF lens I own, this lens can be used in the whole range from f2 to f22 with little compromise.


----------



## MrToes (Mar 11, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Can't Wait! ! ! !


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 11, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> So did anybody here ever see a decent/sharp/detailed image from an iPhone? Good enough to print to 8” x 10”?



I haven't seen one, but I attended a talk only yesterday where the pro giving the presentation now shoots most landscapes with his iPhone and says he can print to A2 at sellable quality. I would prefer to believe him than many I see posting on the subject in many for a.
The problem here is that too many people spout nonsense based on side-by-side comparisons instead of 'how does the image look as an image'. Sometimes I think that an image taken with my 30D would be considered trash based on the theoretically calculated resolution.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 11, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Tiny photosites just don't have enough well capacity. That limits the dynamic range and overall IQ.
> 
> Have you ever worked with raw files from phones, before they're processed into jpegs? I have, and they're tear-shedding.



Is that compared to what we have or an empirical statement?
If you were given an image from a DSLR 10 years ago, would you say the same (especially when whose images were selling in the millions and lauded as 'superb')?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 11, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> I haven't seen one, but I attended a talk only yesterday where the pro giving the presentation now shoots most landscapes with his iPhone and says he can print to A2 at sellable quality. I would prefer to believe him than many I see posting on the subject in many for a.
> The problem here is that too many people spout nonsense based on side-by-side comparisons instead of 'how does the image look as an image'. Sometimes I think that an image taken with my 30D would be considered trash based on the theoretically calculated resolution.



I think many on CR consider sharpness and resolution the pinnacle of success and often the composition is not even given a second thought. This tends to be true when it comes to wildlife or maybe birds in particular because the shooter often, like me, really loves birds and just acquiring an image of some species gives a shiver down ones spine. 

This has been pointed out to me over the last few years by a few of the big boys and I'm thankful for that. I now at least give some thought to basic principles, having read The Photographer's Eye a couple times, especially when it comes to cropping, which is almost a given when shooting birds. 

Of course this is just me as a person who is coming with no formal training in photography. Reading some of my earliest posts to CR and the questions I was asking, would be rather embarrassing, so I don't do that. 

Hmm, maybe I'm still displaying the same ignorance and I just don't realize it! Either way it gives me a laugh and I still enjoy photography *for the fun of it*.

Jack


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 11, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> Is that compared to what we have or an empirical statement?
> If you were given an image from a DSLR 10 years ago, would you say the same (especially when whose images were selling in the millions and lauded as 'superb')?


Compared what?..
If you compare raw files from phones to a 10-yo DSLR, DSLR still wins, especially if it's a 14 bit sensor.


----------



## Cryve (Mar 12, 2020)

This may sound wired to some here, but in my experience the pixelcount has almost no effect on luminance noise.
You have to understand that zooming in 1:1 means that each pixel on your monitor represents 1 pixel of your picture.
This means that you zoom in farther into a given picture when using a hd monitor, compared to a 4k monitor.
This also means that, when viewing 1:1, you zoom in way way more into a 61mp picture than a 24mp picture.

Of couse there is more noise if you zoom in farther, thats just basic logic. That doesnt mean that the pictures of the camera are more noisy though. it just means that the 1:1 preview is more noisy and this is an important distinction.

The only real difference i could find, regarding noise, between high mp cameras and low mp cameras is that colour noise is a little bit better on low mp cameras.

Btw this is an 10.000 iso image of the sony a7r iv. looks absolutely fine and processed it looks even better.

*In summary:*
there is almost no perceivable noise performance difference between high and low megapixel cameras. Of course you can see more noise when zooming in *1:1 *because you are zoomed in more. if you upscale a 24mp pic to 61mp in photoshop and then zoom 1:1 into that upscaled pic, you would see the same noise.
also: low mp has a little bit better colours at high isos -> images of low mp cameras will look a bit more colourful, while high mp low ligh pictures will look a bit more muddy (regarding the colours only). only a very slight difference though.


----------



## melgross (Mar 12, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> Google the Canon 250 mp sensor and photo of an airplane at 11 miles away. PS an L lens was used.


You know that doesn’t tell us much. The plane was close to the center, where it’s always sharpest. Show us a full frame with detail out to the edges.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 12, 2020)

melgross said:


> You know that doesn’t tell us much. The plane was close to the center, where it’s always sharpest. Show us a full frame with detail out to the edges.




If you are zooming like that, the main subject is often in the middle and the frame edges are most likely irrelevant to the intention of the photograph.


----------



## melgross (Mar 13, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> If you are zooming like that, the main subject is often in the middle and the frame edges are most likely irrelevant to the intention of the photograph.


That’s a terrible excuse.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2020)

masterpix said:


> I am not sure who needs 150MP sensor, and since pixel size will limit the sensor flexibility and therefore the dynamic range. I suppose that arthcitectes and fashion photographers will "jump" on the new sensor.
> 
> WIll the R5 will be acompanied by simialr 5Dv4?



NO. The 5D Mark IV was released in 2016. I think your question is will there be a corresponding 5D Mark V to go with the R5?


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> That's a quite important point. One could simply think of a 150MP-sensor camera as a ~38MP-sensor camera that actually has full-resolution rather than half- or quarter-res chroma channels (although the red and blue channels would still have a stop less _DR_ than the green channel).



Except it's not that simple since the "red", "green", and "blue" filters in a Bayer mask are not the same colors as the 'Red', 'Green', and 'Blue' colors emitted by our RGB reproduction screens.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> With my EF 16-35 f4L, say at 16mm, f8 is sharp, f11 is acceptable in most cases (although I prefer f9 or f10 when possible), f16+ clearly shows loss of sharpness compared to the same scene shot at f11.
> Sometimes I'm forced to use f16+ for misc. reasons, but prefer to use f11 and wider. Also I prefer to focus stack rather than increase the f-number, if possible.
> 
> 
> ...



Their raw data is useful when taken with the understanding that single copies of lenses may or may not be representative of an average of all copies of a particular lens model. Their "perceptual MP" mumbo jumbo is junk.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> a phone sensor isn't that easy to scale up (or should I say, enlarge with the same pixel density). I suspect electronics will be getting more and more tricky to do, also the production cost will grow exponentially. But most important thing is, even in case we enlarge them, the phone sensors are only 10 or 12 bit ones. Tiny photosites just don't have enough well capacity. That limits the dynamic range and overall IQ.
> 
> Have you ever worked with raw files from phones, before they're processed into jpegs? I have, and they're tear-shedding.



Have you ever properly lit the entire scene you are shooting to fit into the 6-7 stops of DR that your display medium is capable of reproducing? So that you don't need 13-14 stops of DR to make an outstanding photograph?


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 13, 2020)

Yasko said:


> Marketing. Each subpixel is now a pixel



Each "subpixel" has *always* been a pixel.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 13, 2020)

melgross said:


> That’s a terrible excuse.



Why?
You don't even know how poor it is at the edges and yet you are looking at my comment as a justification for poor quality. I was merely stating my opinion that edge performance is less important for super-telephoto than it is for shorter focal lengths.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 13, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Have you ever properly lit the entire scene you are shooting to fit into the 6-7 stops of DR that your display medium is capable of reproducing? So that you don't need 13-14 stops of DR to make an outstanding photograph?



But how would I properly lit a landscape?.. 
But even in a controlled environment, the more contrasty the scene is the better. The controlled light may in fact increase the required DR.


----------



## SecureGSM (Mar 13, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But how would I properly lit a landscape?..
> ............



golden hour?


----------



## masterpix (Mar 13, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> NO. The 5D Mark IV was released in 2016. I think your question is will there be a corresponding 5D Mark V to go with the R5?


correct, I was inquering for the 5Dv.


----------



## Architect1776 (Mar 13, 2020)

melgross said:


> You know that doesn’t tell us much. The plane was close to the center, where it’s always sharpest. Show us a full frame with detail out to the edges.



So?


----------



## melgross (Mar 13, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> Why?
> You don't even know how poor it is at the edges and yet you are looking at my comment as a justification for poor quality. I was merely stating my opinion that edge performance is less important for super-telephoto than it is for shorter focal lengths.


We do know from. Any tests that lenses on higher rez sensors show problems at the edges and corners. And those are much lower rez. Canon did state at some point that they were developing lenses for 100mp.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 13, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> Why?
> You don't even know how poor it is at the edges and yet you are looking at my comment as a justification for poor quality. I was merely stating my opinion that edge performance is less important for super-telephoto than it is for shorter focal lengths.


I could almost go along with the idea but then I think of how often my active AF points are not in the centre. Mind you with a DSLR the furthest points are not exactly at the edge, but parts of the subject certainly are. What do you think?

Jack


----------



## SteveC (Mar 13, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But how would I properly lit a landscape?..



Global thermonuclear warfare is OFF the list of options.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 13, 2020)

melgross said:


> Any tests that lenses on higher rez sensors show problems at the edges and corners.



When you say 'edge' and 'corner' how far are you talking from the centre? For example, if the 'problem' at 90% towards the edge, then why is your main subject out there?

I am not doubting reduced image quality, but your use of the word 'problem'.
Just because the edge is not as good as the centre does not mean it is 'a problem'. If it is not a problem with a 20MP sensor it is not a problem with a 45MP sensor. Or a 100 MP sensor. The viewing medium is no more detailed for a 20MP image or a 40MP image. Too many people look at 1:1 on screen and forget the image size they will actually reproduce it on.
I assume you have examples were an 8MP and a higher MP image with the same lens where the image on the higher MP image becomes problematic.....?


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 13, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> I could almost go along with the idea but then I think of how often my active AF points are not in the centre. Mind you with a DSLR the furthest points are not exactly at the edge, but parts of the subject certainly are. What do you think?
> 
> Jack



I agree. If there is significant vignetting (sometimes hidden by in-camera software) it can affect the amount of light/contrast available for the AF. Though this will probably be more important for RF lenses where AF points go almost to the edge.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 14, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But how would I properly lit a landscape?..
> But even in a controlled environment, the more contrasty the scene is the better. The controlled light may in fact increase the required DR.



False.

It doesn't matter how contrasty your scene is, if your display medium can only show 6-7 stops of DR, then you either have to squeeze all of that extra DR into 6-7 stops, allow some of the highlights to blow, allow some of the shadows to crush, or a combination of all of the above, or you just shoot it within 6-7 stops to start with. You lose far more contrast when squeezing twelve stops into seven than when you control the scene to be within seven stops to begin with. That's why we have all different kinds of tone mapping software - to try and restore some of that lost contrast when we squeeze more captured dynamic range into a lower dynamic range display medium.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 14, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> or you just shoot it within 6-7 stops to start with.


Being indoors, with no light from windows, you normally get a very flat light. Any controlled light you'd normally set up for portraiture normally increases the contrast and required dynamic range. In daylight, you may use a speedlight for fill light on order to reduce contrast, but normally using controlled light means you start in a shadowy low-contrast area and use your own light on top, which increases the contrast.



Michael Clark said:


> You lose far more contrast when squeezing twelve stops into seven than when you control the scene to be within seven stops to begin with.


All stages of image production - shooting, digital processing (in camera and/or in Lightroom), displaying - cause information loss. More bits and better DR in raw images give you a better quality. 14 bits vs 10 bits is a significant difference.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 15, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Being indoors, with no light from windows, you normally get a very flat light. Any controlled light you'd normally set up for portraiture normally increases the contrast and required dynamic range. In daylight, you may use a speedlight for fill light on order to reduce contrast, but normally using controlled light means you start in a shadowy low-contrast area and use your own light on top, which increases the contrast.
> 
> 
> All stages of image production - shooting, digital processing (in camera and/or in Lightroom), displaying - cause information loss. More bits and better DR in raw images give you a better quality. 14 bits vs 10 bits is a significant difference.



I'm talking a fully controlled studio with no significant ambient light. 6-7 stops is still plenty of contrast. That's a key light at 1:1 and a fill at 1:64. Hair lights, background lights, etc. are all somewhere in between.

One does not need a 14 stop scene to produce a 6-7 stop image with good contrast.

There's also a huge difference between limiting a camera to 10-bits vs. limiting a scene to seven stops. One affects the size of each individual step between 0 (pure black) and full saturation. The other matches one stop in the scene to one stop in the display medium so that less image processing must take place.

If the final display medium can only handle seven stops, it matters not how much contrast the scene had, only seven stops can be displayed in the final output. If shot right, there's no need to stretch or compress the DR of the scene to the DR of the display medium!


----------



## melgross (Mar 16, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> When you say 'edge' and 'corner' how far are you talking from the centre? For example, if the 'problem' at 90% towards the edge, then why is your main subject out there?
> 
> I am not doubting reduced image quality, but your use of the word 'problem'.
> Just because the edge is not as good as the centre does not mean it is 'a problem'. If it is not a problem with a 20MP sensor it is not a problem with a 45MP sensor. Or a 100 MP sensor. The viewing medium is no more detailed for a 20MP image or a 40MP image. Too many people look at 1:1 on screen and forget the image size they will actually reproduce it on.
> I assume you have examples were an 8MP and a higher MP image with the same lens where the image on the higher MP image becomes problematic.....?


Anywhere from a third to a half way from center. Besides the comment that your main subject isn’t going to be that far off center is meaningless for many subjects. Photographing art, such as paintings, which I used to do, architecture, etc. all require sharpness far off center. Good contrast and lack of flare too.

And the parallelism issue is a major one too. The higher the sensor rez, the harder it is to keep the mechanical specs up to snuff. And then, focus. The higher the rez, the more focus issues come to the fore.

but it’s also the physics of optics. Lenses can only be made sharp to a certain point. After that, not much can be done.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 16, 2020)

melgross said:


> Anywhere from a third to a half way from center. Besides the comment that your main subject isn’t going to be that far off center is meaningless for many subjects. Photographing art, such as paintings, which I used to do, architecture, etc. all require sharpness far off center. Good contrast and lack of flare too.


Which comes back to my earlier point - if you are shooting a supertelephoto to shoot that plane, you will NOT be using it to photograph architecture or paintings. 
If you are zooming in like that, you will choose an excellent lens with the appropriate characteristics and being 'relatively poor' at the extremes of the image is not the same as 'being bad'.
If a 250MP sensor is released I can guess the one reason people will be refusing to buy it will not be 'it shows that my excellent lens is not as good at the edges as in the centre'.


----------



## Yasko (Mar 17, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Each "subpixel" has *always* been a pixel.



That would mean you throw in random numbers from 3-4?


----------



## Diko (Mar 17, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> The vast majority of cameras on the planet have a pixel density higher than a 150 MP small-format sensor. And even if you dismiss phone cameras, 20MP 1" sensor cameras make great images at a similar pixel density, as has already been mentioned in this thread.




I don't see your point. I presume you have experienced 5Ds yourself or?


----------



## melgross (Mar 17, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> Which comes back to my earlier point - if you are shooting a supertelephoto to shoot that plane, you will NOT be using it to photograph architecture or paintings.
> If you are zooming in like that, you will choose an excellent lens with the appropriate characteristics and being 'relatively poor' at the extremes of the image is not the same as 'being bad'.
> If a 250MP sensor is released I can guess the one reason people will be refusing to buy it will not be 'it shows that my excellent lens is not as good at the edges as in the centre'.


That image was released because it showed something that would make it seem as though the high rez sensor can show detail. It’s not the type of picture people will take under any normal circumstances. I doubt people will be buying expensive cameras and lenses to take pictures of specis in the sky at the center of the frame.
at any rate, it looks as though this rumor may be nothing more than that after all.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 17, 2020)

GoldWing said:


> I think their exclusivity and a portion of their market could go to Canon regardless of format. Large agencies will adopt with a vendor like Canon because of the support. Hasselblad nor Fuji can compete with Canon there. Hasselblad will not be dethroned at the top of their game. The H6D-400c is an amazing tool and Hasselblad's Color System is probably the best in the industry. New Hasselblad as 50MP for under $6,000 USD. I do think Hasselblad saw an opportunity here the x1D proves it. I see no reason why Canon can't compete if they can get "Color". Look at the C500 Mark II and the color rendition, any doubt that Canon could replicate that? I don't. An advantage to Hasselblad with workflow for still photography. Any doubt Canon could standardize workflow? Why not? I do think Canon could monetize the enhanced systemic workflow with stills the way they have with cinema.
> I would not hesitate to look at a Canon 100MP product regardless of format. Give me focus, DR, Color and resolution at a fair price with support and I'm there!!!



I love my cannon, but I've been playing with MF film and got me a v system camera, while they're still reasonable.

I got the 501CM....and aside from wanting to shoot film, I saw that Hasselblad is coming out with a new system that includes the CFV II 50 digital back, that will hook right in seamlessly on my old V system camera and open up MF digital to me, allowing me to use older, but very nice lenses.

Hasselblad: 907X and CFV II 50C

I mean sure, a step by Canon into the MF field would be niche....but we're all seeing the trends of normal consumers moving mostly to phone cameras, and I believe even Canon themselves said they were going to be concentrating more into the pro (and I think Prosumer) area which themselves are becoming niche when compared to the general public's interest in photography tools.

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Mar 17, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> I think many on CR consider sharpness and resolution the pinnacle of success and often the composition is not even given a second thought. This tends to be true when it comes to wildlife or maybe birds in particular because the shooter often, like me, really loves birds and just acquiring an image of some species gives a shiver down ones spine.
> 
> This has been pointed out to me over the last few years by a few of the big boys and I'm thankful for that. I now at least give some thought to basic principles, having read The Photographer's Eye a couple times, especially when it comes to cropping, which is almost a given when shooting birds.
> 
> ...




Is this the PHotographer's Eye. book you were referring to?

I've been looking to find some good composition study materials.....this is. a good book?

TIA,

cayenne


----------



## riker (Mar 17, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> It's possible that the 150 mp is just a high resolution mode with pixel shift in the R5 and they got confused with the rumors?
> 
> Meanwhile more R5 pics (i can't have enough of them)
> 
> ...



OMG I hate that 100-500. I just wanted a 100-400 which was already perfect. Come on! Anything above f/4 is an amateur/travel lens anyway - absolutely no need to go beyond 400.
I don't think I can respect anyone seriously thinking he needs 500mm but then also thinking f/7.1 is fine


----------



## unfocused (Mar 17, 2020)

riker said:


> OMG I hate that 100-500. I just wanted a 100-400 which was already perfect. Come on! Anything above f/4 is an amateur/travel lens anyway - absolutely no need to go beyond 400.
> I don't think I can respect anyone seriously thinking he needs 500mm but then also thinking f/7.1 is fine


Wow! That's quite an opinion. I guess we are lucky to have such experts contributing to this site. Why do you care? Since anything above f4 is for amateurs, then you wouldn't want a 100-400 f5.6 anyway. By the way, the EF 100-400 works just fine on an R body, so if you can lower yourself to use an f5.6 lens, just use that one. 

Oh, also, I'm not sure anyone cares if you respect them or not.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 17, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Is this the PHotographer's Eye. book you were referring to?
> 
> I've been looking to find some good composition study materials.....this is. a good book?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, it probably is. The REAL Photographers Eye though is this one if you are actually serious about photography.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 17, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Unfortunately, it probably is. The REAL Photographers Eye though is this one if you are actually serious about photography.



Why do you say 'unfortunately'? The Michael Freeman book is excellent. 
I find your comment about Szarkowski's book rather patronising.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 17, 2020)

Mikehit said:


> Why do you say 'unfortunately'? The Michael Freeman book is excellent.
> I find your comment about Szarkowski's book rather patronising.


Szarkowski's six pages of introduction followed by five chapters of brief two or three paragraph introductions to the essence of photography is a classic. Coupled with "Looking at Photographs" Szarkowski set standards for exploring photography in a serious way that few writers have matched in the 50+ years since it was first published. It is the kind of book that you can read a hundred times and still learn something from. If you really want to explore photography in a serious way, Szarkowski is an excellent starting point. 

Patronizing? No. I simply think that people should avail themselves of the very best.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Is this the PHotographer's Eye. book you were referring to?
> 
> I've been looking to find some good composition study materials.....this is. a good book?
> 
> ...



The Photographer's Eye by Freeman is very good and worth every penny. It's this one - https://www.amazon.com/Photographer...s=the+photographers+eye&qid=1584504825&sr=8-3

The particular one you linked, *The Photographers Eye: A graphic Guide: Instantly Understand Composition & Design for Better Photography,* I'm sure is good too but it's not the one I have

Jack


----------



## cayenne (Mar 18, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Szarkowski's six pages of introduction followed by five chapters of brief two or three paragraph introductions to the essence of photography is a classic. Coupled with "Looking at Photographs" Szarkowski set standards for exploring photography in a serious way that few writers have matched in the 50+ years since it was first published. It is the kind of book that you can read a hundred times and still learn something from. If you really want to explore photography in a serious way, Szarkowski is an excellent starting point.
> 
> Patronizing? No. I simply think that people should avail themselves of the very best.




Hmm....maybe I'll get BOTH!!


It appears for the foreseeable future, I'll have time at home to catch up on some reading!!!

C


----------



## cayenne (Mar 18, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> The Photographer's Eye by Freeman is very good and worth every penny. It's this one - https://www.amazon.com/Photographer...s=the+photographers+eye&qid=1584504825&sr=8-3
> 
> The particular one you linked, *The Photographers Eye: A graphic Guide: Instantly Understand Composition & Design for Better Photography,* I'm sure is good too but it's not the one I have
> 
> Jack



Thank you Jack,

I saw that one too....from what I could tell, it seems the one I linked to is an updated version of the one you linked to.

C


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Thank you Jack,
> 
> I saw that one too....from what I could tell, it seems the one I linked to is an updated version of the one you linked to.
> 
> C


Yes, one is newer than the other and the title very similar so possibly the newer is better .... or maybe not? 

Jack


----------



## cayenne (Mar 18, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> Yes, one is newer than the other and the title very similar so possibly the newer is better .... or maybe not?
> 
> Jack



I just ordered the "newer" one....should be here Sunday (I guess Amazon is experiencing delays with all this virus stuff?)......

I'll dive in, as that I believe Sunday is set to be a rainy day here in the NOLA area.....

C


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I just ordered the "newer" one....should be here Sunday (I guess Amazon is experiencing delays with all this virus stuff?)......
> 
> I'll dive in, as that I believe Sunday is set to be a rainy day here in the NOLA area.....
> 
> C


I devoured it in just a few sittings and then later reread it. I think after some time a reread is valuable because it's hard to full comprehend until you start to put it in practice. Well, that's my view as a complete novice starting out a few years ago. Enjoy!

Jack


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 18, 2020)

Yasko said:


> That would mean you throw in random numbers from 3-4?



Please explain what you mean. 

All three RGB values for each pixel in a digital image are interpolated in demosaicing from a single luminance value for each photosite (a/k/a pixel well). Each photosite is filtered by a single color included in the color filter array with colors that do not correspond to the colors we use in our emitting RGB displays. The single luminance values of surrounding photosites filtered for other colors are compared and used to interpolate red, green, and blue values for each pixel in the resulting image. There are no "straight" values for any of the three colors for any photosite in the types of demosaicing algorithms used by cameras used for creative and documentary photography. None.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 18, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Unfortunately, it probably is. The REAL Photographers Eye though is this one if you are actually serious about photography.



This is what most folks mean when they say The Photographer's Eye. The "Graphic" version is a simplified version with more illustrations but less text.

Both Freeman and Szarkowski are useful in very different ways.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Is this the PHotographer's Eye. book you were referring to?
> 
> I've been looking to find some good composition study materials.....this is. a good book?
> 
> ...



This one is the more advanced version. The "graphic" edition is the picture book version.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Hmm....maybe I'll get BOTH!!
> 
> 
> It appears for the foreseeable future, I'll have time at home to catch up on some reading!!!
> ...



Both are excellent resources in different ways. If you bring what you learn from Freeman (or other "texts" on composition, whether written in the context of photography or painting - which considered color in the finished product long before photography did) to the table when you tackle Szarkowski you'll probably get a lot more out the latter than you would if you go straight to Szarkowski.


----------



## Michael Clark (Mar 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Thank you Jack,
> 
> I saw that one too....from what I could tell, it seems the one I linked to is an updated version of the one you linked to.
> 
> C



Not updated. Three different approaches. The newest one is much smaller and concentrates on analyzing historically significant photos. The one you first cited is mostly graphic, has less text and is not as comprehensive as the original. It's more of a companion to the original with more examples of various parts of it. The original is a systematic approach to composition in photography.


----------

