# Canon confirms 8K capable EOS R camera in development



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 9, 2019)

> Imaging Resource sat down with Canon executives to discuss the future of the EOS R system and RF lenses. There is a lot of great hints in the interview about what we can expect from Canon in the future for the system.
> A few points worth noting from our perspective.
> The EOS R and RF mount system have been designed to be around for the next 30 years, just like the EOS and EF mount have been. Canon will continue to develop DSLRs, as sales have remained strong for those cameras.
> We developed the EOS R System for the next 30 years, and started by introducing higher-end RF lenses. Yes, we are very serious about mirrorless. But please do not get the wrong impression, we will continue to enhance DSLR technology and products as well. We will work hard on both DSLR and mirrorless technologies and will wait to hear what customers say about each. Regarding the EOS R series, we are...



Continue reading...


----------



## lglass12189 (Jan 9, 2019)

Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.



I would assume that an 8K capable image sensor will also benefit still photographers.


----------



## lglass12189 (Jan 9, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I would assume that an 8K capable image sensor will also benefit still photographers.


I would be interested in why you assume that a sensor that can do 8K video take better stills? I'm curious.


----------



## robotfist (Jan 9, 2019)

Another sign Canon cannot figure out how to make a high dynamic range sensor that can overcrank. They’re going for resolution instead of tackling the really hard stuff. I could care less about 8k. I want 15 stops of dynamic range across the range and the ability to shoot 120fps with an image that doesn’t look like absolute mush.


----------



## PerKr (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> I would be interested in why you assume that a sensor that can do 8K video take better stills? I'm curious.



Well, for one, it would be newer. And readout speeds would probably need to be high, right? It's not better because it can do 8K video, it can do 8K video because it is better. Probably will not make a huge difference if we're only considering image quality though.


----------



## cpreston (Jan 9, 2019)

I feel like a more accurate description is that Canon is working on an RF mount camera capable of 8K video. There is already an 8K prototype available and I can guarantee that the next generation of Canon Cinema cameras will include an RF mount option.


----------



## PerKr (Jan 9, 2019)

robotfist said:


> Another sign Canon cannot figure out how to make a high dynamic range sensor that can overcrank. They’re going for resolution instead of tackling the really hard stuff. I could care less about 8k. I want 15 stops of dynamic range across the range and the ability to shoot 120fps with an image that doesn’t look like absolute mush.



Canon are having a hard time getting better sensors to market. Sony are having a hard time designing good lenses. Don't know if I'll call that a draw or a win for Canon...


----------



## djack41 (Jan 9, 2019)

Always Mañana.


----------



## skp (Jan 9, 2019)

I would actually assume this was a hint at an R-mount Cinema EOS camera. I think it would make a ton of sense for Canon to move the Cinema EOS line to R Mounts. That way they can just sell one body with adapters for both EF and PL mounts and they could take advantage of all the new RF glass.


----------



## CanonGrunt (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.



You're in luck! Samsung just released one this week. An 85 inch 8k tv for $15,000. Sounds reasonable, right?


----------



## Treyarnon (Jan 9, 2019)

skp said:


> I would actually assume this was a hint at an R-mount Cinema EOS camera. I think it would make a ton of sense for Canon to move the Cinema EOS line to R Mounts. That way they can just sell one body with adapters for both EF and PL mounts and they could take advantage of all the new RF glass.


Allow the Cinema EOS camera to use the EF adapter with the drop in filters too.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.



And what are you lacking sensor wise? DR? The difference between the brands is so small as to be silly. IQ? Canon again is right there. Color is noted by those in the know as definitively superior in Canon. DPAF trashes everyone else. 
I doubt you or anyone else can see the difference except for color science in any photo by any sensor on the market today.
PS in DR Canon generally meets or exceeds all others as ISO climbs beyond 100.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 9, 2019)

PerKr said:


> Canon are having a hard time getting better sensors to market. Sony are having a hard time designing good lenses. Don't know if I'll call that a draw or a win for Canon...



Then there is an option.
EOS C700 FF or other video centric camera for those truly into real video. 
The R cameras are for us mere mortals who shoot stills and some home videos of kids etc. We do not want to spend the bucks for all the hooey video stuff that will never be used.
It amazes me how many complaints on this matter when canon has way superior products designed to do real video that will use all your EF lenses.


----------



## Treyarnon (Jan 9, 2019)

robotfist said:


> Another sign Canon cannot figure out how to make a high dynamic range sensor that can overcrank. They’re going for resolution instead of tackling the really hard stuff. I could care less about 8k. I want 15 stops of dynamic range across the range and the ability to shoot 120fps with an image that doesn’t look like absolute mush.


Call me cynical, but I do wonder if the 8k might be more of a box ticking exercise to keep the spec sheet warriors happy (well, for anything below the Cinema cameras anyway). there is a reason canon are discussing this in public - if this was a genuinely important feature, Canon would be keeping it well under wraps until ready for release.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 9, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> And what are you lacking sensor wise? DR? The difference between the brands is so small as to be silly. IQ? Canon again is right there. Color is noted by those in the know as definitively superior in Canon. DPAF trashes everyone else.
> I doubt you or anyone else can see the difference except for color science in any photo by any sensor on the market today.
> PS in DR Canon generally meets or exceeds all others as ISO climbs beyond 100.



I'm with you on that. The color doesn't matter much to me, DR has been pretty amazing, as has been high ISO shooting. Just simply amazing to me with my MIV. The only thing that hasn't been amazing is some odd banding in certain shooting conditions.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 9, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> And what are you lacking sensor wise? DR? The difference between the brands is so small as to be silly. IQ? Canon again is right there. Color is noted by those in the know as definitively superior in Canon. DPAF trashes everyone else.
> I doubt you or anyone else can see the difference except for color science in any photo by any sensor on the market today.
> PS in DR Canon generally meets or exceeds all others as ISO climbs beyond 100.



No matter what Canon announces, the whining about their (excellent) sensors will never stop.
And nobody complains about the poor Sony colors....
Spec -sheets seem to be all that matters.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 9, 2019)

Someone else should double check my math, but couldn't you have an ~39.3 megapixel sensor that shot 8k with zero crop - just a change in aspect ratio? I for one would be very happy with a close to 40 megapixel sensor. I love 30 and I'm not sure I need (or want) 50+.

And for those who don't understand 8k - it's not that everyone needs the video to display that large, we don't need screens with that resolution. 8k allows panning and cropping options in post. A lot of what you are seeing on TV and in theater appears like the camera is panning, when it's actually fixed and cropped to simulate camera motion.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 9, 2019)

PerKr said:


> Well, for one, it would be newer. And readout speeds would probably need to be high, right? It's not better because it can do 8K video, it can do 8K video because it is better. Probably will not make a huge difference if we're only considering image quality though.



8K in 3:4 ratio is 45MP. CFast cards writing speeds are, AFAIK, just shy of 400MB/s. So lets assume Canon can make a camera that shoots 45MP at 10 fps.

What would be the usage scenario? Sports photographs cropped 50% and printed to cover a wall?


----------



## AA (Jan 9, 2019)

Hahahahaha... How about proper 4K first Canon? 

Well, I added an A7R III to my Canon stable the moment it came out over a year ago. And I'm very impressed. The Sony's dynamic range is everything. I only bring the Sony on my vacations these days. My Canon gear has been staying home a lot. It's a real shame. I love my Canon glass.


----------



## dcsimages (Jan 9, 2019)

Canon was demoing 8K monitors at their last technology expo in 2015.

And yes, you can see the difference between 1080, 4K and 8K.

8K means a 50MP+ sensor. 
8K needs much more CPU power which would also be available for a host of in camera stills processing operations.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

dcsimages said:


> Canon was demoing 8K monitors at their last technology expo in 2015.
> 
> And yes, you can see the difference between 1080, 4K and 8K.
> 
> ...


Why? 8K gives an uncropped 33MP image, if they have full sensor readout they only need to use a 34MP sensor.


----------



## preppyak (Jan 9, 2019)

AA said:


> Hahahahaha... How about proper 4K first Canon?


This. Canon doesnt have a single camera (not in their cine line) that shoots uncropped 4k. And they're talking 8k?

Its only in the last couple of years that they solved their 1080 video being soft (see: the existence of Magic Lantern before then)


----------



## David the street guy (Jan 9, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Always Mañana.



Welll… This is a site about rumored development, isn't it?


----------



## dwilz (Jan 9, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> And what are you lacking sensor wise? DR? The difference between the brands is so small as to be silly. IQ? Canon again is right there. Color is noted by those in the know as definitively superior in Canon. DPAF trashes everyone else.
> I doubt you or anyone else can see the difference except for color science in any photo by any sensor on the market today.
> PS in DR Canon generally meets or exceeds all others as ISO climbs beyond 100.



The Sony shooters like to brag about under exposing by 4 or 5 stops and recovering a photo that would otherwise be trash. Personally I think they should just learn to become better photographers.


----------



## dcsimages (Jan 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why? 8K gives an uncropped 33MP image, if they have full sensor readout they only need to use a 34MP sensor.



Ask yourself, does Canon make a 34MP sensor?

Do they already have a 50MP sensor?

Does it make sense to design a 34MP sensor or improve the 50MP one?


----------



## David Hull (Jan 9, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> And what are you lacking sensor wise? DR? The difference between the brands is so small as to be silly. IQ? Canon again is right there. Color is noted by those in the know as definitively superior in Canon. DPAF trashes everyone else.
> I doubt you or anyone else can see the difference except for color science in any photo by any sensor on the market today.
> PS in DR Canon generally meets or exceeds all others as ISO climbs beyond 100.


They appear to still be one stop behind Sony in raw DR at the low ISO end (if that is important to you -- it isn't to me) but they still don't seem to have really moved their AFE completely onto the chip which (IMO) limits their ability to get the data off the sensor in a hurry to minimize that stupid freeze frame in the VF in rapid shooting. Apparently, the Sony top of the line shoots rapidly without any freeze frame between shots. To really properly "ape" the DSLR in a fast mirrorless, they need to fix this.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

dcsimages said:


> Ask yourself, does Canon make a 34MP sensor?
> 
> Do they already have a 50MP sensor?
> 
> Does it make sense to design a 34MP sensor or improve the 50MP one?


It makes a lot of sense to make a 34MP sensor for the 1DX MkIII which could also be used in an 8K mirrorless...

But that wasn't my point, my point was you said _"8K means a 50MP+ sensor" ,_that statement is factually incorrect.


----------



## qudek77 (Jan 9, 2019)

8K huh? What's the crop factor gonna be Canon, 5X? 10X? We shall see...


----------



## Pape (Jan 9, 2019)

dcsimages said:


> Ask yourself, does Canon make a 34MP sensor?
> 
> Do they already have a 50MP sensor?
> 
> Does it make sense to design a 34MP sensor or improve the 50MP one?


i would like 34mp APS-C  good for birds and bugs


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 9, 2019)

I'm sure Sony will release a 16k ff mirrorless the week Canon announces, and it will have infinite DR and cost just $1200 USD. I mean, why wouldn't they? They know what people want and they can do anything.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I'm sure Sony will release a 16k ff mirrorless the week Canon announces, and it will have infinite DR and cost just $1200 USD. I mean, why wouldn't they? They know what people want and they can do anything.


Wait, is that the camera HarryFilm already has on his desk? Or is it hanging from the coat hook in the cockpit of his helicopter?


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why? 8K gives an uncropped 33MP image, if they have full sensor readout they only need to use a 34MP sensor.


That's for a video sensor. A photo sensor has a different aspect ratio.


----------



## Cochese (Jan 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> 8K in 3:4 ratio is 45MP. CFast cards writing speeds are, AFAIK, just shy of 400MB/s. So lets assume Canon can make a camera that shoots 45MP at 10 fps.
> 
> What would be the usage scenario? Sports photographs cropped 50% and printed to cover a wall?



The Photo Gallery/ Print shop/ Custom Framing shop where I work/ essentially live handles prints in excess of 4ft x 8ft. We regularly print/ produce 4ft x 6ft canvas wraps and have done about 80 Acrylic Facemounts from 4ft x 5ft. to 4ft. x 8ft. We were looking at doing a 4ft x 18ft but are a bit held back by material sizes. 
Having extra resolution to crop an image and still be able to produce large prints is pretty amazing. 

So yeah, the more pixels the better. The work is out there, just because you're not getting it.
Currently, the owner/ photographer of the gallery uses a D850, previously a D800. Personally, I prefer Canon, so I use a 5DMIV and going up to 30mp has been amazing for me. Though, the largest prints of my own work that I've made/ sold has been 24" x 36"


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> What would be the usage scenario? Sports photographs cropped 50% and printed to cover a wall?


"Natural-size" prints of big cats.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 9, 2019)

Several years ago, all the manufacturers started working on 8K, its being readied for the 2020 Olympics with TV broadcasts planned. It was tried at the Korean Olympics by NHK. It will be years before its widespreaaad, 5G will support it, but that's a long way off from being available to most in the US.

CES is full of 8K TV sets this year, but until there are 8K signals, they will just be upscaling lower resolution broadcasts. 

Certainly, for still photography, being able to extract a 33 MP inage from a video clip would be potentially useful for BIF photographers, and Sports photographers, but will it work at high FPS? Not likely at first.

https://www.techradar.com/news/sams...k-tv-is-more-screen-than-your-eyes-can-handle


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jan 9, 2019)

How about de-crippling your 4K video first? The 5DIV video was slated back in 2016 so putting the same implementation in a late 2018/2019 camera was always going to draw criticism.


----------



## o2cui2i (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.



there are already 8K tvs on the market. have been for a year. they are still extremely expensive and there is almost zero content but it is coming.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 9, 2019)

Thanks for linking the interview -- it was very informative.

Some food for thought:

Based on CanonRumors posts, I had assumed that pro-level meant something like a mirrorless version of the 5DS. However, the interview states that "pro-level" is "no excuses levels of performance" including AF as good as the 1DX. I had never thought of the pro-level R to be more like the 1D series rather than the 5D series... so now I'm wondering what the MP count will be... Will this truly be a merging of the 1D line. High resolution and superior AF and framerate?
It is interesting that Canon stated that mirrorless is not revolutionary from DSLR just because it is mirrorless. They point to using DSLRs in live view mode and that what will allow the R system to reach its full potential is the new mount. I'd love to hear what advantages the R mount will have over Sony's FE mount besides relieving the physical limits. How can Canon leverage the RF mount to showcase technologies like the EF vs. Nikon's F mount. How can the increased bandwidth between lens and body be leveraged?
It is good to hear that Canon is committed to the R system. It is also notable that a lot of thought had been put into the system parameters and lens design. We're seeing the benefits of the lenses (nano USM, 28-70 f/2, 50 f/1.2), but need to wait for the pro R to get a more complete view of its potential.
Canon is working on 8K. Canon was late to the 4K party, but should be a lot more timely on 8K. Many think that because Canon 4K is not as good as the competition that the same will be true of 8K because the development is sequential. My sense from the interview is that 4K and 8K might not be as sequential as previously thought, and being behind on 4K might not portend being late/behind forever.
Canon keeps on pointing out the "features" of its adapters but I see them more as stop gap measures. Once the RF f/2.8 zooms are out and assuming they are superior to their EF counterparts, then who will buy EF lenses to adapt onto R bodies just to use a drop in filter? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having only 1 polarizer or 1 set of ND filters, but it's not natively part of the RF system. We'll be back to the front filter systems (i.e. Lee).


----------



## jeffa4444 (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.


Oversampling will provide cleaner & better colour gamut on 8K resized to 4K just as its doing in Cinema cameras today.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> Canon keeps on pointing out the "features" of its adapters but I see them more as stop gap measures. Once the RF f/2.8 zooms are out and assuming they are superior to their EF counterparts, then who will buy EF lenses to adapt onto R bodies just to use a drop in filter? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having only 1 polarizer or 1 set of ND filters, but it's not natively part of the RF system. We'll be back to the front filter systems (i.e. Lee).


I would, for the TS-E 17/4L and the EF 11-24/4L. The front filtering options for those lenses are a massive PITA, the TS-E has no rear gel slot and though the 11-24 does have the rear slot, gel filters don’t deliver the best IQ and polarizing isn’t an option. Even if Canon delives RF versions of those lenses, it seems unlikely they’d replicate the rear CPL/ND option, doing so would defeat the claimed advantages of the RF’s shorter flange distance (incidentally, regarding your point #2, see this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...eter-of-the-eos-r’s-rf-mount-explained.36465/).

Granted, it’s a niche use case, but it’s one of the main reasons I’d consider getting an EOS R.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Why? 8K gives an uncropped 33MP image, if they have full sensor readout they only need to use a 34MP sensor.



Assuming you're talking about a still+video camera rather than a Cinema camera, and assuming Canon aren't going to do anything dumb like change the aspect ratio that we're all used to shooting with an 8K video capable camera would need to have a minimum resolution of 8000x6000 - or 48 megapixels. 

So the ~50mpix suggestion wasn't really wrong.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jan 9, 2019)

Cochese said:


> The Photo Gallery/ Print shop/ Custom Framing shop where I work/ essentially live handles prints in excess of 4ft x 8ft. We regularly print/ produce 4ft x 6ft canvas wraps and have done about 80 Acrylic Facemounts from 4ft x 5ft. to 4ft. x 8ft. We were looking at doing a 4ft x 18ft but are a bit held back by material sizes.



You're talking pixels, I was asking about pixels *and* high fps.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 9, 2019)

Talking about finalizing a 2019 roadmap. Sure would be great if Canon would reveal it to us mortals.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 9, 2019)

Where is everyone getting their math from?

What have I gotten wrong?

8k is 16:9
8k is 7680x4320

I took the long side at 7680 (the only side that matters when upscaling to 3:2 ratio, right?) and multiplied it by 0.666 to get the '2' in the 3:2 ratio of our 35mm equivalent stills sensors. I got 5115. So a resolution of 7680x5115. That's the same aspect ratio of all our current sensors and 'contains' the aspect ratio for 8k at zero crop, right?

5115x7680=39283200, which is ~39.3 megapixels, no?

Definelty not saying I'm correct. But if I'm wrong, I'd love know where I made the mistake.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> That's for a video sensor. A photo sensor has a different aspect ratio.


Take a look at the way the GH5S does it, it is awesome.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2019)

SereneSpeed said:


> Where is everyone getting their math from?
> 
> What have I gotten wrong?
> 
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would, for the TS-E 17/4L and the EF 11-24/4L. The front filtering options for those lenses are a massive PITA, the TS-E has no rear gel slot and though the 11-24 does have the rear slot, gel filters don’t deliver the best IQ and polarizing isn’t an option. Even if Canon delives RF versions of those lenses, it seems unlikely they’d replicate the rear CPL/ND option, doing so would defeat the claimed advantages of the RF’s shorter flange distance (incidentally, regarding your point #2, see this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...eter-of-the-eos-r’s-rf-mount-explained.36465/).
> 
> Granted, it’s a niche use case, but it’s one of the main reasons I’d consider getting an EOS R.


Me too...

I have said the same thing several times here and own both the lenses you mention. For me the size weight and cost of an R body is justified simply on savings and use case for those two lenses, and filter use is the only reason I'm not leaning to getting a secondhand 5DSr.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Assuming you're talking about a still+video camera rather than a Cinema camera, and assuming Canon aren't going to do anything dumb like change the aspect ratio that we're all used to shooting with an 8K video capable camera would need to have a minimum resolution of 8000x6000 - or 48 megapixels.
> 
> So the ~50mpix suggestion wasn't really wrong.


Well if 39 = >50 sure the comment was bang on track!


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Take a look at the way the GH5S does it, it is awesome.




```
Max Resolution                       10 MP: 3680 x 2760
Video Format                         4096 x 2160p at ...
                                     3840 x 2160p at ...
                                     ....
```
What is supposed to be "awesome" here?


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2019)

SereneSpeed said:


> I took the long side at 7680 (the only side that matters when upscaling to 3:2 ratio, right?)


Better make it 8192 to give some buffer for EIS to work.


----------



## dak723 (Jan 9, 2019)

SereneSpeed said:


> Where is everyone getting their math from?
> 
> What have I gotten wrong?
> 
> ...



Yes, Correct. 39.3 MP.


----------



## paulo defender (Jan 9, 2019)

I think we all may be getting a little over excited about a missing comma here. Surely what he’s actually hinting at is an “8k, video capable camera.” The 8k surely refers to a high megapixel stills sensor that they will doubtless pull (heavily cropped) 4K from.
Christmas is over and sorry guys Santa’s not real.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> ```
> Max Resolution                       10 MP: 3680 x 2760
> Video Format                         4096 x 2160p at ...
> 3840 x 2160p at ...
> ...


The way they use the sensor is very clever, you never get all of it but each aspect ratio uses the maximum number of pixels the lens mount will allow. It is the main reason the more expensive GH5 didn't get IBIS.

It was a real engineering solution and very clever.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 9, 2019)

The idea of an 8K EOS R smells like a IMX435 or IMX455 equipped camera.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> The way they use the sensor is very clever, you never get all of it but each aspect ratio uses the maximum number of pixels the lens mount will allow. It is the main reason the more expensive GH5 didn't get IBIS.
> 
> It was a real engineering solution and very clever.


So, they have a sensor that actually has _more_ pixels than is needed for the job, but a part of those pixels is never used because the corners of the sensor are obscured by the mount?


----------



## Berowne (Jan 9, 2019)

I think, the most interesting part of the interview was not the 8k-video stuff, but rather the impression of some transparency in the answers of the Canon-People. 

For instance the indirect admission, that there have been "challenges" (this reads as limitations) for further lens-development because of the restictions of the EF-Mount. The new RF 50/1.2 best proof of this. The emphasis which was put on the Mount-Development was also very interesting - and of course the adapter-development - and shows how immensly important the Mount-System is. Between the lines we could read very clearly, that the development of the EOS-Cinema line took all the resources for sensor developement. So this might change in the future and we can expect more innovations from Canon in the field of the sensor for still-photography. 

And there are clear announcements: we can expect an entry-level body (pricing below the 6DII) in the near future and the holy trinity (2.8 zoom-lenses) is coming soon. A Pro-Level (1DX-like) is in "consideration". and there was no mention of a High-Pixel-Body.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

Kit. said:


> So, they have a sensor that actually has _more_ pixels than is needed for the job, but a part of those pixels is never used because the corners of the sensor are obscured by the mount?


Yes, it maximizes the format possibilities as opposed to a regular m4/3 that works like all other sensors with a simple crop. The maximum area that can be covered in any aspect ratio is used, as you go narrower it goes wider. Very cool engineering solution and means the actual area used off a m4/3 sensor is close to bigger sensors that are simple crops.


----------



## webphoto (Jan 9, 2019)

Great news! Canon is on the right track.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2019)

PerKr said:


> Canon are having a hard time getting better sensors to market. Sony are having a hard time designing good lenses. Don't know if I'll call that a draw or a win for Canon...


What a complete load of bulls!t. Canon sensors are within a stop of the best sensors out there at most, at many iso points they best even the best, if you use the 5D MkIV dual pixel RAW files then they have more DR than any other 135 format sensor. Sony make some very good lenses, take a look at the LensRentals teardown of the Sony 400mm f2.8


----------



## Jethro (Jan 9, 2019)

Berowne said:


> I think, the most interesting part of the interview was not the 8k-video stuff, but rather the impression of some transparency in the answers of the Canon-People.
> 
> For instance the indirect admission, that there have been "challenges" (this reads as limitations) for further lens-development because of the restictions of the EF-Mount. The new RF 50/1.2 best proof of this. The emphasis which was put on the Mount-Development was also very interesting - and of course the adapter-development - and shows how immensly important the Mount-System is. Between the lines we could read very clearly, that the development of the EOS-Cinema line took all the resources for sensor developement. So this might change in the future and we can expect more innovations from Canon in the field of the sensor for still-photography.
> 
> And there are clear announcements: we can expect an entry-level body (pricing below the 6DII) in the near future and the holy trinity (2.8 zoom-lenses) is coming soon. A Pro-Level (1DX-like) is in "consideration". and there was no mention of a High-Pixel-Body.


Also reassurance that DSLR development is going to continue and they will see what happens over time.


----------



## docsmith (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.


Ha!

I just bought a tv that has 4K capabilities. I have checked out some 4K content on Amazon Prime and Netflix and we couldn't tell the difference between it and 2K from our viewing distance.

I am sure 8K has its place, I am glad to hear Canon even talking about cutting edge technology, but 8K will not be a selling feature I desire.



privatebydesign said:


> Me too...
> 
> I have said the same thing several times here and own both the lenses you mention. For me the size weight and cost of an R body is justified simply on savings and use case for those two lenses, and filter use is the only reason I'm not leaning to getting a secondhand 5DSr.



Me three. My transition to RF lenses will be gradual after I buy my first EOS-R. I simply have too much EF glass. I anticipate using my EF glass for probably 5-10 years before I transition over to RF lenses. The adapters are a very welcome feature and actually make it more likely that I buy an EOS-R body sooner than I would otherwise.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 9, 2019)

SereneSpeed said:


> Where is everyone getting their math from?
> 
> What have I gotten wrong?
> 
> ...



Your calculation is correct if ignoring the image circle. You can calculate in another way to find out what the the diameter of a circle that can enclose both a 16x9 image (7680x4320 pixels) and a 3x2 one. Using Pythagoras' Theorem, the diameter is roughly 8,812 pixels and the 3x2 image pixel size will be around 7332x4888 which is 35,838,816 or roughly 36 megapixels, if I am right.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 9, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Ha!
> 
> I just bought a tv that has 4K capabilities. I have checked out some 4K content on Amazon Prime and Netflix and we couldn't tell the difference between it and 2K from our viewing distance.
> 
> ...



I wonder how much of the difficulty in telling the difference between 2k/4k is due to the stream bit rate/quality. I have no experience with 4k content, but my blu-rays look a lot better than any video feed that I get from the cable provider because the feed is heavily compressed.

I thought my transition from EF to RF would be gradual, but it's happening faster than I anticipated. RF glass is really good, but I can't use it on my 5D4, and that's the rub. The most flexible kit is RF bodies with EF and RF glass. Just waiting for the 5D4 killer...


----------



## 100 (Jan 9, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Your calculation is correct if ignoring the image circle. You can calculate in another way to find out what the the diameter of a circle that can enclose both a 16x9 image (7680x4320 pixels) and a 3x2 one. Using Pythagoras' Theorem, the diameter is roughly 8,812 pixels and the 3x2 image pixel size will be around 7332x4888 which is 35,838,816 or roughly 36 megapixels, if I am right.


And how exactly do you get 4888 pixels from a sensor only 4320 pixels high?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jan 9, 2019)

Of course it begs the question why, when they can’t and won’t offer decent 4K. 8K is so far from being a thing it’s ludicrous to jump on a bandwagon no wants to ride. Industry has lot the plot pushing this a market where 4K only has a toehold and the amount of 4k content is pathetic and processing is still requires very good hardware unless you like lots of long coffee breaks.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> Your calculation is correct if ignoring the image circle. You can calculate in another way to find out what the the diameter of a circle that can enclose both a 16x9 image (7680x4320 pixels) and a 3x2 one. Using Pythagoras' Theorem, the diameter is roughly 8,812 pixels and the 3x2 image pixel size will be around 7332x4888 which is 35,838,816 or roughly 36 megapixels, if I am right.


Huh? The image circle is defined by the EF lens specifications to be 43.2 mm. You can’t just change it to match the rectangle you want to inscribe within it. A 3:2 rectangle inscribed is 36x24mm. On the other hand, defining a diameter in terms of pixels is not logical, since those _can_ have their size arbitrarily altered to fit the desired number into a sensor of a given size.


----------



## Kit. (Jan 9, 2019)

docsmith said:


> Ha!
> 
> I just bought a tv that has 4K capabilities. I have checked out some 4K content on Amazon Prime and Netflix and we couldn't tell the difference between it and 2K from our viewing distance.


The photos that I posted on canonrumors looked much better then on my 2K monitor than they look now on my 4K monitor


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 9, 2019)

dak723 said:


> Yes, Correct. 39.3 MP.



Yes, my mistake in thinking 8k was really 8k and not 7.6k


----------



## 100 (Jan 9, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> Of course it begs the question why, when they can’t and won’t offer decent 4K. 8K is so far from being a thing it’s ludicrous to jump on a bandwagon no wants to ride. Industry has lot the plot pushing this a market where 4K only has a toehold and the amount of 4k content is pathetic and processing is still requires very good hardware unless you like lots of long coffee breaks.


An 8k mirrorless camera in 2019 is sort of like a 4K EOS-1D C in 2013.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 9, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would, for the TS-E 17/4L and the EF 11-24/4L. The front filtering options for those lenses are a massive PITA, the TS-E has no rear gel slot and though the 11-24 does have the rear slot, gel filters don’t deliver the best IQ and polarizing isn’t an option. Even if Canon delives RF versions of those lenses, it seems unlikely they’d replicate the rear CPL/ND option, doing so would defeat the claimed advantages of the RF’s shorter flange distance (incidentally, regarding your point #2, see this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...eter-of-the-eos-r’s-rf-mount-explained.36465/).
> 
> Granted, it’s a niche use case, but it’s one of the main reasons I’d consider getting an EOS R.



Agree that it is niche. It is actually one reason why I broke down and got a filter system and sold the 16-35 f/4 IS (one reason at least) for the 16-35 f/2.8 III so that I can maintain the same filter ring size as the 24-70 (avoid step rings and interferences with hoods). It is also the reason why I tend to grab the 16-35 over other UWA options so often.

I know some people from this forum have had issues with Breakthrough, but I like their stuff, especially the dark CPL. That coupled with a tripod was sufficient for most waterfall shots and it was bright enough otherwise that I didn't have to constantly take on/off the filter.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.


We have a 16K monitor at work...... Canon is still playing catch-up


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 9, 2019)

Mr Majestyk said:


> [...] 8K is so far from being a thing it’s ludicrous to jump on a bandwagon no wants to ride. Industry has lot the plot pushing this a market where 4K only has a toehold and the amount of 4k content is pathetic and processing is still requires very good hardware unless you like lots of long coffee breaks.



I'm with you for the most part. I get paid almost regularly for minor video work alongside stills images. I never mention 4k and have never been asked for it. Thankfully, because my fast computer starts running like cold molasses at the mere mention of 4k.

But one thing to not be overlooked is amateurs who are now using the 5D4 and EOS R in 4k to grab stills images. I know people who do this and they're doing it right out of the camera. There may be more to 8k than just 'video' work.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 9, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> We have a 16K monitor at work...... Canon is still playing catch-up


 Out of curiosity, what's the minimum and/or average viewing distance?


----------



## docsmith (Jan 9, 2019)

Random Orbits said:


> I wonder how much of the difficulty in telling the difference between 2k/4k is due to the stream bit rate/quality. I have no experience with 4k content, but my blu-rays look a lot better than any video feed that I get from the cable provider because the feed is heavily compressed.
> 
> I thought my transition from EF to RF would be gradual, but it's happening faster than I anticipated. RF glass is really good, but I can't use it on my 5D4, and that's the rub. The most flexible kit is RF bodies with EF and RF glass. Just waiting for the 5D4 killer...



I "cut the cord" last spring. The modern HD antenna provides a much better image than my cable provider did (Comcast). The difference being 1080P signal vs upscaled 720P signal (or 1080i). As I got very close, I could see the difference in the 4K tv, but I normally view it at about 10-12 ft. I think that is the issue. 

I've seen different variations of this chart over the years, but the overall point is that you have to be close to see the benefit of higher resolutions:




My new TV is 55" and I view it at 10-12 ft. According to this chart, I would need to be 8 ft or less to really appreciate 4K. 

As for the 5DIV vs the R. From a gear perspective, I get it. My problem, I really cannot think of a shot I am missing with my current kit (5DIV, 16-35 f/4, 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 50A, 100 L macro, 100-400 II, 500 II, etc). Wildlife, got it. Landscape, great. Portraits, 5DIV is beautiful, I could see maybe another prime....

So, just loving gear, I can see going with the R, face detect, etc. But taking pictures, I am pretty set for awhile. What has actually caught my eye is the Fuji 50R.


----------



## sdz (Jan 9, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.




Shoot in 8K, deliver in 4K and UHD.


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 9, 2019)

100 said:


> And how exactly do you get 4888 pixels from a sensor only 4320 pixels high?


That is, you need a rectangular sensor that has the max of (7680x4320 pixels) and (7332x4888 pixels) which is (7680x4888 pixels).
It will be able to cover 8K (16x9 aspect ratio) video and 36 megapixel (3x2 aspect ratio) still image.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 10, 2019)

SereneSpeed said:


> Out of curiosity, what's the minimum and/or average viewing distance?


about 10 meters, it is an entire wall of a large room.


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 10, 2019)

*Oh, Give me break!!*

So wait...the company that *CANT GET 4K RIGHT.*...is harping on 8k?

...and _you guys are excited?_

*BWAHAHHAAHHAAH *

Canon is the master of old and late...and now they are cooking something up that almost zero customers can realistically use.

I went by canons booth at B&H yesterday...cobwebs all over the booth, old and dusty camera bodies galore. But wait, they are still pushing the 5d4 for 3600 with lens. OMG LOLOL. I would love to upgrade my 5d3 to a mirrorless, but no chance in hell im putting a few grand on a 5d4 in its old age. AFMA? GTFO

i barely come to this site anymore because its always talking bout canon is planning in a year...who cares, nothing to see here. Boring company makes for a boring site.


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 10, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I would assume that an 8K capable image sensor will also benefit still photographers.




You mean,


David the street guy said:


> Welll… This is a site about rumored development, isn't it?



More like, always a year away. Goddamn canon....


----------



## ashmadux (Jan 10, 2019)

paulo defender said:


> I think we all may be getting a little over excited about a missing comma here. Surely what he’s actually hinting at is an “8k, video capable camera.” The 8k surely refers to a high megapixel stills sensor that they will doubtless pull (heavily cropped) 4K from.
> Christmas is over and sorry guys Santa’s not real.


Santa is...DEAD.


----------



## jmoya (Jan 10, 2019)

how can they be working on a 8k camera when they have yet to perfect the 4k camera? They can't even put 120fps on the newest eos R? So far behind. I've been only a canon user since they first released the canon rebel dslr. Still love canon and do not plan on switching since I have all the L glass lenses. C'mon 8k...get your 4k cameras on par first!


----------



## bhf3737 (Jan 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Huh? The image circle is defined by the EF lens specifications to be 43.2 mm. You can’t just change it to match the rectangle you want to inscribe within it. A 3:2 rectangle inscribed is 36x24mm. On the other hand, defining a diameter in terms of pixels is not logical, since those _can_ have their size arbitrarily altered to fit the desired number into a sensor of a given size.


I may be wrong, but I guess that is the way something like Panasonic GH5s sensor is designed, that is, it is a little bit wider for 4x3 aspect of still and they use a subset of pixels that the sensor has for pictures (4x3 aspect for picture) and (3x2 aspect for video).


----------



## 100 (Jan 10, 2019)

bhf3737 said:


> That is, you need a rectangular sensor that has the max of (7680x4320 pixels) and (7332x4888 pixels) which is (7680x4888 pixels).
> It will be able to cover 8K (16x9 aspect ratio) video and 36 megapixel (3x2 aspect ratio) still image.


Yes, but 7680x4888 is not a 3:2 aspect ratio and it’s 37.5 mp. If you make it just a bit larger (7680x5220 = 39.3 mp) you have a 3x2 sensor and can crop a 16x9 (7680x4320) for video.
Or put some extra pixels on it and make it 8192 × 5461 (~45 mp) so you can crop to DCI 8k (8192 × 4320).
But it will probably be more like an 10,000 x 6,666 sensor with an 8k crop for video.


----------



## dcsimages (Jan 10, 2019)

I think half the people responding have lost sight of the fact that the topic is a new EOS R. Not a dedicated video camera. Unless some of you think that Canon's going to go 16:9 for stills.

Once again, if you already have a 50MP sensor, why design something new that's just a little smaller?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> *Oh, Give me break!!*
> 
> So wait...the company that *CANT GET 4K RIGHT.*...is harping on 8k?
> 
> ...


Your blood-streaked avatar reminds me of a hemorrhoid...you know, those annoying things that recur from time to time and are a pain in the ass.


----------



## tmc784 (Jan 10, 2019)

Are they going to make a 1.7 Crop 8K camera ?


----------



## scottburgess (Jan 10, 2019)

>> We will work hard on both DSLR and mirrorless technologies and will wait to hear what customers say about each. <<

Yes, Canon, there is this matter of a long-neglected EF 50mm f/1.4 we need to discuss...


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 10, 2019)

I doubt we'll hear about a 50 1.4 anytime soon, but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the fun 'amateur' lenses referred to was a Nifty 50 IS, to be launched right beside the lower end EOS R.


----------



## SereneSpeed (Jan 10, 2019)

I wonder if the adjustable curvature sensors will benefit from knowing lens element position?


----------



## sanj (Jan 10, 2019)

Brilliant. Awesome. Thinking ahead!!! Good going.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 10, 2019)

qudek77 said:


> 8K huh? What's the crop factor gonna be Canon, 5X? 10X? We shall see...


A camera which returns 32MP images when cropped 10X?
Sign me up, Canon.


----------



## Berowne (Jan 10, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Also reassurance that DSLR development is going to continue and they will see what happens over time.



You are right Jethro, this was also an interesting statement. Canon will stay with a threefold path of development in stills-photography regarding the three mount-systems (EF, R and M). And he said, that the reason to stay with DSLR-Development is the fact, that about 70% of the marked is DSLR's, so the consumers demand to see it. 

In this context, there was an interesting discussion about the transition from Film to Digital and the speed of the transition in years 1990-2000 compared to the transition from DSLR to mirrorless Systems nowadays. 

It was also a surprise to me, that Mr. *Mizoguchi* said, that there is in fact no roadmap, instead they are reacting to the marked, the demands of the customers. Regarding the Market he made the interesting distinction between marked-growth and marked-share and said, that Canon aims at marked-growth. So they are not seeking to distract users from other brands. 

He also promised, that we will see concept-lenses, without any specification, what this will be - my guess is DO-Lenses. 

So there are a lot of interesting things in this interview!


----------



## NorbR (Jan 10, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> i barely come to this site anymore because its always talking bout canon is planning in a year...



I know right? Who knew this site was all about _rumors_ about _Canon_ ... they should really put that in the title or something.


----------



## Pape (Jan 10, 2019)

I think new 8k R camera is APS-C .They need make cheap one for consumers what makes money next. And they need also make fast shooting and high resolution camera for wildlife hobby photographers ,so they wont turn sony and nikon compact camera users. kind of nailing two fly same hit.
If there is enough specs for 8k video ofcourse they add that option too, even it only theoretical 8k.
Video isnt important featuer on still cameras just cheap extra feature what increases camera sells, no need add many parts to camera.
Maybe that rumoured 75mpixel monster camera is this same camera  !


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2019)

I'm glad to hear from Canon that EF is still on their road map and that while Eos R has a big R&D budget and attention...DSLR and EF is still important and will be developed. Talking to engineers tends to by pass the Marketing B/S and talks a bit more realistically and honestly about their formats. The Eos R isn't taking over the Eos world...it's just a new and important format that sits alongside all the other formats.


----------



## Uneternal (Jan 10, 2019)

They don't even have the technology for 10 fps at 30 megapixels. They currently aren't even able to do a 4K 30 fps readout w/o crop.
So how in the world do they want to output 30 fps with at least 33 MP resolution (7680x4320)?
I call BS on that. Not happening this year or anytime soon.


----------



## padam (Jan 10, 2019)

Uneternal said:


> They don't even have the technology for 10 fps at 30 megapixels. They currently aren't even able to do a 4K 30 fps readout w/o crop.
> So how in the world do they want to output 30 fps with at least 33 MP resolution (7680x4320)?
> I call BS on that. Not happening this year or anytime soon.


The C700 already has the option of a 6K FF sensor so 8K as the next evolution doesn't seem like a big step away from that.
No one ever claimed it is going to be a stills camera, rather than a C500/C700 level video camera (with an external recorder) and of course they never said it is going to come very soon.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Jan 10, 2019)

Uneternal said:


> They don't even have the technology for 10 fps at 30 megapixels. They currently aren't even able to do a 4K 30 fps readout w/o crop.
> So how in the world do they want to output 30 fps with at least 33 MP resolution (7680x4320)?
> I call BS on that. Not happening this year or anytime soon.



The Digic processor found in a 1DxII has a greater through put than 300mb/s. So yes Canon does have the tech...they just haven't released a product that show cases it yet. Canon are top of the sales food chain...they release cameras and lenses based on their sales focus groups (who have a long history of getting it right) and not relying on forum techie geeks.


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 10, 2019)

SereneSpeed said:


> Where is everyone getting their math from?
> 
> What have I gotten wrong?
> 
> ...



===

There are TWO TYPES of 8K! One is DCI 8k (Digital Cinema Intermediate) at 8192 x 4320 pixels and 1.89:1 Hollywood Movie aspect ratio AND then there is the Consumer Video Broadcast 8k standard which is your 7680 x 4320 pixels at 16:9 aspect ratio. the DCI 8K is what the sensor can capture for VIDEO (35.38 megapixels) ....BUT....on an actual photosite count basis it will probably be a Still Photo 4:3 aspect ratio of 8192 by 6144 pixels (50.3 megapixels) which is WHAT the pixel count is on the combined video/stills camera SITTING ON MY DESK ACTUAL IS and also for the one hanging from the back seat hook in the Bell 429!

The final Canon8K body pixel count may even be a 3:2 aspect ratio 9000 x 6000 pixel (54 megapixel) to satisfy the Phase One-in-a-Canon-Body Fans!
.
You Shall See Soon Enough!
.
REMEMBER! YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST !!!!
.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Jan 10, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.



I never understood this kind of thinking. Ok, maybe you cannot buy an 8K monitor now but you can do it in 5 years? I agree it's a niche feature and not many computers will be able even to process it but in 5 years 8K could be like 4K now.
I can already see an usage for it: to extract 30MP stills from short video clips where fast action happens.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jan 10, 2019)

If Canon says they have an 8k camera on their R roadmap, it does not mean it is on the 2019 roadmap. Or even 2020. Maybe they have a 5 year roadmap, who knows.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 10, 2019)

jolyonralph said:


> Yes, my mistake in thinking 8k was really 8k and not 7.6k



8K cinema is over 8K. The 7,680 is for broadcast. This is to make it easier to display older TV content on new sets and newer content on old sets. 7680/2= 3840 which is broadcast 4k. Divide that(referring to the horizontal measurements) by 2 and you get Full HD. Full HD/1.5=720p. DCI keeps the same vertical height as broadcast, it's just slightly wider.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 10, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> I would be interested in why you assume that a sensor that can do 8K video take better stills? I'm curious.



from my uneducated ( in video) point of view the camera 8K capable sensor would have much higher sensor readout / bandwidth / data throughput capabilities than current generation of cameras can offer. 1 Gb per second or thererabout at least ??? much higher than current C-Cfast speeds. SD Express then.
https://www.newsshooter.com/2018/06...g-985mb-s-transfer-speeds-and-128tb-capacity/

for still that translates in a much higher frames per second capabilities (electronic shutter ??), lower latencies and higher buffer capacities.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 10, 2019)

blackcoffee17 said:


> I never understood this kind of thinking. Ok, maybe you cannot buy an 8K monitor now but you can do it in 5 years? I agree it's a niche feature and not many computers will be able even to process it but in 5 years 8K could be like 4K now.
> I can already see an usage for it: to extract 30MP stills from short video clips where fast action happens.



if you expect extracted stills to be sharp, then a very high shutter speed is required. can video be captured at 1/2000s shutter speed?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> if you expect extracted stills to be sharp, then a very high shutter speed is required. can video be captured at 1/2000s shutter speed?


Sure, but it won’t be usable as video.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Jan 10, 2019)

HarryFilm said:


> ===
> 
> The final Canon8K body pixel count may even be a 3:2 aspect ratio 9000 x 6000 pixel (54 megapixel) to satisfy the Phase One-in-a-Canon-Body Fans!
> .
> ...



In my fantasy drone there is the Canon R-SQUARE sensor, with 9000*9000 (81 MP), which allows for EIS as well as both VERTICAL and HORIZONTAL video! And also full sensor SQUARE video.


----------



## SecureGSM (Jan 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, but it won’t be usable as video.



exactly my point.. how one can extract stills out of fast action videos if each individual frame was captured at 1/60s shutter speed or whatever speed that might be. I am not a videographer, sorry. to capture fast action each frame has to be captured at a much faster shutter speeds unless the blur is what one intended to capture.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Jan 10, 2019)

8k video in the near future won't be a surprise. And it won't be due to a revolution in sensor architecture, but rather an evolution to video codecs. The new H.265 and MPEG-H formats are delivering identical quality to that of H.264 and MPEG-4 at half the bit rate. So [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] should become fairly common place among high resolution cameras with all the recent efficiency improvements made to image sensor processors.

But even with the massive improvements to compression and quality with H.265, that's still going to be a ton of data when recording at those resolutions and frame rates. So hopefully we'll start seeing the new SD Express and CF Express card slots appearing in higher end EOS R cameras.


----------



## criscokkat (Jan 10, 2019)

o2cui2i said:


> there are already 8K tvs on the market. have been for a year. they are still extremely expensive and there is almost zero content but it is coming.


in 2013 the average price for a 4k tv was $8,000. In 2018 it was $943. 

Anyone shooting professionally know the current consumer can't see 8k much. There's really not even any 8k projectors in cinemas - even 4k projectors are less than 30% of the theaters in the US. 

But 5 years from now, 8k will be commonplace, and consumers will want that content in higher resolutions and a certain subset will pay more for that. 

Plus on the roadmap in this case probably means just in time for the 2020 Olympics.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 10, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> exactly my point.. how one can extract stills out of fast action videos if each individual frame was captured at 1/60s shutter speed or whatever speed that might be. I am not a videographer, sorry. to capture fast action each frame has to be captured at a much faster shutter speeds unless the blur is what one intended to capture.



I think the confusion is whether the intended deliverable aims to achieve a cinematic look. The video won't suddenly become unusable if you commit to a faster shutter speed, it simply won't appear as cinematic if you were to shoot at 24fps with a 180 degree shutter angle (1/48). There are a few examples of cinema utilizing fast shutter speeds. It isn't a hard and fast rule that you have to commit to a 180 degree shutter rule. Saving Private Ryan used a 45 degree shutter angle (1/198) and Mad Max went even higher in certain action sequences. 

Here is an example of various shutter speeds and the impact on the video:






If I didn't mind breaking this "rule," I could definitely capture fast action in video using a fast shutter speed and also be able to extract crisp stills from the video stream. I think it is simply a matter of understanding the impact of each decision and whether that approach will suit your intended need.


----------



## peters (Jan 10, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.


8K isnt about delivering in 8k, its about downsampling (and cropping and recompose if needed) to 4k.=)


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 10, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> if you expect extracted stills to be sharp, then a very high shutter speed is required. can video be captured at 1/2000s shutter speed?



It most certainly can, the result is more of a studder look, but I've gotten by with it in interviews without anyone else noticing the issue. Typically, filmmakers choose a 180 degree shutter, meaning 30 fps with 1/60 shutter. With a 180 degree shutter, you can still get some clear and sharp photos, it just takes a little scrolling to find one without much movement.

I recently set aside the GH5 and used the 5D with RAW video for a music video with a shutter of 1/50. Even with camera movement, I was able to extract a few raw 2 megapixel photographs, nobody complained about the resolution or shutter. They were used for websites and social media, not print.


----------



## nchoh (Jan 10, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes, it maximizes the format possibilities as opposed to a regular m4/3 that works like all other sensors with a simple crop. The maximum area that can be covered in any aspect ratio is used, as you go narrower it goes wider. Very cool engineering solution and means the actual area used off a m4/3 sensor is close to bigger sensors that are simple crops.



The standard M43 specifications already maximizes the format possibilities by providing 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 formats; the 4:3 ration of the sensor chosen for this optimization. Can you elaborate on what you mean by " it maximizes the format possibilities as opposed to a *regular* m4/3"?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 10, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> It most certainly can, the result is more of a studder look, but I've gotten by with it in interviews without anyone else noticing the issue. Typically, filmmakers choose a 180 degree shutter, meaning 30 fps with 1/60 shutter. With a 180 degree shutter, you can still get some clear and sharp photos, it just takes a little scrolling to find one without much movement.
> 
> I recently set aside the GH5 and used the 5D with RAW video for a music video with a shutter of 1/50. Even with camera movement, I was able to extract a few raw 2 megapixel photographs, nobody complained about the resolution or shutter. They were used for websites and social media, not print.


You can always shoot your video at more than 30fps 

To me, the greatest thing about the ability to shoot 8K video at 30fps, means that the hardware should support 4K video at 120fps, and that means smoother motion and better extracted stills, particularly if you assume that the extracted stills will be shown on a 4K monitor anyway.....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 10, 2019)

nchoh said:


> The standard M43 specifications already maximizes the format possibilities by providing 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9 formats; the 4:3 ration of the sensor chosen for this optimization. Can you elaborate on what you mean by " it maximizes the format possibilities as opposed to a *regular* m4/3"?



Regular m4/3 take a 4:3 sensor and crop to 3:2 and 16:9, that is the number of pixels on the long side stays constant in all formats but this wastes potential sensor area in the lens mount. The GH5s takes a bigger sensor so the long axis pixel number goes up as the aspect ratio gets narrower, they are not simple crops.

The GH5 has a 20MP sensor with a long side of 5184px, in 4:3 that is the long side in 16:9 that is the long side. The GH5s has a 10MP sensor optimized for video, the long side of the sensor is 4019px, in 4:3 it uses 3680 x 2760, in 16:9 it uses 4016 x 2256, these are both the maximum amount of sensor area that can be exposed in that aspect ratio through the lens mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, but it won’t be usable as video.


@jayphotoworks and @crazyrunner33, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of the effects of a high shutter speed during video capture on the usability of the resulting video footage. The example was particularly helpful. The choppiness at ‘action-stopping’ shutter speeds of 1/2000 and up is noticeable, but not really all that bad – and for some action shooting might even convey a desirable ‘edginess’ to the footage.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 10, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> You mean,
> 
> 
> More like, always a year away. Goddamn canon....


Far more than a year away. Development like this takes 5 years. A sensor that can readout 30, 60, 0r 120 fps at 8K is not trivial. They exist, but need a huge power supply to run the computer. Not for a small camera. You can, of course do 8k with a camera if you cheat and uprez from a lower resolution display. Expect to see some of that.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 10, 2019)

8k resolution appears be the ideal intersection of video and stills sensor development. I'd like to see that as the standard going forward accross the industry. The sooner we get there the better! 
Although it seems counter-intuitive. Canon might do better reading out an 8K sensor at 1:1 than they do trying to down-sample their current 6.5k sensors to 4K.


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 10, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> 8k resolution appears be the ideal intersection of video and stills sensor development. I'd like to see that as the standard going forward accross the industry. The sooner we get there the better!
> Although it seems counter-intuitive. Canon might do better reading out an 8K sensor at 1:1 than they do trying to down-sample their current 6.5k sensors to 4K.



That's a good point, just like with the 4K on their cinema cameras. It's the reason the 5D Mark III can record a variation of 3.5K RAW. There'd still be a big hurdle on the encoder they use and the sensor readout speed.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 10, 2019)

crazyrunner33 said:


> That's a good point, just like with the 4K on their cinema cameras. It's the reason the 5D Mark III can record a variation of 3.5K RAW. There'd still be a big hurdle on the encoder they use and the sensor readout speed.


Yes. It's a tremendous amount of data to read off the sensor and write through the I/O. But, IMO, the empasis should be on the camera being a capture and recording device not a device for image processing. Processing can be down downstream on a device more suited to that job.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 10, 2019)

dwilz said:


> The Sony shooters like to brag about under exposing by 4 or 5 stops and recovering a photo that would otherwise be trash. Personally I think they should just learn to become better photographers.



They don't know what they are doing thus need to be saved from their incompetence in understanding exposure.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jan 10, 2019)

Del Paso said:


> No matter what Canon announces, the whining about their (excellent) sensors will never stop.
> And nobody complains about the poor Sony colors....
> Spec -sheets seem to be all that matters.



Perhaps Sony users are color blind so it is not important.
I was asked by a Sony user to look at a photo and it was actually horrid IMHO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> @jayphotoworks and @crazyrunner33, thanks for correcting my misunderstanding of the effects of a high shutter speed during video capture on the usability of the resulting video footage. The example was particularly helpful. The choppiness at ‘action-stopping’ shutter speeds of 1/2000 and up is noticeable, but not really all that bad – and for some action shooting might even convey a desirable ‘edginess’ to the footage.


I'm not big into video but have done a little. Personally I find the 'edginess' when using a 'too fast' shutter speed actually emulates the micro contrast/clarity I get from good quality 4k footage.

I find ND filter use to get the 'preferred' slower shutter speeds and 'cinematic look' to be less pleasing.


----------



## FramerMCB (Jan 10, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> I would be interested in why you assume that a sensor that can do 8K video take better stills? I'm curious.


Well I believe an 8K capable camera refers to the resolution of the sensor. So a camera capable of "8K" has more to do with the resolution/form-factor of the sensor. I am assuming a FF (35mm) sensor and not a Medium format sensor or something like the 72mm format...

If it is 8K packed into a FF 35mm sensor then this would indicate resolution "out of this world" - think EOS 5DS-r on steroids - I would guess in the 80-120MP range. But I'm not really a technical guy - just using a "WAG" here...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 10, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> Well I believe an 8K capable camera refers to the resolution of the sensor. So a camera capable of "8K" has more to do with the resolution/form-factor of the sensor. I am assuming a FF (35mm) sensor and not a Medium format sensor or something like the 72mm format...
> 
> If it is 8K packed into a FF 35mm sensor then this would indicate resolution "out of this world" - think EOS 5DS-r on steroids - I would guess in the 80-120MP range. But I'm not really a technical guy - just using a "WAG" here...


This was discussed above. 8K is 7680×4320, which is 33 MP. Those dimensions taken from a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor would require 7680x5120, which is 39 MP. In other words, the 5Ds/R sensors are already fully capable of delivering 8K video from a resolution standpoint, no steroids required.


----------



## iamjhil (Jan 10, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> This was discussed above. 8K is 7680×4320, which is 33 MP. Those dimensions taken from a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor would require 7680x5120, which is 39 MP. In other words, the 5Ds/R sensors are already fully capable of delivering 8K video from a resolution standpoint, no steroids required.



What if that's the big firmware update..... What.. a guy can dream right?


----------



## perfpix (Jan 10, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.



Canon long ago decided stills & video would be co-developed for the foreseeable future. Japan is already broadcasting TV in 8K: https://www.engadget.com/2018/12/01/8k-japan-tv/. So one would assume that 8K TV are already available there and just over the horizon everywhere else. Given the development cycle it would be kind of shocking if 8K video was not being worked on. 

John


----------



## perfpix (Jan 10, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Several years ago, all the manufacturers started working on 8K, its being readied for the 2020 Olympics with TV broadcasts planned. It was tried at the Korean Olympics by NHK. It will be years before its widespreaaad, 5G will support it, but that's a long way off from being available to most in the US.
> 
> CES is full of 8K TV sets this year, but until there are 8K signals, they will just be upscaling lower resolution broadcasts.
> 
> ...




The BBC was using 8K video in the 2012 London Olympics: https://www.engadget.com/2012/07/31/super-hi-vision-eyes-on/


----------



## JoseB (Jan 10, 2019)

Something like this inside the EosR body?...


----------



## Yasko (Jan 10, 2019)

I assume they just skip a profound 4K camera „for the consumer“ and go to 8K instead. FINALLY one can downscale for improved sharpness and brilliance in 4K...


----------



## asl (Jan 10, 2019)

I like it, but realistically, hope for more complete 4K implementations.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 10, 2019)

perfpix said:


> The BBC was using 8K video in the 2012 London Olympics: https://www.engadget.com/2012/07/31/super-hi-vision-eyes-on/


It was not broadcast to TV sets of subscribers, just to a special Room with a 8K projector.

The Korean Olympics was broadcast by satellite to theaters with 8k Projectors so it was just a larger demo. It was also available down sampled to 4k for regular broadcasters.

http://informitv.com/2018/02/25/winter-olympics-8k-coverage/

The 2020 Olympics will be a bigger demo yet, the plan is to actually broadcast in 8K, and to sell 8K TV sets for viewers.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20181207000442


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 10, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> I think the confusion is whether the intended deliverable aims to achieve a cinematic look. The video won't suddenly become unusable if you commit to a faster shutter speed, it simply won't appear as cinematic if you were to shoot at 24fps with a 180 degree shutter angle (1/48). There are a few examples of cinema utilizing fast shutter speeds. It isn't a hard and fast rule that you have to commit to a 180 degree shutter rule. Saving Private Ryan used a 45 degree shutter angle (1/198) and Mad Max went even higher in certain action sequences.
> 
> Here is an example of various shutter speeds and the impact on the video:
> 
> ...


I watched this on a phone screen, and all the changes made no difference. I just watched it again on a large 4K monitor and yes, you can definitely see how the higher shutter speeds make it more jittery, but to be honest the difference is not a big as I thought it would be. If you kept the shutter speed in the lower half of the range that was shown, I doubt that most people would pick up on it unless they knew beforehand to look for it.

Thank you for posting this! Very interesting!


----------



## CreationHeart (Jan 11, 2019)

Why not give us affordable 4K utilizing all sensor sizes with great DR?


----------



## Cochese (Jan 11, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> You're talking pixels, I was asking about pixels *and* high fps.


 I'm talking about photography, which at times requires high FPS and High pixels. I'm a nature shooter, which means birds and other sometimes fast moving animals. So the more FPS, the merrier. 
It's not always one or the other, but if you could combine both in one body, that'd be great.


----------



## Pape (Jan 11, 2019)

CreationHeart said:


> Why not give us affordable 4K utilizing all sensor sizes with great DR?


i got couple question. does human eye got same DR on day and night? and what we lose if we get better DR, iso performance or colours?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 11, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> 8k resolution appears be the ideal intersection of video and stills sensor development. I'd like to see that as the standard going forward accross the industry. The sooner we get there the better!



How are you defining ideal?


----------



## HarryFilm (Jan 11, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> 8k video in the near future won't be a surprise. And it won't be due to a revolution in sensor architecture, but rather an evolution to video codecs. The new H.265 and MPEG-H formats are delivering identical quality to that of H.264 and MPEG-4 at half the bit rate. So [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected] should become fairly common place among high resolution cameras with all the recent efficiency improvements made to image sensor processors.
> 
> But even with the massive improvements to compression and quality with H.265, that's still going to be a ton of data when recording at those resolutions and frame rates. So hopefully we'll start seeing the new SD Express and CF Express card slots appearing in higher end EOS R cameras.



===

Been There! Done That!

CODECS are NOW a DONE DEAL !!!! .... as you shall soon see ....

The issue NOW is ADC (Analog-to-Digital Converter) sample rate (over 100 megabytes per 8192 x 6144 pixel video frame if you sample at 16 bits per RGB plus Alpha or Distance channel which is 6+ Gigabytes per second bandwidth at 60 fps frame rates) plus overall available CPU/GPU/VRAM/Flash Drive bandwidth issues!

Nowadays, I can get TWO of the four-core, six-core or even 8-core 1.5 GHz Snapdragon 845-like Steve Austin processors which have a bandwidth for each chip that allows it to do an aggregated bandwidth of twin-stream 30+ megapixel images (which is about 7000x4500+ pixels each) at 60 fps. When I put TWO of the SOC's attached to a high-speed SHARED 150 frame buffer (5 seconds), there is enough time to do some FAST 16 milliseconds-and-less-level interleaving and CPU/GPU chaining-together such that I DEFINITELY CAN, on a hardware-engineering basis, do DCI 8k (8192 x 4320 pixels) video recording at a FULL 60 fps OR do 240 fps DCI 4k (4096 x 2160 pixels) !!!

I KNOW IT CAN BE DONE .... BECAUSE IT ALREADY HAS BEEN DONE !!!!!!
.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 11, 2019)

lglass12189 said:


> Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.



It wasn't that long ago that people were complaining that there was nothing to play back 4K video on. 8K will be here sooner than you think.

I am 100% a still shooter, but I'm glad that Canon are working on 8K because the technical challenges that are needed to produce sensors capable of doing this will also provide us still shooters with sensors with faster readout, probably some kind of useable global shutter, and high resolution. All of these things that would not necessarily be economically viable to do just for us stills shooters because although those things are nice, they're not critical for us. 

Also, I think a much larger number of people are doing video with their cameras than you think. The niche you talk about may soon be us still photographers.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 11, 2019)

dwilz said:


> The Sony shooters like to brag about under exposing by 4 or 5 stops and recovering a photo that would otherwise be trash. Personally I think they should just learn to become better photographers.



What an ignorant statement! Not sure if you're just inexperienced or simply a Canon fanboy who can't handle that the competition has a better sensor. 

There are plenty of situations where the shot you want to take has extreme variations in lighting, especially when you're shooting outdoors (or in a room with a sunlit window) on a sunny day. Being able to work with images that have portions either underexposed or overexposed is something REAL photographers do too, you know...


----------



## jolyonralph (Jan 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would, for the TS-E 17/4L and the EF 11-24/4L. The front filtering options for those lenses are a massive PITA, the TS-E has no rear gel slot and though the 11-24 does have the rear slot, gel filters don’t deliver the best IQ and polarizing isn’t an option. Even if Canon delives RF versions of those lenses, it seems unlikely they’d replicate the rear CPL/ND option, doing so would defeat the claimed advantages of the RF’s shorter flange distance



Specialist EF-mount lenses such as the TS-E range are likely to be the last EF lenses to stay in production in the future when RF has entirely taken over for this very reason. I would not be surprised though if they do future RF T/S lenses that they keep the same flange distance and add in a filter slot for the same CPL/ND that fits the adaptor - basically the existing EF lens 'welded' to an adaptor. The advantages of the shorter flange distance in this case being outweighed by the advantages of using that space for the filter.

I think the EF 11-24 won't be directly replaced, I expect something like an RF 12-24 f/2.8 lens at some point which won't have the filter adaptor.


----------



## stochasticmotions (Jan 11, 2019)

Am I wrong, or is the statement that Canon is developing something really just mean that they are looking at things in R&D and likely nothing is coming in any of the next generation of EOS R cameras that will likely have 8K video. This may be looking towards 2 or 3 generations in the future or maybe for pro cinema/broadcast cameras soon.

I can't wait for them to be able to do so, mostly because that should also mean they can process higher resolution stills faster and maybe we can get a 5DS(R) type mirrorless sooner that can shoot 10 frames per second for more than a few shots in a row.


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 11, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> This was discussed above. 8K is 7680×4320, which is 33 MP. Those dimensions taken from a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor would require 7680x5120, which is 39 MP. In other words, the 5Ds/R sensors are already fully capable of delivering 8K video from a resolution standpoint, no steroids required.



Yes, Canon definitely already has the sensor capable of 8K in FF. I think a 16:9 crop of the 5DS/r sensor yields 8688x4888 which would allow a 1:1 pixel readout at 7680x4320 with a small 13% crop which would be excellent for video with no pixel binning at all and a 4.14um pixel pitch and still be able to take 50MP stills. It will be interesting to see where Canon takes this. I think their upcoming 8K cinema camera will give us some hints of EOS R 8K's future.

The only other player right now dabbling in 8K within the pro-sumer space is Sharp. Announcing at NAB at under $5. But 8K on a M43 sensor combined with 2.25um pixels (Even my Iphone XS Max has 1.4um pixels) on a H.265 codec writing to SD cards is a scary thought...


----------



## jayphotoworks (Jan 11, 2019)

dwilz said:


> The Sony shooters like to brag about under exposing by 4 or 5 stops and recovering a photo that would otherwise be trash. Personally I think they should just learn to become better photographers.



Wow that hurts.. I guess I'm one of those sadists that have my exposure dial set at -3 all day long so I can come back from a wedding shoot and sit in my iron chair with my leather harness in front of Lightroom sweating and seeing how much of the shoot I can salvage...


----------



## crazyrunner33 (Jan 11, 2019)

jayphotoworks said:


> Yes, Canon definitely already has the sensor capable of 8K in FF. I think a 16:9 crop of the 5DS/r sensor yields 8688x4888 which would allow a 1:1 pixel readout at 7680x4320 with a small 13% crop which would be excellent for video with no pixel binning at all and a 4.14um pixel pitch and still be able to take 50MP stills. It will be interesting to see where Canon takes this. I think their upcoming 8K cinema camera will give us some hints of EOS R 8K's future.
> 
> The only other player right now dabbling in 8K within the pro-sumer space is Sharp. Announcing at NAB at under $5. But 8K on a M43 sensor combined with 2.25um pixels (Even my Iphone XS Max has 1.4um pixels) on a H.265 codec writing to SD cards is a scary thought...



They're the only player that has made a public statement that they're playing with 8K. Sony is gearing up for 8K and will probably use their line of cameras to show what can be done with their 8K sensors, like the Sony sensor that Sharp is using. They have an 8K sensor that Nikon will soon be using and have a few others that'll be sold to other companies. The sensor in the Sharp is a tweaked version of the Panasonic GH5S. I'm curious if Panasonic will offer a service to swap out the sensors for that one, similar to what some cinema companies do. 

The technology in the Sharp camera is the very same that's used in the new 48 megapixel cell phones coming out with quad bayering. The bayer mode can fortunately change to increase low light performance by dropping the resolution down to 12 megapixels.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> How are you defining ideal?


Video resolution that is a whole-number multiple of existing industry standards paired with stills resolution that captures the majority of resolution available in 135 format sensors sounds pretty ideal to me. 4k provides lower stills resolution than most users require. By the time video resolutions reach 16k current ILC camera formats will be about as relevant as a Kodak Brownie is today.

edit: Currently I have 5 digital camera that I use and every one has a different resolution. That is ridiculous. I'd like to see standardization on 8K so sensor designers can focus on attributes of sensors that add actual value. I don't expect this to happen right away but I would hope that's where we will be in five years or so.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jan 11, 2019)

8K.. since 4K is cropped 1.25x currently, then 8K would be 2.5x crop? HAHA This is cool and all but what if we just acknowledge that Canon is behind and give us a good 4K just to catch up? Maybe they can down sample from 8K, that would probably be better. True 8K can be made for cinema line? Who here would shoot actual 8K with a mirrorless camera, such as a future R, for production? Not that you can't.. it's just, not the best tool for that type of job imo.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 11, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Video resolution that is a whole-number multiple of existing industry standards paired with stills resolution that captures the majority of resolution available in 135 format sensors sounds pretty ideal to me.



The highest resolution 135-format sensors commercially available are 70MP; that’s far higher. I don’t think there will ever be such an intersection. When video goes 16k, stills will be 250MP+. Video necessitates more resources, and holding stills to video resolution is an artificial limitation which IMO is non ideal.


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 11, 2019)

BeenThere said:


> Talking about finalizing a 2019 roadmap. Sure would be great if Canon would reveal it to us mortals.



That caught my eye too. Canon hasn't been big on "roadmaps." He might have been referring to an internal roadmap, but he seemed to suggest there was to be a public one. It does make business sense for them to do so, given that they've left the market uncertain that the pro body will come to match the amazing lenses they've put out. Nikon addressed this same issue (having caused the opposite problem - pretty respectable bodies with mediocre lenses) by putting out a roadmap. Problem for Nikon is that the roadmap they released reveals that the lenses they're going to push out for the Z mount still won't come close to Canon's ambitions. 

If Canon's 1DX-like R mount camera is going to come out 1.5-2 years from now, then they might do better with uncertainty, rather than revealing the chasm of time before release. 

Couple points of interest:
1 - I find it interesting that multiple people in the comments don't consider the 1DX2 to be the be-all of pro cameras. Its resolution and fps and size makes it a bit of a niche camera, versus perhaps a more common pro use case of high resolution and lower fps. 
2 - Following on that, I consider myself to be in a bit of a temporary place with my 5D4 cameras. They don't have the fps needed, but they're better than the 1 series for my purposes, due largely to resolution. The slow fps was the main weakness of the 5D4 release, in my opinion, although I like the cameras very much. I bring this up because Canon can't release an R mount camera that is sort of like the 5D4 that has slightly lower or same fps and still inspire a massive upgrade cycle among us 5 series owners. I don't think they'll inspire quite the upgrade cycle unless they give pro users an upgrade in some important metrics, such as sensor quality/ISO, fps, although features such as IBIS and a few other nifty new mirrorless tricks will certainly provide some bait. 
3 - If Canon indicated a 5DSR upgrade in R mount in 2019 on a roadmap, I'd by an R right now and start shifting lenses, selling off some EF glass in particular for the 50 and the 28-70. But, if precedent holds, we all have some time, and maybe the current R won't be the backup body I want when the real pro body comes out in 2020-2021.

Random side note. I'm very curious what's going to come out from Panasonic and Sigma in terms of L mount bodies. As it is now, I have 6 or 7 Art lenses on Canon mount, and find them in most cases superior to the Canon equivalent, with a few exceptions (35 & 85 f/1.4s come to mind). Sigma hasn't exactly blown everyone away with their bodies, as they've hitched their wagon to their very innovative-but-perhaps-not-the-most-practical sensor tech. Panasonic, on the other hand, is impressive as heck on the body side of things. I bring this up because at some point in the next couple of years we're going to be able to compare Sigma's Mark 1 Art series to a perhaps-redesigned set of primes for the new L mount they're supporting. Yes, they could just add L mount to existing designs, but I suspect Sigma will want to exploit the design flexibility of the newer, shorter flange distance, much like Canon has done of late. This may give us the option of having better-than-Canon glass from Sigma on Panasonic bodies that use Sony sensors. You may all flame me now.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The highest resolution 135-format sensors commercially available are 70MP; that’s far higher. I don’t think there will ever be such an intersection. When video goes 16k, stills will be 250MP+. Video necessitates more resources, and holding stills to video resolution is an artificial limitation which IMO is non ideal.


I'm aware that it's possible to make a sensor with higher resolution than 8K for stills. I am talking about hybrid cameras optimized for both stills and video. 

If you are working in a field that requires resolutions greater than what can be provided by an 8K sensor I'm sure you will be able to find someone to sell you one. Larger sensors and sensor arrays will provide much better results than adding smaller and smaller photosites on 135 sensors IMO but that's not what we're discusing.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 11, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I'm aware that it's possible to make a sensor with higher resolution than 8K for stills. I am talking about hybrid cameras optimized for both stills and video.
> 
> If you are working in a field that requires resolutions greater than what can be provided by an 8K sensor I'm sure you will be able to find someone to sell you one. Larger sensors and sensor arrays will provide much better results than adding smaller and smaller photosites on 135 sensors IMO but that's not what we're discusing.



I just trying to understand how 30ish MP constitutes capturing the majority of the resolution from 135 format sensors (given that such sensors with double that resolution are on the market), and why 8k is ideal and, say, 16k (another even interval) would not be.

Edit: on the first point, did you instead mean capture the resolution available from the majority of 135 format sensors?


----------



## webphoto (Jan 11, 2019)

I wil buy one!


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jan 11, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> I just trying to understand how 30ish MP constitutes capturing the majority of the resolution from 135 format sensors (given that such sensors with double that resolution are on the market), and why 8k is ideal and, say, 16k (another even interval) would not be.
> 
> Edit: on the first point, did you instead mean capture the resolution available from the majority of 135 format sensors?


I may have caused some confusion by using the word "Resolution" to mean two different things. "Sensor Resolution" being the number of pixel/photosites on the sensor and "Subject Resolution" being the ability of a camera/sensor system to record subject detail. They are related but not the same.

My point is there is a declining benefit in regard to improving "subject" resolution by increasing photocells (sensor resolution) at a fixed sensor size (135). Adding more photocells than would be required to achieve 8K would somewhat increase subject resolution but at the expense of significantly increased computation and processing for video. Thus, I consider a sensor that can read out 8K at 1:1 and accommodate 40-45Mp for stills to be an optimum (ideal) solution for Stills/Hybrid cameras. The goldilocks solution with 4K being too small and 16K being too large.

In my opinion other disruptive technologies (AI driven computation) will replace contemporary camera systems before 16k systems/sensors roll out but that's further out there so who knows?

Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jan 11, 2019)

I'm sure there are plenty of users who use DSLR's / Mirroless for video and are probably delirious at the thought for 8K video on a camera.
For most users though surely even 4K is a nice to have and rarely used.
The processing power required to edit 4K is big, 8K must be a nightmare.
It just ups the ante completely in terms of memory cards required, long term storage and laptops to work with it.
An uninteresting HD video is no better in 4K or 8K.
Its different for real video specialists / movie makers I'm sure it would be very handy to get such detail in such a relatively small formatt.
I just find it hard to see that it move major numbers of cameras if it were on the spec of 8K.
I wonder can normal people spot the difference between 4K and 8K.
It's like a visual diminishing returns.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 12, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I may have caused some confusion by using the word "Resolution" to mean two different things. "Sensor Resolution" being the number of pixel/photosites on the sensor and "Subject Resolution" being the ability of a camera/sensor system to record subject detail. They are related but not the same.
> 
> My point is there is a declining benefit in regard to improving "subject" resolution by increasing photocells (sensor resolution) at a fixed sensor size (135). Adding more photocells than would be required to achieve 8K would somewhat increase subject resolution but at the expense of significantly increased computation and processing for video. Thus, I consider a sensor that can read out 8K at 1:1 and accommodate 40-45Mp for stills to be an optimum (ideal) solution for Stills/Hybrid cameras. The goldilocks solution with 4K being too small and 16K being too large.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clarifying. For what worth, in taking your judgment of ideal as static (i.e., with current technology).


----------



## peterzuehlke (Jan 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I would assume that an 8K capable image sensor will also benefit still photographers.


I think both Nikon and Sony have higher resolution sensors (6K) that down sample to output better quality 4K, maybe what canon is thinking (start with 8K and get an even better 4k). and without the crop ;-)


----------



## scottkinfw (Jan 14, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> I would assume that an 8K capable image sensor will also benefit still photographers.


The monitors are on the way.
My issue is that print technology doesn't get any benefit from 8K.
Scott


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 14, 2019)

scottkinfw said:


> My issue is that print technology doesn't get any benefit from 8K.
> Scott


Color me confused. I mean, that's correct, but it's also irrelevant (one doesn't print video), so how is it an issue?


----------



## lubinphoto (Jan 20, 2019)

While I do like more pixels for the odd time I need to crop and having better video options is a bonus, I would prefer canon develop sensors with better dynamic range and maybe use AI like in smartphones to help improve images. Honestly when I compare the slow processing of the in-camera processing of HDR images on my Canon R, compared to the HDR on my cellphone, I prefer the shots on my cellphone more, as my phone does a better job of getting skies the blue I see and good detail in shadows at the same time. And I've tested out all HDR in-camera processing options to try to replicate the great results that are instant on my phone. Even at low light now, cell phones are processing images nicer. Yes I can do everything later in post, but there's a lot to be said about getting a good shot right away. I upgraded from the Canon 6D (mark 1), and the dynamic range is strikingly better and I would guess that part of the difference is the lens as well. I am comparing the 6D with EF 24-105 and R with RF 24-105. I was happy with this improvement, it has encouraged me to do more street photography as I prefer to do minimal processing and minimal HDR processing. Though on a cellphone HDR is an instant picture no different than having it turned off. It's no different on jpeg or raw for processing time for HDR, it's just very very slow. I assume this is a processor issue not a sensor issue, so I would hope that Canon look at using third party sensors that are outpacing their own to keep up with this aspect of photography.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 20, 2019)

lubinphoto said:


> [..] It's no different on jpeg or raw for processing time for HDR, it's just very very slow. I assume this is a processor issue not a sensor issue, so I would hope that Canon look at using third party sensors that are outpacing their own to keep up with this aspect of photography.



Or more likely, Canon hasn't cared enough to make it fast and treated it as a checkbox item "HDR? check!". 

Back to the current state of things, someone on the DPR EOS R forum mentioned that a tweaked picture style can get you close to what your phone does, have you tried that yet?


----------



## jedy (Jan 23, 2019)

All this talk of 8K (and 4K). What will be filmed on these cameras? YouTube vlogs? Low budget short films? The next potential Oscar winning epic? I never see discussions about 4K/8K that talks about what these cameras will be filming, just people obsessing over the technology. I’ve yet to see anything on YouTube that would improve if filmed in 4K. It’s like saying newer cameras won’t improve your photography. If you are an inexperienced filmmaker, 8K/4K won’t help.


----------



## R1-7D (Feb 27, 2020)

Guess we know what that 8K camera on their road map is now.


----------



## Nelu (Feb 27, 2020)

jedy said:


> All this talk of 8K (and 4K). What will be filmed on these cameras? YouTube vlogs? Low budget short films? The next potential Oscar winning epic? I never see discussions about 4K/8K that talks about what these cameras will be filming, just people obsessing over the technology. I’ve yet to see anything on YouTube that would improve if filmed in 4K. It’s like saying newer cameras won’t improve your photography. If you are an inexperienced filmmaker, 8K/4K won’t help.


“There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept”
Ansel Adams


----------



## Pape (Feb 27, 2020)

Nelu said:


> “There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept”
> Ansel Adams


yeah i hope 400'' tvs are on their way 
and foldable screen so you can get it inside from door


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 27, 2020)

Pape said:


> yeah i hope 400'' tvs are on their way
> and foldable screen so you can get it inside from door


Nuh, roll up design. Like a large roll of toilet paper.


----------



## Nelu (Feb 27, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Nuh, roll up design. Like a large roll of toilet paper.


Right! Toilet paper to match the artistic quality of the 8K videos on YouTube...


----------



## stevelee (Feb 27, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I wonder can normal people spot the difference between 4K and 8K.
> It's like a visual diminishing returns.


At normal viewing distances for screens of less than 60 inches, it is hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 27, 2020)

stevelee said:


> At normal viewing distances for screens of less than 60 inches, it is hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080i.


And ridiculously big difference between some phone video at 1080 and a proper Blu-ray Disc movie also.


----------



## stevelee (Feb 28, 2020)

Viggo said:


> And ridiculously big difference between some phone video at 1080 and a proper Blu-ray Disc movie also.


Yes, you can tell more difference between bad 1080p and good 1080p than between good 1080p and good 4K on a decent TV at normal distances.

Similarly, streaming video quality can have more to do with bitrate than theoretical resolution.


----------



## Pape (Feb 28, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Yes, you can tell more difference between bad 1080p and good 1080p than between good 1080p and good 4K on a decent TV at normal distances.
> 
> Similarly, streaming video quality can have more to do with bitrate than theoretical resolution.






you need this for 4k , for 8k there isnt big enough tv


----------

