Another mention of a 70+ megapixel EOS R camera

If true I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R. I doubt the ISO performance @ 75MP will be better than those two cameras.

The 5Ds R really didn't have much of a learning curve from my point of view. I always thought the high mp harder to get sharp discussion was blown out of proportion by those who were justifying not making the move to the high mp body. Not saying I am a master at technique, but mine was adequate. The only real learning curve I remember was figuring out how to handle all those huge RAW files.

How much for the body only ?

noms78 said:

If true I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R. I doubt the ISO performance @ 75MP will be better than those two cameras.

Click to expand...

probably not and why would this matter? if you want a smaller MP camera, this one is not for you.
and yeah it's probably close enough to compare against the R at 30MP downsized, if you're intelligent about it.
but this is for people that want big files, not people that are trying to make the camera something it's not really.

rrcphoto said:

probably not and why would this matter? if you want a smaller MP camera, this one is not for you.
and yeah it's probably close enough to compare against the R at 30MP downsized, if you're intelligent about it.
but this is for people that want big files, not people that are trying to make the camera something it's not really.

Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. There are many of us who work in a wide variety of scenarios. Sometimes we need high resolution, sometimes high framerate, sometimes none of them. We do not want multiple cameras for multiple purposes when it can be easily covered by one body. Or there could simply be a photographer who is shooting events and report where 8-10 FPS is nice but of course wants high resolution for private use when travelling and shooting landscape.
I fail to see how anyone would not welcome a lower resolution and higher framerate option on a high resolution camera.

takesome1 said:

The 5Ds R really didn't have much of a learning curve from my point of view. I always thought the high mp harder to get sharp discussion was blown out of proportion by those who were justifying not making the move to the high mp body. Not saying I am a master at technique, but mine was adequate. The only real learning curve I remember was figuring out how to handle all those huge RAW files.

Click to expand...

I was surprised by that as well since it has the same pixel density as an APS-C Canon camera. But I have to admit I rarely had good results with the shutterspeed = 1/focal length rule, or (f1.6) for crop. I've always needed (f2) or faster on non-IS lenses.

riker said:

I strongly disagree. There are many of us who work in a wide variety of scenarios. Sometimes we need high resolution, sometimes high framerate, sometimes none of them. We do not want multiple cameras for multiple purposes when it can be easily covered by one body. Or there could simply be a photographer who is shooting events and report where 8-10 FPS is nice but of course wants high resolution for private use when travelling and shooting landscape.
I fail to see how anyone would not welcome a lower resolution and higher framerate option on a high resolution camera.

Click to expand...

Exactly. High resolution has three potential drawbacks: (1) worse DR and high ISO, (2) lower writing speed that affects continuous shooting and (3) much bigger raw files. Otherwise a high-res camera is better than low-res in all regards.

The latter two drawbacks may be fixed by simple in-camera downsampling to lower-res raws; the first one is probably harder to deal with. 75mp will probably be awesome for landscapes but only in case they remove AA filter and the DR is at least on par with 5DIV. If there's something like low-res 18mp mode with better high ISO and DR, it'd be an absolute must-buy thing for me.
But given Canon's history, I won't be surprised if the DR of the prospective camera is actually worse and there's no low-res high-DR mode.

koenkooi said:

I was surprised by that as well since it has the same pixel density as an APS-C Canon camera. But I have to admit I rarely had good results with the shutterspeed = 1/focal length rule, or (f1.6) for crop. I've always needed (f2) or faster on non-IS lenses.

Click to expand...

Micro-jittering in the hands may be not noticeable but it's there. The reciprocal rule never worked for me either. Without an IS and a tripod, I shoot while trying to relax and while exhaling...

noms78 said:

If true I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R. I doubt the ISO performance @ 75MP will be better than those two cameras.

Click to expand...

Genuine question: can it be called lossless if you're downsampling? You're losing some data by combining pixels, surely?

Quarkcharmed said:

Exactly. High resolution has three potential drawbacks: (1) worse DR and high ISO, (2) lower writing speed that affects continuous shooting and (3) much bigger raw files. Otherwise a high-res camera is better than low-res in all regards.

The latter two drawbacks may be fixed by simple in-camera downsampling to lower-res raws; the first one is probably harder to deal with. 75mp will probably be awesome for landscapes but only in case they remove AA filter and the DR is at least on par with 5DIV. If there's something like low-res 18mp mode with better high ISO and DR, it'd be an absolute must-buy thing for me.
But given Canon's history, I won't be surprised if the DR of the prospective camera is actually worse and there's no low-res high-DR mode.

Click to expand...

(1) is essentially a myth for stills, as has been demonstrated numerous times on these forums (where's dtaylor when you need them?).

tmc784 said:

How much for the body only ?

Click to expand...

Get prepared for North of 3.5k, maybe even more than 4k.

noms78 said:

… I hope it will have the option to shoot lossless raw @ 36-40mp and at this lower resolution the image quality must be at least as good as the 5d4 / EOS R
...

Click to expand...

IMO in that case the IQ should be better than from the mentioned bodies.
Would be nice if this would also have a positive effect on higher FPS then, but I doubt that.

I'd prefer high FPS and high ISO over high MP count.

But as I mentioned before in other threads I can fully understand that the first "pro" EOS R will address the high MP market.
Studio and landscape shooters are probably easier convinced to EVF over OVF that is still preferred by sports and wildlife shooters.

scyrene said:

(1) is essentially a myth for stills, as has been demonstrated numerous times on these forums (where's dtaylor when you need them?).

Click to expand...

Smaller pixels impact DR as they have lower signal to noise ratio. It doesn't mean any higher-res sensor will be worse than lower-res sensor, but high-res makes it harder to keep DR on the same level. 70-75mp sounds like a lot, Canon's never been good at high-res high-DR sensors. That is their only 50mp sensor is so-so in terms of DR.

scyrene said:

Genuine question: can it be called lossless if you're downsampling? You're losing some data by combining pixels, surely?

Click to expand...

You lose resolution of that matters, but you decrease noise. So high ISO will look better, although it doesn't have to be done in camera, you can get the same result in post processing.

rrcphoto said:

probably not and why would this matter? if you want a smaller MP camera, this one is not for you.
and yeah it's probably close enough to compare against the R at 30MP downsized, if you're intelligent about it.
but this is for people that want big files, not people that are trying to make the camera something it's not really.

Click to expand...

Why doesn't it make sense to have a lower MP option? Not every shooting situation requires 70 MP, especially true considering we don't have it yet.

Pro sports cameras aren't even up to 30 MP yet. If I had a 70 MP @ 5 fps and a 35 MP @ 8 - 10 fps option, both raw or raw + jpg with no caveats relating to focus and exposure/etc., that would be really handy.

Quarkcharmed said:

Smaller pixels impact DR as they have lower signal to noise ratio. It doesn't mean any higher-res sensor will be worse than lower-res sensor, but high-res makes it harder to keep DR on the same level. 70-75mp sounds like a lot, Canon's never been good at high-res high-DR sensors. That is their only 50mp sensor is so-so in terms of DR.

Click to expand...

I had always thought the 5DS had pretty good DR according to the available measurements. Even before Canon was using their newer sensors - it appears to have better DR than the 5D III, the 6D I and II, and comparable to the newer 80D. In the Canon lineup, I wouldn't suggest it's pulling the average DR down because of its higher resolution, maybe more so for its age.

amorse said:

I had always thought the 5DS had pretty good DR according to the available measurements. Even before Canon was using their newer sensors - it appears to have better DR than the 5D III, the 6D I and II, and comparable to the newer 80D. In the Canon lineup, I wouldn't suggest it's pulling the average DR down because of its higher resolution, maybe more so for its age.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Click to expand...

It definitely didn't look bad among 5DIII and 6D. But follow your own link and add Nikon D810 that was released a year before 5DS..

Quarkcharmed said:

Smaller pixels impact DR as they have lower signal to noise ratio. It doesn't mean any higher-res sensor will be worse than lower-res sensor, but high-res makes it harder to keep DR on the same level. 70-75mp sounds like a lot, Canon's never been good at high-res high-DR sensors. That is their only 50mp sensor is so-so in terms of DR.

Click to expand...

The 5DS(r) uses an older-style sensor (than, say, the 5D4), I understand, so it's a difficult comparison to make - in any case this is not unambiguous evidence that the resolution is the cause of any differences.

Incidentally, while the pixels are smaller, and pixel-level noise may be higher, I understand that image noise will be the same (as another FF sensor of the same generation), and since noise reduction can be carried out more finely, the finished image may actually be cleaner from a higher-resolution sensor (people seem to confuse pixel- and image- level noise in these discussions, ditto motion blur etc).

Quarkcharmed said:

You lose resolution of that matters, but you decrease noise. So high ISO will look better, although it doesn't have to be done in camera, you can get the same result in post processing.

Click to expand...

Quite. My question was merely a matter of terminology. As for in-camera versus PP downsampling, I imagine those asking for the former expect a faster fps, but since it must take extra processing power to do it, I'm not sure if that would be the case (though it would save storage space on the memory card).

scyrene said:

(1) is essentially a myth for stills, as has been demonstrated numerous times on these forums (where's dtaylor when you need them?).

Click to expand...

Hey now...I have to sleep sometime!