They also said clearly that the R5 was not a replacement for the 5DIV...Canon has made it clear that R3 is not their pro sports mirrorless camera so we can expect that will either be the R1 or R1x.
Upvote
0
They also said clearly that the R5 was not a replacement for the 5DIV...Canon has made it clear that R3 is not their pro sports mirrorless camera so we can expect that will either be the R1 or R1x.
Can you clarify. If they each individually have more noise (your comment above), how do they average to less noise as a single pixel?Each individually will have a lot more noise, but when averaged together, the S/N ratio becomes the same as the 1 big pixel.
Anything to make the folks hanging onto their DSLRS over fears of mirrorless feel better lol, while slowly killing it off.They also said clearly that the R5 was not a replacement for the 5DIV...
Have you played with any of the AI up-scalers lately, like Gigapixel? Pretty amazing. Who REALLY needs more than 30MP now? Even the 12MP A7s becomes useable as a stills camera again (not just for video). People who absolutely must have huge files will probably migrate to medium format if they haven't already or will rely on pixel shift (for motionless subjects) if they need to create a large file. I think 30MP is ideal for most uses. I haven't had a client ask for a print in decades. Almost all viewing is done on a screen now and for magazine work, 30MP is more than enough. If not, use AI software to double the perceived resolution. I just hope the R3 is less than $6000 USD. It apparently has the specs of the 1Dx and those have all been introduced at $6500+/- so I wouldn't be surprised is this one lands in that zone, too. But maybe Canon will not be greedy and will realize they'll sell more if they keep the price as low as possible. Remember the 1Dc that started out at $10,000? I'm hoping for a pleasant price surprise (and 4K 120fps) on the 29th.I just kept thinking "please let it be more than 30MP". Now, here we are at 30.1.
But even if it is "just" 30MP, I am sure it will be fabulous. Just not quite as exciting for getting close to birds, but hopefully even better AF and image quality to make up for it.
63.7MP, but 200MP with the jumper-cable external sensor block upgrade.So if the R3 is 31MP, that means the R1 must be 50MP?
Yes, at the current rate of market change that should only take a decade or so. Did you know that the best-selling ILC in Japan for the last two months was a Canon DSLR?Anything to make the folks hanging onto their DSLRS over fears of mirrorless feel better lol, while slowly killing it off.
I respectfully disagree. I'm going to bet they go back to the days of offering two high end cameras for two distinct market segments like when they had an "S" model 1D for studio shooters, except the numbering will be different. R3 sounds like it can replace and exceed what the 20MP 1Dx currently does. The R3 will be the pro sports camera. And hit 30fps (like an assigned custom function button) and your "stills" just became a short video without having to stop and switch to video mode. That sounds like a sport photographer's dream. I think the R1 will be the high-end megapixel version for studio users/architectural/etc. who want/need massive files. Sony has already shown it can be done with the A1 and its 50MP sensor. Canon is almost forced to meet or exceed that milestone. Doubt there will ever be an R1c because they learned the hard way how the 5D cannibalized their video camera sales. It's why they priced the 1Dc at $10K when it was introduced. At that price point it didn't threaten there video sales. They probably won't offer a "killer" hybrid that kills their Cinema line sales. That's my theory, anyway.I doubt it , more likely the same or less mp : I predict 24mp for the R1 which is going to be their flagship professional sports camera with probably twin Digic X processors and twin CF Express slots and maybe 40 fps, but they will probably make a high resolution R5 variant of perhaps 80-90mp
Interesting ideas but the following seem to favour my predictions :I respectfully disagree. I'm going to bet they go back to the days of offering two high end cameras for two distinct market segments like when they had an "S" model 1D for studio shooters, except the numbering will be different. R3 sounds like it can replace and exceed what the 20MP 1Dx currently does. The R3 will be the pro sports camera. And hit 30fps (like an assigned custom function button) and your "stills" just became a short video without having to stop and switch to video mode. That sounds like a sport photographer's dream. I think the R1 will be the high-end megapixel version for studio users/architectural/etc. who want/need massive files. Sony has already shown it can be done with the A1 and its 50MP sensor. Canon is almost forced to meet or exceed that milestone. Doubt there will ever be an R1c because they learned the hard way how the 5D cannibalized their video camera sales. It's why they priced the 1Dc at $10K when it was introduced. At that price point it didn't threaten there video sales. They probably won't offer a "killer" hybrid that kills their Cinema line sales. That's my theory, anyway.
Well the R1 probably won't come out until 2024 at the next olympics and they will be releasing several cameras before thenWhy would Canon follow up a pro body sports camera with another one? Why would anyone need 45 fps? May as well use video.
The Nikon Z9 will be their flagship with likely 50 MP, and a pro body. Canon won't challenge it with an R5 body camera. I expect the R1 to have at least 60 MP, probably more.
Yes, R5 8k raw rate is 2300Mb/s rather than 2300MB/s. Edited original postI think you’re mixing up B(ytes) and b(its) in the above. The fastest CFe B cards top out at 1500MBytes/s writes currently.
* Photon's statistics is governed by Poisson distribution. This means, in particular, that not only 0 or 1 photon can be captured but also 2, 3 or even more (yet much less likely).It's a property of math, relied upon in statistics*.
Absolutely! It's truly amazing that both Poisson and Bernoulli laws are so effective models of photon's behavior.Oh, exactly, of course! I'm just trying to make it as simple as possible. You'll agree that the result I'm presenting is correct, even though the example is cutting corners, right? Summing four Poisson distributions yields a Poisson distribution, but then when you divide by four you have a much smaller standard deviation. That's what I'm trying to convey.
That was well explained. Let me see if I get it right. Your 'model' assumes a uniform flux of photons, ie. it is equally likely to fall on any of the pixels. If, instead of that, we have a have a light (photon) distribution that have varying areas of light intensity (as in a real-world image), then are the following conclusions valid?It's a property of math, relied upon in statistics.
Say we're imaging something half-reflective of light, and it's so dark that even a pure white object will only yield one photon in each pixel of a hi-MP sensor. So our gray object should yield a half-photon per pixel. NO single pixel will have the correct answer of half-reflective, because there's no such thing as a half-photon. Instead they'll either have twice the real value, or a zero value. Noise is +- 100%, basically! (This is like: we know the odds when flipping a coin is 50% either way, but if we then just flip a coin one time, we cannot get 50%, we only get 100% heads or 0% heads.)
Now, take 4 pixels of this hi-MP sensor, either getting 0 photons (black) or 1 (white), and sum them. Consider receipt of a photon as a coin flip. Giving 0 for no photon, and 1 for a photon, the equally likely possibilities are:
0000
0001
0010
0011
0100
0101
0110
0111
1000
1001
1010
1011
1100
1101
1110
1111
Now you'll see a total of:
0 -- 1 time in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be black, 100% off its true value.
1 -- 4 times in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 25, 50% off its true value.
2 -- 6 times in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 50, its true value.
3 -- 4 times in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 75, 50% off its true value.
4 -- 1 time in 16. We're reporting this larger pixel to be 100, 100% off its true value.
Instead of being off the correct value of .5 by 100% as before, now we're off by: 100 * 1/16 + 50 * 4/16 + 0 * 6/16 + 50 * 4/16 + 100 * 1/16 = 37.5%.
Now, take a lo-MP sensor with 1/4 the resolution. Its pixels are big enough they'll get 4 photons from a white object. Our gray object should return 2 photons. The math works identically to the above five cases and their chances of happening, giving the same 37.5% noise.
So, back to sensors. An 80MP back-side sensor should capture as many photons total as a 20MP sensor, though that means only 1/4 the photos per pixel and thus far higher noise per pixel. But then average four neighboring pixels together and the noise level comes down to exactly the same as the 20MP sensor.
In this situation, when looking at a ‘consumer’ targeted camera, I doubt the RPII (or whatever) would drop in mp. But I am usually wrong when guessing what Canon will do nextYou can be 100% sure the RP replacement won't have the R3's sensor or anything similar. In best case scenario it will get the R6's sensor or something similar.
I generally hate image tests for this reason.Things are probably a lot more complicated than the above, however, does it mean that a higher MP sensor would have worst low light performance unless its technology, processing etc can sufficiently compensate?
There is not supposed to be a camera named RP Mark II.In this situation, when looking at a ‘consumer’ targeted camera, I doubt the RPII (or whatever) would drop in mp. But I am usually wrong when guessing what Canon will do next
The current RP is remarkably capable and Canon let the hand brake off for an “entry level” camera as long as you can live with the off chip ADC design.
In this situation, when looking at a ‘consumer’ targeted camera, I doubt the RPII (or whatever) would drop in mp. But I am usually wrong when guessing what Canon will do next
The current RP is remarkably capable and Canon let the hand brake off for an “entry level” camera as long as you can live with the off chip ADC design.
The world cup in Nov 22 so this is plenty of time to have an R1 available. I can't see an R1 having less MP than an R3. The R1 will have to be better in all aspects to an R3 to justify its position at the top of the tree. File sizes are less relevant with communication speeds rapidly increasing, cropping allows for more editing options. You can always reduce file size - you can't increase it. FPS could would arguebly reach a point where its an obstacle to work flow. HIgher FPS means more sorting through practically identical images. You may as well take stills from video. For an R1 to justify its price it will have almost amazing autofocus ability. I wonder myself if the R3 was something planned from the beginning or whether it was an afterthought of an R1 developed so far and Canon either thought it didn't justify the R1 badge or some breakthrough that wouldn't be ready in time and decided to go with an intermediate solution of calling it an R3 to be competitive with the top Sony camera. I'd certainly take 50MP over 50FPS in terms of usefulness. I can't wait for the R3 reviews. If there is a major leap forward in focusing ability it will be of great interest to me.Well the R1 probably won't come out until 2024 at the next olympics and they will be releasing several cameras before then
Professional sports shooters always want higher fps to catch the perfect moment when a bat hits a ball or a diver just touches the water , etc and they definitely don't want bigger file sizes which offer little benefit and just slow their work flow down. Many of them just shoot jpeg as the results are plenty good enough.
If R3 was the planned successor to the 1DX then it would have 2 CF Express slots.I wonder myself if the R3 was something planned from the beginning or whether it was an afterthought of an R1 developed so far and Canon either thought it didn't justify the R1 badge or some breakthrough that wouldn't be ready in time and decided to go with an intermediate solution of calling it an R3 to be competitive with the top Sony camera.