A leaked document suggests that Canon has a 63mp full frame image sensor in the works.

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
468
320
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
How do you figure that?
Yes, the pixels are smaller, but you can resample the image down to the size of the 6D2 images and gain about 1.5 stops of DR doing so.... and they should be sharper... and with a higher density sensor you don’t need as strong of an AA filter, so a bit more improvement, plus, it will be a newer design!
I didn't figure that, the potential DR was figured by Canonnews. Anyway I doubt resampling/downsampling will help gain DR. Even if it would, I don't need a new camera, I just keep using my 5DIV. This sensor looks like (another) step back from 5DIV actually.

I do know it's all rumours. But if Canon really puts this or similar sensor in their upcoming high-res camera, it'll really be time to move. Most likely to Sony, as I'll be able to use my EF lenses. For landscape photography, I'd welcome a 60+mp sensor, but I'd also like to see the DR performance on par with A7rIII or at least on par with 5DIV.
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
312
261
Canada
www.canonnews.com
I didn't figure that, the potential DR was figured by Canonnews. Anyway I doubt resampling/downsampling will help gain DR. Even if it would, I don't need a new camera, I just keep using my 5DIV. This sensor looks like (another) step back from 5DIV actually.

I do know it's all rumours. But if Canon really puts this or similar sensor in their upcoming high-res camera, it'll really be time to move. Most likely to Sony, as I'll be able to use my EF lenses. For landscape photography, I'd welcome a 60+mp sensor, but I'd also like to see the DR performance on par with A7rIII or at least on par with 5DIV.
Funny. I fired CR an email this morning when I saw this at 1am last night and said if they make this into a camera I may have to start a sonynews.com website up.o_O

I think if people read what I wrote about it, they can deduce that I wouldn't be impressed by it at all.

For reasons I wrote on CanonNews, I think this is a legit sensor, but Canon was exploring B2B applications with it and not putting it into a camera.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
373
220
Hmm maybe canon doesnt even want higher DR . Photographic look for those who want take photographs . and improved faster HDR mode for those who want painting looking pictures.
They are number 1 . They can make cameras what they think are good. Other brands need listen photographers .
I am sure HDR mode can be made fast enough for windy landscapes . And those who use high mpixel camera for birds wont need lowest isos anyway.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,598
2,053
How do you figure that?
Yes, the pixels are smaller, but you can resample the image down to the size of the 6D2 images and gain about 1.5 stops of DR doing so....
How do you figure that? Been drinking the DxO Koolaid? A mathematical increase in DR does not recover image information clipped at image capture.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diko

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
468
320
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Hmm maybe canon doesnt even want higher DR . Photographic look for those who want take photographs . and improved faster HDR mode for those who want painting looking pictures.
What is a photographic look? If it's blown out highlights and/or totally dark shadows, thanks but I don't need that look. But if you mean certain colour/tonal rendition, it's all about postprocessing. Low DR doesn't make a photograph look more photographic. High DR actually leaves you more room for postprocessing and rendering painterly or photographic or instagramic or whatever look you want. And HDR itself has nothing to do with the so called HDR look. The so-called HDR look is all about certain postprocessing techniques, not specifically about 'high dynamic range'. HDR look is a bad name.

They are number 1 . They can make cameras what they think are good. Other brands need listen photographers .
I am sure HDR mode can be made fast enough for windy landscapes . And those who use high mpixel camera for birds wont need lowest isos anyway.
Canon makes great cameras, but it doesn't mean other manufacturers don't listen to their customers. Ultimately, photography is about getting pictures, and in digital photography, the image is mostly about lenses and sensors. Ergonomics, weather-sealing, fps etc are hugely important but still secondary factors. Long story short, if Canon instead of improving the sensor performance, implements a fast HDR mode for windy landscapes, I won't be happy as a customer. I don't care if the new camera sells well to bird photographers and Canon runs out of storage for huge profits. I care about a camera for me and I choose from what's on the market including Sony, Nikon etc.
 

timmy_650

EOS RP
Dec 20, 2012
275
12
Canon does not make up this kind of document for sensors used in their cameras. If its not fake, then its for something that they plan to market. More likely, its a fake.
It add to that, they could be going to the market with this sensors and It wouldn't matter to anyone here. An example is the 120mp sensors, that is hit the market but they never put it in a production camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diko

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
52
47
Oh boy, I really hope the leaked document is fake. Come on, who needs those extra MPs if the camera cuts useful highlights and renders shadows terribly noisy. I own a 5DsR and have to shoot quite technically, off of a tripod, and then do a lot of extra postprocessing to get great quality images. If this news is true and Canon releases this as a follow-up to the 5Ds line, I can't even imagine favoring it over my trusty old 5DsR, especially given that this new sensor seems to have half a stop worse DR at the base ISO.
This must be one heck of a terrible joke. Honestly, I don't wish to see that on the market. I'd like to see somethinig competitive and actually great and USEFUL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Diko

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
52
47
Whats bad about it? Tell us. Give us a example of a 63 mp FF sensor that is better.
The bad thing is its usefulness for anything else than studio photography with highly controlled lighting to ensure you don't overexpose critical areas etc.
There is no other 63mp sensor out there and that's probably the point - it seems pretty useless.
Tell me one lens that can outresolve even a 50mp full-frame sensor.

...not even thet best of Zeiss lenses do and what are those extra megapixels for if you won't get that information through the lens that's sitting in front of the sensor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Adelino and Diko

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,123
1,639
Canada
How do you figure that? Been drinking the DxO Koolaid? A mathematical increase in DR does not recover image information clipped at image capture.
Neuro, your sarcasm detector is broken :)

Resample to 16Mpixels and gain 2 stops of DR
Resample to 1Mpixel and gain 6 stops
Resample to 1Kilopixel and gain 16 stops
Resample to 1 pixel and gain 26 stops

You will only have one pixel, but think of the DR!
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
52
47
This one, for example.

Actually, quite a lot of lenses would benefit from such a sensor. Even EF 100-400 II would.
I see the MTF. It is not THAT much better than the Batis 2.8/135 in the center and it is worse in the edges anyway. The Milvus 2/135 is better and the Milvus 1.4/35 is even better than that. Neither of them outresolve the 50mp sensor, although they are not far from it.

It is true that having a few more megapixels can extract a bit more resolution from the same lens (whatever the lens is), but the gain is rather marginal and then again, for static scenes where you really wish a lot of resolution, like landscapes or architecture, you can shoot panoramas with a longer lens and get 400mp easily with a much less resoluted sensor.

Consider also that more megapixels means more storage demands and a notable slow-down to the workflow. The gains are not that huge.
 

mk0x55

[5DsR]
Nov 16, 2018
52
47
Neuro, your sarcasm detector is broken :)

Resample to 16Mpixels and gain 2 stops of DR
Resample to 1Mpixel and gain 6 stops
Resample to 1Kilopixel and gain 16 stops
Resample to 1 pixel and gain 26 stops

You will only have one pixel, but think of the DR!
Right, either this is a joke or it needs some correction. You can get better noise by downsampling, but not more DR. Ever seen deeper shadows lifted, even on a medium format digital camera like the Fuji GFX? You will be lifting mud, because the texture information is simply not captured. As written in the post to which you answer, no resampling will help you recover lost highlights or lost detail in the shadows (only reduce noise). Therefore, it will not help you gain more DR, just reduce noise, and these two things are not equivalent, although related. Neither will mean-stacking help you gain more DR. You'd need to resort to exposure blending or HDR, the former of which tends to yield better results, but is more demanding.

If I need to capture good detail in most of the picture including shadows, I simply need to pick a proper exposure and then one or more overexposures, which I bring down a lot, and overlay the darkened, non-clipped parts, over the normal exposure. The more contrast (DR) in the scene, the more such exposures one needs to take and blend. That actually gives you more DR, not resampling nor mean stacking.