A new Canon DSLR seems to be getting teased on social media by a Canon ambassador

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
to me, obviously,
Fair enough. I often see posts which convey a wider applicability, and thought you might have meant technologically.

Yes, there are 150MP sensors, but like smaller sensors where resolutions vary, there is applicability to consider. I don’t think it follows to say that say 20MP 1Dxii doesn’t make sense in the era of 51MP 5Ds.

LargeSense makes a 12” x 9” CMOS at something like 12MP. The photo sites (as well as the sensor itself) dwarf sony’s 150MP platform.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ThomsA

Tugela

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 12, 2014
855
13
Video cannot YET achieve still photo sharpness simply because of the way the DSP (Digital Signal Procesor) changes pixel formatting RGB to YCbCr (which introduces an automatic 15% reduction in colour palette) AND the typical INTERFRAME codec causes a reduction in temporal information which means frames are slightly blurry!

When using VIDEO cameras for sports/action still photography, I have been able to compensate by using DCI 4K cameras (4096 x2160 pixel) and resampling the image to exactly half on each axis (i.e. now 2048 x 1080 pixel) which is quite nicely formatted for MANY website and PDF file distribution formats I get requested to make.

For that resampled image, I USUALLY use an UnSharp Mask filter which just enhances edges slightly and I typically re-saturate the frame grabs with a 5% to 15% increase to take into account the YCbCr colour palette reduction of video imagery.

For this consumer-level-application, the end-user doesn't actually care since they don't KNOW I'm capturing at 24 fps, 30 fps or even 60 fps depending upon the video camera I take out from our parent company's inventory. I usually do get good action shots in a "Spray and Pray" modality of operations since I set the video camera electronic shutter speed to TWICE the frame rate such as 1/48th for 24 fps, 1/60th for 30 fps and 1/120th for 60 fps.

For focus, I've got enough experience in many sports to actually be able to ANTICIPATE the action and will "Focus Ahead" of an anticipated "Play Area" to get my images tack-sharp! I treat it like a VIDEO shoot where you have to ANTICIPATE the action and FOCUS MANUALLY just before the director switches to your camera in a multi-camera sports shoot !!!

Using shutter speeds at 1/1000th or 1/2000th on video is actually counterproductive because of the sheer amount of light needed to get that sort of tack sharpness on high-action shots. I have found that image resampling and edge enhancement take care of motion blur for many of my selected frame grabs, and depending upon the editor, I have NOTICED they tend to select the images that HAVE motion blur because it seems to give the FEEL of more intense "Action" and gives a slight dreamy quality to the image! It gets published online and in newsprint at various aspect ratios (4:3 aspect 10 cm by 7.5 cm is typical in our stories), motion-blur and all and it's worked for years! The editors TEND to "Crop Hard" so my wide shots get whacked down to closeups during the image cropping/resampling phase of editorial.

I've done Hockey Games, US Football, Soccer, Baseball, Basketball, Rugby, F1/Stock Car, Skiing, Mountain Biking and other action/sports at pro levels, so me and all the people i know use MANUAL FOCUS and MANUAL IRIS (all our cameras typically have full iris/focus rings on high end Servo Zoom lenses) and this has worked for DECADES (i.e. since late 1980's!) for video production AND as news still photo-published video frame grabs! And now that I mostly do industrial/aerospace video and stills imagery at work, I don't have to worry about sports and cinema directors and editor personnel breathing down my neck for instant answers! I now do "Free and Paid Side Jobs" out of my own volition, only on my terms!

If I do use the Canon 1Dx Mk1/2's, YES you set shutter speed to high and in my case anticipate the action and then spray on burst-mode, letting the editor do the work when I get back! My hit rate is about 1-in-10 photos are any good so I am getting about 50 decent ones out of the typical 500 images I shoot in an average hockey or soccer game!

Typically, of those 50 decent stills, only 5 to 10 are GREAT and those are what the editor wants when I send my decent ones back! On a typical shoot I will send back only HALF of my 50 decent ones and FLAG the 5-to-10 I think are the best, after I have a second look at them on a larger screen. The editor isn't bogged down then since he/she has got other photogs doing various parts of the game!

So far, so good!
.
You not heard of RAW video yet?
 

Tugela

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 12, 2014
855
13
==

Canon 5Dr/s cameras made it abundantly clear that 50 megapixels in an easy-to-use compact format WILL be enticing to portrait, wildlife and landscape photographers! What is MISSING is a full feature set AND the absolute light gathering capability of camera sensors on larger format system such as the MF Hasselblad/Phase One/Fuji cameras.

A second convergence is coming where the FIRST convergence was getting cameras from film into digital and then mirrorless digital. The SECOND convergence is Computational Photography where software is mated to high-power CPU processers (i.e. Qualcomm Snapdragon 855 or AMD Ryzen-7 2700u cpu's) that have LOTS of digital signal processing ability AND THEN those qualities are mated to superior and LARGER low-light/low-noise capable image sensors.

For smartphones, the LOGICAL CHOICE is 2/3rds inch sensors because THAT is the worldwide broadcast television standard for almost all sports, action and news imagery! Right now most B4-mount broadcast cameras are 4K resolution attached to cheap Canon DIGIC-like cpu processors which don't do all that much. It means that current sensor manufacturers (i.e. Sony!) can easily USE THEIR OLD STOCK of 4k and 8K 2/3rds inch sensors in such smartphone devices.

NOW with Snapdragon 855 cpus and the higher-end AMD Ryzen-7 combined CPU/GPU chips in the pipeline, those processors can take over ALL digital image processing tasks AND take care of Smartphone operating system tasks at the same time! This means we can make super-smartphones relatively CHEAP !!! And with modern HyperHAD-style microlenses over each photosite, the large image sensor means you only need about 12mm of phone thickness to make the sensor focal plane practical for a 2/3rds inch sensor!

The LOGICAL pixel resolution for such super-smartphone devices is 8192 by 6144 pixels (50.3 megapixels) resolution with a 0.97 micron photosite size to keep dynamic range and noise at a high-quality modern level! An ARM-based Snapdragon 855 NOW EASILY handles such 8k by 6k pixel resolution at a frame rate of AT LEAST 30 fps to 60 fps RAW or COMPRESSED at 10-to-16 bits per colour channel!

I and MANY OTHERS would EASILY trade our current devices for a thicker phone with a BIGGER, LONGER LASTING BATTERY and a LARGER 2/3rds inch image sensor even IF the price is between $1100 U.S. to $1500 U.S.!

Such a 50.3 megapixel device is SO POWERFUL, it literally is a supercomputer and image monster in your pocket! It would LIKELY KILL OFF ALL of Canon's and Nikons low end cameras and encroach upon the Canon 7D/6D/M5/M50 and even the Nikon D850!

And based upon my broadcast video electronics-design colleagues/friends who have their own rumour mill, it seems SONY is the one who will be bringing the Super-Smartphone to market FIRST, although I have heard that Canon is doing to INHOUSE TESTING of 50 megapixel systems maybe in the XC-15 form factor?

For the HIGHER END, I also believe SONY is the one to bring that MAGICAL COMBINED 50.3 megapixel Stills/Video Medium Format sensor monster ...BUT... it's price will LIKELY be in the $10,000+ U.S. range!
.
Again, we shall see and YES you heard it here FIRST !!!
.
No you won't see. If those small sensors were so great then they would be used in high end cameras already, and they are not. There is a reason for that. If you are interested in image quality a bigger sensor will always beat a small sensor. It has more light, it is less prone to artifacts such as CA and light scattering on the sensor and it allows for control of depth of field more readily without optical distortions.

A cell phone might replace a low end point and shoot on the market, but they will not replace higher end ILCs. There is simply no comparison when it comes to IQ and there never will be due to physics.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,293
294
Fair enough. I often see posts which convey a wider applicability, and thought you might have meant technologically.

Yes, there are 150MP sensors, but like smaller sensors where resolutions vary, there is applicability to consider. I don’t think it follows to say that say 20MP 1Dxii doesn’t make sense in the era of 51MP 5Ds.

LargeSense makes a 12” x 9” CMOS at something like 12MP. The photo sites (as well as the sensor itself) dwarf sony’s 150MP platform.
Fair enough :)
Typical application for 1DX II would be vastly different from what a medium format cameras would be used these days for: high res, super bokeh... as you know. At 50MP I would grab Canon 5DsR with a nice and fast prime if need be. Let along an allegedly proposed 50MP medium format sensor according to our friend Harry.
I do not believe his statement is valid :))
 

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
452
49
You not heard of RAW video yet?

For stills production, YES! I do must say RAW is great (i.e. as say people like Jared Polin - I Shoot RAW say!), but for for looooong video shoots, most DOP's and Camera people I know use Long-GOP (Group of Frames) MP4/H.264/H.265 interframe compressed video which allows for lots of data to be stored in a small space. After that, we take advantage of Nyquist-style image resampling algorithms and unsharp masks to bring video frame grabs into useable web-publishable still photo formats!

RAW is sooooooooo big that many videographers simply don't have the video production gear that usually I have access to, so they are stuck using their lower-end Mac Air notebooks to handle video so they MUST use intraframe compressed Apple Prores or Shoot GOP MP4-type video!

The reason we use the VIDEO cameras to shoot sports/action imagery, is simple convenience and time-saving as were are BOTH video producers and still photo news/editorial imagery gatherers. The two functions have now merged and MOST young people I know who are starting out in video production/broadcast news are pretty much one-man or two-man bands with on-air talent supplementing image acquisition tasks for BOTH stills and video. This means modern cameras MUST NOW HAVE both extensive Stills AND Video capabilities which is WHY the rumour mills I partake in seem to be espousing newer systems that are LARGE SENSOR Flagship-level Smartphone/Tablets AND/OR very large sensor COMBINED stills and video camera systems.

The name bandied about MOST in my broadcast video technology circles is SONY with it's "upcoming" 2/3rds inch sensor flagship series xPeria smartphones AND BOTH Sony and Canon going for and/or actually TESTING high-feature-set, VERY LARGE SENSOR (8192x6144 pixel at 50.3 megapixels) COMBINED stills and video cameras that are in the $10,000+ US price range!

From what I have heard on the RECENT rumour mill, Sony is coming out with a MEDIUM FORMAT 50.3 megapixel sensor (56 mm by 42mm) while Canon's challenger is supposed to be an XC-15-like body with a FULL FRAME sensor at 50.3 megapixels. BOTH cameras, having 4:3 aspect ratio CMOS chips, will allow for MULTIPLE ASPECT RATIOS and VARIABLE CROP-factors for their stills and video capture components! I suspect that Sony's contender will have a MUCH LARGER FEATURE SET but that Canon's will be more physically ruggedized!

Large SENSOR Smartphones WILL kill off the lower end camera line-up of BOTH Canon and Sony simply because the MAJORITY of end-users want a SINGLE device that can do EVERYTHING !!! And a 2/3rds inch 50.3 megapixel sensor with 10-to-16 bits per colour channel mated to computational photography software and FAST cpu chips IS MORE THAN CAPABLE of doing away with needing a separate camera and lower-end smartphone!

Why pay $799 for an M50 and $900 for a Samsung S10 when I can pay $1300 to get BOTH abilities in ONE SINGLE SMALL PACKAGE !!!
.
It's a NO BRAINER for the consumer!
.
 

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
452
49
No you won't see. If those small sensors were so great then they would be used in high end cameras already, and they are not. There is a reason for that. If you are interested in image quality a bigger sensor will always beat a small sensor. It has more light, it is less prone to artifacts such as CA and light scattering on the sensor and it allows for control of depth of field more readily without optical distortions.

A cell phone might replace a low end point and shoot on the market, but they will not replace higher end ILCs. There is simply no comparison when it comes to IQ and there never will be due to physics.
---

They already ARE being used in high-end cameras!

A Sony PXW series 4K camcorder starts at $25,000 US, so I would DEFINITELY say those are HIGH END cameras !!!


We have tons of these in stock for use in our aerospace/industrial videos because a decent shoulder mount 4K camcorder and good Fujinon Servo-Zoom is SO MUCH EASIER to do handheld and interview work with! Those 4K "handycams" are TOYS compared to a decent 2/3rds inch B4-mount camcorder! AND i've done LOTS of still photo/video frame grabs from these cameras! They're 60 fps and they can goto 1/2000th of a second using electronic shutter modes for the clearest action scene captures! Built-in ND's with viewfinder Waveform and Vectorscope monitors for monitoring my video makes these cameras a DREAM to use on-field or at ice level for BOTH video and stills capture!

Sony 2/3rd inch sensors are used in EVERY major broadcast system! In fact SONY IS KING when is comes to B4 Mount Shoulder-mount and fixed pedestal camcorders for Broadcast television sports and news gathering. I see NOTHING BUT 4k 2/3rds inch Sony and Panasonic at an average Premier League soccer game or NHL hockey game (and I've been ON the football field and ice level with the rest of the camera crew - we ALL use B4-mount 2/3rds inch cameras!)

There is NO TECHNICAL REASON WHY SONY CANNOT USE it's 4K/8K resolution 2/3rd inch sensors on a cell phone! The ONLY ISSUE is that the cell phone MUST be around 12mm thick to accommodate the focal plane issue inherent with that sensor size! With 12 mm to play with, If I was Sony, I would DEFINITELY be adding EXTRA Li-Ion battery cells to the empty space surround the 2/3rd inch image sensor assembly! More Battery, Bigger Sensor, more POWERFUL CPU chip --- What's Not To Like?

.
YEAH! If i'm doing long-form single-camera shoots, i'm using the Full Frame Canon C700 ... BUT .... the parent company paid $90,000+ CAN for a full setup for EACH of those cameras they bought! The lenses were more than the camera itself! Such high costs is why I say that 2/3rds inch sensor smartphones ARE A VERY BIG DEAL for the prosumer user and the budget and small-band filmmaker community!
.
It seems they are coming .... I didn't think they would come as early as 2019/2020 but it looks like the next 18 months is gonna be a GAME CHANGER for the flagship smartphone community who ALSO want BETTER stills and video imagery than what they are getting now!
.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,293
294
---

They already ARE being used in high-end cameras!

A Sony PXW series 4K camcorder starts at $25,000 US, so I would DEFINITELY say those are HIGH END cameras !!!


We have tons of these in stock for use in our aerospace/industrial videos because a decent shoulder mount 4K camcorder and good Fujinon Servo-Zoom is SO MUCH EASIER to do handheld and interview work with! Those 4K "handycams" are TOYS compared to a decent 2/3rds inch B4-mount camcorder! AND i've done LOTS of still photo/video frame grabs from these cameras! They're 60 fps and they can goto 1/2000th of a second using electronic shutter modes for the clearest action scene captures! Built-in ND's with viewfinder Waveform and Vectorscope monitors for monitoring my video makes these cameras a DREAM to use on-field or at ice level for BOTH video and stills capture!

Sony 2/3rd inch sensors are used in EVERY major broadcast system! In fact SONY IS KING when is comes to B4 Mount Shoulder-mount and fixed pedestal camcorders for Broadcast television sports and news gathering. I see NOTHING BUT 4k 2/3rds inch Sony and Panasonic at an average Premier League soccer game or NHL hockey game (and I've been ON the football field and ice level with the rest of the camera crew - we ALL use B4-mount 2/3rds inch cameras!)

There is NO TECHNICAL REASON WHY SONY CANNOT USE it's 4K/8K resolution 2/3rd inch sensors on a cell phone! The ONLY ISSUE is that the cell phone MUST be around 12mm thick to accommodate the focal plane issue inherent with that sensor size! With 12 mm to play with, If I was Sony, I would DEFINITELY be adding EXTRA Li-Ion battery cells to the empty space surround the 2/3rd inch image sensor assembly! More Battery, Bigger Sensor, more POWERFUL CPU chip --- What's Not To Like?

.
YEAH! If i'm doing long-form single-camera shoots, i'm using the Full Frame Canon C700 ... BUT .... the parent company paid $90,000+ CAN for a full setup for EACH of those cameras they bought! The lenses were more than the camera itself! Such high costs is why I say that 2/3rds inch sensor smartphones ARE A VERY BIG DEAL for the prosumer user and the budget and small-band filmmaker community!
.
It seems they are coming .... I didn't think they would come as early as 2019/2020 but it looks like the next 18 months is gonna be a GAME CHANGER for the flagship smartphone community who ALSO want BETTER stills and video imagery than what they are getting now!
.
Harry, how on earth you are going to cool this "assembly" down? rhetorical question though. you can't is the answer, unless you shoot at a sub-zero temperature.:ROFLMAO:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,738
3,033
He is promulgating the idea that 300mm is effectively 600mm on FF. It is that for field of view but it is not 600mm on for "reach" unless you are comparing a 20 mpx 4/3 sensor with a 20 mpx FF. You will get exactly the same resolution as a 32 mpx sensor on APS-C. A 375mm telephoto on a 7DII or a 5DSR will give the same resolution as 300mm on the EM1X. I would like the Pro Capture that the Olympus has. A 100-400mm II on a 5DSR has a similar weight to a 300mm f/4 on the EM1X and has the advantage of a full frame sensor, twice the field of view and spot centre focus to be set against the fast frame rate and Pro Capture of the EM1X. Some pros and amateurs would take the Olympus but I far prefer the Canon set up. YMMV.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,293
294
A genuine question: what an image taken with E1 MX at ISO 6400 would look like at pixel level? I am still a little unconvinced that micro 4/3 cameras can be good in low light​
 

raptor3x

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2012
554
44
State College, PA
whumber.com
A genuine question: what an image taken with E1 MX at ISO 6400 would look like at pixel level? I am still a little unconvinced that micro 4/3 cameras can be good in low light​
If we compare it to the 5DsR and 1DXii, at ISO 6400 pixel level it's actually slightly better than the 5DsR ISO 3200 at pixel level in the midtones but just a touch cleaner than the 1DXii at ISO 25600 in the midtones. It's actually one of the better sensors on a per area basis, but for low light shooting there still "no replacement for displacement" so to speak. It's really not a competitor to the FF 1DXii/D5/A9 sport cameras outside of excellent light conditions.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=olympus_em1x&attr13_2=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_3=canon_eos1dxii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=25600&attr126_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.049529346622369824&y=0.08774018595041329
 

raptor3x

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2012
554
44
State College, PA
whumber.com
He is promulgating the idea that 300mm is effectively 600mm on FF. It is that for field of view but it is not 600mm on for "reach" unless you are comparing a 20 mpx 4/3 sensor with a 20 mpx FF.
Depending on how you define reach it could be similar, but otherwise I agree that they're just two very different tools. At least he's not trying to sell the lens as a 600mm f/4 equivalent, it always bugs me when people try to mix and match the equivalent focal length with the actual aperture ratio to make the lens seem like it's something it isn't.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,738
3,033
If we compare it to the 5DsR and 1DXii, at ISO 6400 pixel level it's actually slightly better than the 5DsR ISO 3200 at pixel level in the midtones but just a touch cleaner than the 1DXii at ISO 25600 in the midtones. It's actually one of the better sensors on a per area basis, but for low light shooting there still "no replacement for displacement" so to speak. It's really not a competitor to the FF 1DXii/D5/A9 sport cameras outside of excellent light conditions.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_1=olympus_em1x&attr13_2=canon_eos5dsr&attr13_3=canon_eos1dxii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=3200&attr16_3=25600&attr126_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.049529346622369824&y=0.08774018595041329
The Olympus sensor is indeed very good for its size, remarkably so in fact. But, in the images you link to, that from the 5DSR is much larger than that from the EM1X, and downsizing the 5DSR image would greatly increase its relative S/N.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,738
3,033
Depending on how you define reach it could be similar, but otherwise I agree that they're just two very different tools. At least he's not trying to sell the lens as a 600mm f/4 equivalent, it always bugs me when people try to mix and match the equivalent focal length with the actual aperture ratio to make the lens seem like it's something it isn't.
Same here. I feel that they are being disingenuous. I had thought about getting an MFT for lightness but a quick calculation showed that I can achieve as much reach with similar weight APS-C or FF gear.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,083
404
Depending on how you define reach it could be similar, but otherwise I agree that they're just two very different tools. At least he's not trying to sell the lens as a 600mm f/4 equivalent, it always bugs me when people try to mix and match the equivalent focal length with the actual aperture ratio to make the lens seem like it's something it isn't.
I’d define reach similarly to focal length limited. “the ability to fill the frame with your subject.”
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,738
3,033
I’d define reach similarly to focal length limited. “the ability to fill the frame with your subject.”
Maybe for video, but not for stills. By your definition, a 7DII would have 1.6x the reach of a 5DSR with the same lens. But, you can crop the 5DSR image to be the same size as the 7DIIs with the same number of pixels on target. The 7DII and the 5DSR have the same resolution "reach" (apart from the AA-filter) as they have same size pixels within 1% (4.1/4.14 microns).