Canon announces development of the EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera

slclick

135L
Dec 17, 2013
3,740
1,446
No. Don't forget that with the new RF mount capabilities, Canon has
started to put the big heavy glass to the back of the lens, resulting in
overall better balance and smaller filter threads.

If it is as good as the Sigma 135 ART but smaller, I might jump ship.
Until then, the 135 ART on any R camera is a stellar performer.
I'd love Sigma to make a longer ART macro, akin to the EF 180. So besides that the only other option is the IRIX 150 which gets mixed reviews. I'm not so sure that Canon HAS to make an RF macro at 100mm. Many other brands keep churning out 90 and 105. Lots of folks are happy at 60ish. We all have our own distances at which we like to shoot close up, just because I've always used 100 doesn't mean I might not like something else more.
 
Last edited:

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
106
83
No. Don't forget that with the new RF mount capabilities, Canon has
started to put the big heavy glass to the back of the lens, resulting in
overall better balance and smaller filter threads.

If it is as good as the Sigma 135 ART but smaller, I might jump ship.
Until then, the 135 ART on any R camera is a stellar performer.
No.
The very definition of the f/number is:
Take the focal length and divide by f-stop number and what you get is the diameter of the aperture. And the entry lens element must be at least as big as the aperture.
Example: 135 f/1.4 -> aperture diameter is 96mm
That is optics/physics law!
 

David_E

Macrophotography
Sep 12, 2019
53
66
www.flickr.com
Why the Fuss over 8K Video!?

Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Whether you believe you are the exception to the above or not, what are you producing with 4K or 8K video? What subjects are you shooting and where can I see your 4K or 8K videos or motion pictures? If you're shooting video, why aren't you using a video camera?

Anybody else anxious to see information from Canon on focus-tracking for still photography? That's what will tip me between Canon and Sony that can use my Canon glass.

I make the occasional short nature video for scientific and educational purposes using 1080p resolution. Satisfies the customer base, which is interested in sharp video and clarity of presentation above meaningless numbers.

My ideal R5 might not have video capability at all. If that saved a few $ and a few grams of mass, all the better. I'm also not hung up on still resolution as much some of you; I'm still selling pix from a 6MP Nikon D100. My ideal R5 would have no more than 7500 x 5000 resolution. The big thing is that it would have the best focus tracking on the planet—corner to corner—so that I could capture that insect in mid-flight at maybe 10 fps/20 fps. It would get a GPS lock as fast as my iPhone does.It would set its clock by the GPS signal. It would be able to access any WiFi network with the same ease as my iOS thingies do and transmit my photos to the Adobe cloud or other cloud of my choice from anywhere I have access to WiFi (understand that is coming with the image.canon cloud in the summer). The WiFi manuals for the 6D II and the 5D IV are 170 and 180 pages, respectively. Ludicrous! The WiFi "manual" for my home security cameras is ¼ page.

Now, let's see your 4K and 8K cinema masterpieces! No cats, please. Any subject.
 
Last edited:

Czardoom

EOS M50
Jan 27, 2020
26
52
The current EOS R was dead on arrival!

It simply does not compare to the others in its price range. Like the A7III. The Sony came with IBIS, dual slots, uncropped 4k and extensive lense range.

But it’s all relative, if the EOS R were $1300-$1400, then I’d say it’s priced correctly. To compete with higher end APS-C like the X-T3.

The people that bought it at +$2000 I weep for them. They were definitely drinking the Canon koolaid.

Hopefully with the EOS R6 we see them compete in that $2000 range better. And EOS R drops down in the $1400 range with the RP in the $1000 range.
I know I have answered a similar post before, but I think it is worth repeating. No need to weep for those like myself who bought the R. And really no need to insult us with your moronic "koolaid" comment.

You see, not everyone just reads the spec list. Each photographer will have some items that they care more about than others. And - perhaps more importantly, having specs does not mean the specs are worth having if they don't function well.

Not everyone needs IBIS. I own 3 lenses (one RF and two EF) lenses that I use with my R. 2 have IS and the 3rd lens is a wide angle that allows me to shoot at slow shutter speeds - especially as the R has a very good sensor at high ISOs. I have never taken a shot that needed IBIS with that lens and don't need it with the other 2. While 2 cards slots would always be preferred, I have no problem having 1. I have no interest whatsoever in 4K and - quite frankly, the Canon lens range is far more extensive and has far more older affordable lenses than Sony.

So, why would I say that the Canon R is not only competitive, but a better value than the Sony A7 III - at least for me and I'm sure others as well? It's not just because I had bought earlier versions of the A7 (by far the worst cameras I ever bought) but because: I prefer Canon's color. I prefer Canon's ergonomics (by a wide margin), I prefer Canon's EVF (other reviewers also consider it to be better). A fully articulating screen is a requirement for me to do my how-to art videos, the aforementioned Canon lens selection is not only larger but far superior (a common criticism of Sony lenses by pro reviewers is how many lenses are seriously decentered.). Sony also has a reputation for having a very poor dust removal system. And Canon's R has the "dust screen" - a simple but very useful spec. Add in Canon's reputation for having well made reliable products that are easier to use and get the shot.

So, aside from the 2 card slots, Canon has the A7 III beat in every category that I am most interested in and most need.

So, no need to weep for me. I purchased an excellent camera.
 

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
106
83
Why the Fuss over 8K Video!?

Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Whether you believe you are the exception to the above or not, what are you producing with 4K or 8K video? What subjects are you shooting and where can I see your 4K or 8K videos or motion pictures? If you're shooting video, why aren't you using a video camera?

Anybody else anxious to see information from Canon on focus-tracking for still photography? That's what will tip me between Canon and Sony that can use my Canon glass.

I make the occasional short nature video for scientific and educational purposes using 1080p resolution. Satisfies the customer base, which is interested in sharp video and clarity of presentation above meaningless numbers.

My ideal R5 might not have video capability at all. If that saved a few $ and a few grams of mass, all the better. I'm also not hung up on still resolution as much some of you; I'm still selling pix from a 6MP Nikon D100. My ideal R5 would have no more than 7500 x 5000 resolution. The big thing is that it would have the best focus tracking on the planet—corner to corner—so that I could capture that insect in mid-flight at maybe 10 fps/20 fps. It would get a GPS lock as fast as my iPhone does.It would set its clock by the GPS signal. It would be able to access any WiFi network with the same ease as my iOS thingies do and transmit my photos to the Adobe cloud or other cloud of my choice from anywhere I have access to WiFi (understand that is coming with the image.canon cloud in the summer). The WiFi manuals for the 6D II and the 5D IV are 170 and 180 pages, respectively. Ludicrous! The WiFi "manual" for my home security cameras is ¼ page.

Now, let's see your 4K and 8K cinema masterpieces! No cats, please.

I understand that one does not need 8k video (I do stills and dont bother about video either).
But there is a common mis-concept: If you want 20 fps (as you stated), the 8k come for free! Surprise? No ...
Here is why: 20fps at 45mp is roughly 900MB/s throughput i.e. read out speed from sensor. That is about same as 8k (approx 30mp) with 30 frames with also results in 900MB/s.
The rest is just processing power i.e. encoding. Given that one needs a fast processor for tracking etc anyway you have all the incredients for 8k video!
If you want it or not: You get 8k video for free when you have 20 fps on that 45mp sensor. And the argument to save some money with leaving out 8k is (unfortunately) not an option ...
 

Go Wild

EOS 80D
Dec 8, 2014
153
102
Why the Fuss over 8K Video!?

Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Whether you believe you are the exception to the above or not, what are you producing with 4K or 8K video? What subjects are you shooting and where can I see your 4K or 8K videos or motion pictures? If you're shooting video, why aren't you using a video camera?

Anybody else anxious to see information from Canon on focus-tracking for still photography? That's what will tip me between Canon and Sony that can use my Canon glass.

I make the occasional short nature video for scientific and educational purposes using 1080p resolution. Satisfies the customer base, which is interested in sharp video and clarity of presentation above meaningless numbers.

My ideal R5 might not have video capability at all. If that saved a few $ and a few grams of mass, all the better. I'm also not hung up on still resolution as much some of you; I'm still selling pix from a 6MP Nikon D100. My ideal R5 would have no more than 7500 x 5000 resolution. The big thing is that it would have the best focus tracking on the planet—corner to corner—so that I could capture that insect in mid-flight at maybe 10 fps/20 fps. It would get a GPS lock as fast as my iPhone does.It would set its clock by the GPS signal. It would be able to access any WiFi network with the same ease as my iOS thingies do and transmit my photos to the Adobe cloud or other cloud of my choice from anywhere I have access to WiFi (understand that is coming with the image.canon cloud in the summer). The WiFi manuals for the 6D II and the 5D IV are 170 and 180 pages, respectively. Ludicrous! The WiFi "manual" for my home security cameras is ¼ page.

Now, let's see your 4K and 8K cinema masterpieces! No cats, please. Any subject.
1 - Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Answer: You can read in hundreds of educational blogs or sites. Shooting in high resolution gives you more image quality. Even if you make a 1080p project, shooting in 4k and exporting in 1080 gives you more image quality. Also more hability to crop. Also more hability to zoom in, transforming a prime into a zoom lens. If 1080p is good for you....Well, good for you! ;)

2 - My last 3 jobs in video, they were filmed in 4k and delivered in 1080p and 4k. For the reason mentioned up and because nowadays the client asks for it. You can see a trailer of a 4k documentary in the link at the end. Can´t show you more, because i dont work for internet, I deliver films and documentaries for clients.

3 - focus-tracking for still photography is also important for video. In fact, this is one reason that we want so much to film with hybrid cameras. They give you the best of AF world. If you film wildlife AF is quite important to get great results. We are abandoning the times of MF in video and embracingthe great times of AF! ;) Focus-tracking for still photography will be great, Canon has a huge history in AF, leading the dual pixel AF world. So the R5 will be great, I have no doubts.

4 - 1080p is good for you? Ok, film in 1080p

5 - Same question over and over. The adition of filming capabilities doesn´t make a camera more expensive. Or at least much more expensive. If a camera can do both why the hell shouldn´t it??? Do you think the evolution of stills is getting slow because now cameras can record video? Really? You think that? Well, maybe is the other way around!
Your preferences are your own...I also have my owns....Others have other preferences. There is nos such thing as the perfect camera, and of course no manufacturer can do cameras for all tastes. I am extremely happy with the cameras I have and R5 will make me extremely happy after July! ;)

So here is a trailer i can show about my new documentary : Antarctica - At World´s End. If you have a 4k monitor, enjoy 4k! ;) Ohh... no cats! :D

 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,322
140
1 - Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Answer: You can read in hundreds of educational blogs or sites. Shooting in high resolution gives you more image quality. Even if you make a 1080p project, shooting in 4k and exporting in 1080 gives you more image quality. Also more hability to crop. Also more hability to zoom in, transforming a prime into a zoom lens. If 1080p is good for you....Well, good for you! ;)

2 - My last 3 jobs in video, they were filmed in 4k and delivered in 1080p and 4k. For the reason mentioned up and because nowadays the client asks for it. You can see a trailer of a 4k documentary in the link at the end. Can´t show you more, because i dont work for internet, I deliver films and documentaries for clients.

3 - focus-tracking for still photography is also important for video. In fact, this is one reason that we want so much to film with hybrid cameras. They give you the best of AF world. If you film wildlife AF is quite important to get great results. We are abandoning the times of MF in video and embracingthe great times of AF! ;) Focus-tracking for still photography will be great, Canon has a huge history in AF, leading the dual pixel AF world. So the R5 will be great, I have no doubts.

4 - 1080p is good for you? Ok, film in 1080p

5 - Same question over and over. The adition of filming capabilities doesn´t make a camera more expensive. Or at least much more expensive. If a camera can do both why the hell shouldn´t it??? Do you think the evolution of stills is getting slow because now cameras can record video? Really? You think that? Well, maybe is the other way around!
Your preferences are your own...I also have my owns....Others have other preferences. There is nos such thing as the perfect camera, and of course no manufacturer can do cameras for all tastes. I am extremely happy with the cameras I have and R5 will make me extremely happy after July! ;)

So here is a trailer i can show about my new documentary : Antarctica - At World´s End. If you have a 4k monitor, enjoy 4k! ;) Ohh... no cats! :D

Awesome. And you are 100% right about 4k. I would not shoot even a simple thing like a training video on 1080. It has to be 4k!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Wild

Max C

Canon 60D
Feb 9, 2020
25
49
I know I have answered a similar post before, but I think it is worth repeating. No need to weep for those like myself who bought the R. And really no need to insult us with your moronic "koolaid" comment.

You see, not everyone just reads the spec list. Each photographer will have some items that they care more about than others. And - perhaps more importantly, having specs does not mean the specs are worth having if they don't function well.

Not everyone needs IBIS. I own 3 lenses (one RF and two EF) lenses that I use with my R. 2 have IS and the 3rd lens is a wide angle that allows me to shoot at slow shutter speeds - especially as the R has a very good sensor at high ISOs. I have never taken a shot that needed IBIS with that lens and don't need it with the other 2. While 2 cards slots would always be preferred, I have no problem having 1. I have no interest whatsoever in 4K and - quite frankly, the Canon lens range is far more extensive and has far more older affordable lenses than Sony.

So, why would I say that the Canon R is not only competitive, but a better value than the Sony A7 III - at least for me and I'm sure others as well? It's not just because I had bought earlier versions of the A7 (by far the worst cameras I ever bought) but because: I prefer Canon's color. I prefer Canon's ergonomics (by a wide margin), I prefer Canon's EVF (other reviewers also consider it to be better). A fully articulating screen is a requirement for me to do my how-to art videos, the aforementioned Canon lens selection is not only larger but far superior (a common criticism of Sony lenses by pro reviewers is how many lenses are seriously decentered.). Sony also has a reputation for having a very poor dust removal system. And Canon's R has the "dust screen" - a simple but very useful spec. Add in Canon's reputation for having well made reliable products that are easier to use and get the shot.

So, aside from the 2 card slots, Canon has the A7 III beat in every category that I am most interested in and most need.

So, no need to weep for me. I purchased an excellent camera.
Enjoy your EOS R. I’ll enjoy my EOS R6.
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,322
140
Why the Fuss over 8K Video!?

Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Whether you believe you are the exception to the above or not, what are you producing with 4K or 8K video? What subjects are you shooting and where can I see your 4K or 8K videos or motion pictures? If you're shooting video, why aren't you using a video camera?

Anybody else anxious to see information from Canon on focus-tracking for still photography? That's what will tip me between Canon and Sony that can use my Canon glass.

I make the occasional short nature video for scientific and educational purposes using 1080p resolution. Satisfies the customer base, which is interested in sharp video and clarity of presentation above meaningless numbers.

My ideal R5 might not have video capability at all. If that saved a few $ and a few grams of mass, all the better. I'm also not hung up on still resolution as much some of you; I'm still selling pix from a 6MP Nikon D100. My ideal R5 would have no more than 7500 x 5000 resolution. The big thing is that it would have the best focus tracking on the planet—corner to corner—so that I could capture that insect in mid-flight at maybe 10 fps/20 fps. It would get a GPS lock as fast as my iPhone does.It would set its clock by the GPS signal. It would be able to access any WiFi network with the same ease as my iOS thingies do and transmit my photos to the Adobe cloud or other cloud of my choice from anywhere I have access to WiFi (understand that is coming with the image.canon cloud in the summer). The WiFi manuals for the 6D II and the 5D IV are 170 and 180 pages, respectively. Ludicrous! The WiFi "manual" for my home security cameras is ¼ page.

Now, let's see your 4K and 8K cinema masterpieces! No cats, please. Any subject.
These ARE video cameras for people who want to use them like that!!!!
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,301
1,294
Alberta, Canada
1 - Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Answer: You can read in hundreds of educational blogs or sites. Shooting in high resolution gives you more image quality. Even if you make a 1080p project, shooting in 4k and exporting in 1080 gives you more image quality. Also more hability to crop. Also more hability to zoom in, transforming a prime into a zoom lens. If 1080p is good for you....Well, good for you! ;)

2 - My last 3 jobs in video, they were filmed in 4k and delivered in 1080p and 4k. For the reason mentioned up and because nowadays the client asks for it. You can see a trailer of a 4k documentary in the link at the end. Can´t show you more, because i dont work for internet, I deliver films and documentaries for clients.

3 - focus-tracking for still photography is also important for video. In fact, this is one reason that we want so much to film with hybrid cameras. They give you the best of AF world. If you film wildlife AF is quite important to get great results. We are abandoning the times of MF in video and embracingthe great times of AF! ;) Focus-tracking for still photography will be great, Canon has a huge history in AF, leading the dual pixel AF world. So the R5 will be great, I have no doubts.

4 - 1080p is good for you? Ok, film in 1080p

5 - Same question over and over. The adition of filming capabilities doesn´t make a camera more expensive. Or at least much more expensive. If a camera can do both why the hell shouldn´t it??? Do you think the evolution of stills is getting slow because now cameras can record video? Really? You think that? Well, maybe is the other way around!
Your preferences are your own...I also have my owns....Others have other preferences. There is nos such thing as the perfect camera, and of course no manufacturer can do cameras for all tastes. I am extremely happy with the cameras I have and R5 will make me extremely happy after July! ;)

So here is a trailer i can show about my new documentary : Antarctica - At World´s End. If you have a 4k monitor, enjoy 4k! ;) Ohh... no cats! :D

Great reply and great video. I doubt it'll do much good though ... well maybe it might convince a few.

Jack
 
  • Like
Reactions: Go Wild

David_E

Macrophotography
Sep 12, 2019
53
66
www.flickr.com
So here is a trailer i can show about my new documentary : Antarctica - At World´s End. If you have a 4k monitor, enjoy 4k! ;) Ohh... no cats! :D
Yes, very nice. Location, location, location. Video quality is every bit as good as 1080p when seen on my 5K 27” iMac at a distance of ~6-8 feet.
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
600
652
www.instagram.com
With that said the 16-35 f/4L IS is an amazing value. It may not be your coma wonder or low light beast but it is a great all rounder wide zoom with negligible vignetting and fantastic color/contrast. I use it with a 100mm filter system and it's a champ. I would hope Canon does something like it for RF one day.
That thing is a workhorse for me. It's earned it's keep 10 times over. It will be a bitter sweet day if I ever sell it in favor of that tasty looking RF15-35.
 
  • Like
Reactions: slclick

ahsanford

Particular Member
Aug 16, 2012
8,441
1,266
I'd love Sigma to make a longer ART macro, akin to the EF 180. So besides that the only other option is the IRIS 150 which gets mixed reviews. I'm not so sure that Canon HAS to make an RF macro at 100mm. Many other brands keep churning out 90 and 105. Lots of folks are happy at 60ish. We all have our own distances at which we like to shoot close up, just because I've always used 100 doesn't mean I might not like something else more.

I strangely feel Sigma or Tamron is more likely to give us a new longer than 100 macro than Canon will.

I appreciate the value of the 180L, but I have never seen one in the field in my entire life.

- A
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

AEWest

EOS T7i
Jan 30, 2020
64
54
1 - Given that tests reveal that most people can't distinguish between 1080P and 4K at normal viewing distances, why so much fuss here over 8K in what is essentially a still camera?

Answer: You can read in hundreds of educational blogs or sites. Shooting in high resolution gives you more image quality. Even if you make a 1080p project, shooting in 4k and exporting in 1080 gives you more image quality. Also more hability to crop. Also more hability to zoom in, transforming a prime into a zoom lens. If 1080p is good for you....Well, good for you! ;)

2 - My last 3 jobs in video, they were filmed in 4k and delivered in 1080p and 4k. For the reason mentioned up and because nowadays the client asks for it. You can see a trailer of a 4k documentary in the link at the end. Can´t show you more, because i dont work for internet, I deliver films and documentaries for clients.

3 - focus-tracking for still photography is also important for video. In fact, this is one reason that we want so much to film with hybrid cameras. They give you the best of AF world. If you film wildlife AF is quite important to get great results. We are abandoning the times of MF in video and embracingthe great times of AF! ;) Focus-tracking for still photography will be great, Canon has a huge history in AF, leading the dual pixel AF world. So the R5 will be great, I have no doubts.

4 - 1080p is good for you? Ok, film in 1080p

5 - Same question over and over. The adition of filming capabilities doesn´t make a camera more expensive. Or at least much more expensive. If a camera can do both why the hell shouldn´t it??? Do you think the evolution of stills is getting slow because now cameras can record video? Really? You think that? Well, maybe is the other way around!
Your preferences are your own...I also have my owns....Others have other preferences. There is nos such thing as the perfect camera, and of course no manufacturer can do cameras for all tastes. I am extremely happy with the cameras I have and R5 will make me extremely happy after July! ;)

So here is a trailer i can show about my new documentary : Antarctica - At World´s End. If you have a 4k monitor, enjoy 4k! ;) Ohh... no cats! :D

Another reason to include high spec video on a still camera is to help consolidate the number of camera models by Canon. Sure some would prefer less video features if it were less costly.

But Canon would prefer to have a capable jack-of-all-trades R5 that covers the needs of the vast majority of pros. Much better for the bean counters in a shrinking market.
 

HarryFilm

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 6, 2016
512
69
You also need to account for the desire for both dimensions in the 3:2 still images to be divisible by 8 for efficient JPEG compression.
True! I should also note this R5 camera will LIKELY have HEIF (High Efficiency Image File) format which can get down to 4x4 pixels for the DCT (Discrete Cosine Transform) blocks so that means the actual resolution can be a multiple of four. I did notice on internal RAW images that Canon TENDS to simply duplicate pixels on the edges to bring the resolution up to integer sizes. Again, I am pretty sure the TRUE native resolution of the sensor itself probably means it will have an extra 60 to 120 pixels on the vertical and/or horizontal axis used for internal black-levels and sensor noise calibration purposes.

---

I should ALSO NOTE Canon is NO STRANGER to high performance high pixel count sensors having made a 25,700 x 17,142 pixels 200+ mm super-sensor in 2009/2010, which would be a 440 Megapixel sensor + plus add extra calibration pixels to make it 448 megapixels -- So they KNOW how to make BIG SENSORS !!! And this sensor was from 2009/2010, so who knows what they've got in their labs NOW in the year 2020?!

Here is the original "TechNews Daily" magazine article for this sensor which is now being used in Satellite imaging:

MSNBC TECHNEWS DAILY: (2010)

Canon image sensor may redefine photography

updated 9/12/2010 3:33:41 PM ET

-Camera maker Canon recently announced what is by far the largest CMOS image sensor ever made, measuring 202mm x 205mm (8 inches x 8.1 inches). To put that in perspective, that's about 40 times the size (by sensor area) of Canon's next-largest CMOS sensor, the 35mm-sized (36mm x 24mm) sensor in the top-line Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III and EOS 5D Mark II digital SLRs. It's hundreds to thousands of times larger than the sensors typically used in point-and-shoot consumer still and video cameras.

The giant new sensor is also extremely sensitive and capable of extremely fast read-outs, which in turn allows it to shoot video images at high frame rates in very low light. Canon claims the ability to shoot video at 60 frames per second at light levels of 0.3 lux, which means it could easily shoot very good quality, extremely high resolution video in very low light.

But...why?

So, other than bragging rights, what could be the reason for building such an enormous image sensor? What would be the use?

It turns out there are endless uses for a sensor like this. Though Canon has not released the pixel count, it will obviously be capable extremely high image resolution. If it uses a pixel size of 9 microns x 9 microns (9 thousandths of a millimeter square — pure speculation at this point, but a typical pixel size for a professional digital camera) it would mean the new Canon sensor would be able to deliver approximately 488 megapixels per frame, far larger than any other previous single sensor.

That kind of resolution means, for instance, that a photo with this sensor encompassing all 102 stories of the Empire State building would be so detailed that one could make out the faces of every person looking out every window. (Each pixel would cover an area of 16mm x 16mm, or 2/3" x 2/3".) And because the new Canon sensor also boasts very high (0.3 lux) sensitivity and very high (60 frame per second) frame rates, it could show those faces in real time on high-speed video. By moonlight.

Nothing even near that kind of resolution and capability has ever been possible with any previous image sensor.

Don't wait for the pocket camera! According to Canon, the limitation on the size of this sensor is that CMOS silicon wafers (the thin silicon-based disks of which computer chips are made) are currently not large enough to make CMOS sensors any larger. And because that greatly limits the production of sensors like this, the cost of these sensors will always be very, very high, quite possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars each. Adding to the cost of a camera for this sensor will be the optics required to make use of it. The very large, extremely high quality optical elements required to use the full resolution of the
sensor could easily cost more and take longer to make than the sensor and support electronics. So cameras using this sensor are not likely ever to be produced in large numbers.

So who will use them?

Use of these sensors will likely be limited to scientific, military, or other specialized applications where such costs can be justified. Astronomers will likely be among the first to use them as sensors for sky surveys where the requirement is for a sensor that can cover a relatively large area of sky while still maintaining high resolution. Aerial mapping, forest and geological surveys, sky surveillance, ground-based satellite tracking, and other such very specialized uses will likely be where these sensors are used, though one can't help wondering what kind of cityscapes, landscapes, and high-resolution movies could be
made with something like this.

But even if they're never available in large numbers, this breakthrough image sensor is likely to redefine what's possible in many forms of imaging. And because the nature of digital electronics is that prices are driven ever downward, it will also likely lead to much improved sensors and technology, potentially all the way down to popular commercial and even personal cameras, making it a very significant breakthrough indeed.

----
 

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
357
240
I'd love Sigma to make a longer ART macro, akin to the EF 180. So besides that the only other option is the IRIS 150 which gets mixed reviews. I'm not so sure that Canon HAS to make an RF macro at 100mm. Many other brands keep churning out 90 and 105. Lots of folks are happy at 60ish. We all have our own distances at which we like to shoot close up, just because I've always used 100 doesn't mean I might not like something else more.
The Laowa 100mm 2x is about to be released in RF mount in March. The EF mount version (which was on deep discount when I bought it!) didn't work properly on my EOS R so I returned it, so I'll have another try at the RF version when it arrives. I have hopes for it.
 

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
357
240
Enjoy your EOS R. I’ll enjoy my EOS R6.
Well, many of us have been enjoying our EOS Rs since late 2018. Once we see the new models, with full specs, reviews, price reductions after the initial rush-to-buy etc, some of us will likely (over time) move on to them. In the meantime (and the wait for the R6 will take some time) we'll continue to enjoy our EOS Rs. And thanks for your affirmation of our choices. It means so much to us.;)