Canon confirms 8K capable EOS R camera in development

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,320
1,675
Canon keeps on pointing out the "features" of its adapters but I see them more as stop gap measures. Once the RF f/2.8 zooms are out and assuming they are superior to their EF counterparts, then who will buy EF lenses to adapt onto R bodies just to use a drop in filter? Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of having only 1 polarizer or 1 set of ND filters, but it's not natively part of the RF system. We'll be back to the front filter systems (i.e. Lee).
I would, for the TS-E 17/4L and the EF 11-24/4L. The front filtering options for those lenses are a massive PITA, the TS-E has no rear gel slot and though the 11-24 does have the rear slot, gel filters don’t deliver the best IQ and polarizing isn’t an option. Even if Canon delives RF versions of those lenses, it seems unlikely they’d replicate the rear CPL/ND option, doing so would defeat the claimed advantages of the RF’s shorter flange distance (incidentally, regarding your point #2, see this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-r’s-rf-mount-explained.36465/).

Granted, it’s a niche use case, but it’s one of the main reasons I’d consider getting an EOS R.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
1,087
294
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Why? 8K gives an uncropped 33MP image, if they have full sensor readout they only need to use a 34MP sensor.
Assuming you're talking about a still+video camera rather than a Cinema camera, and assuming Canon aren't going to do anything dumb like change the aspect ratio that we're all used to shooting with an 8K video capable camera would need to have a minimum resolution of 8000x6000 - or 48 megapixels.

So the ~50mpix suggestion wasn't really wrong.
 

Antono Refa

EOS 7D MK II
Mar 26, 2014
798
102
The Photo Gallery/ Print shop/ Custom Framing shop where I work/ essentially live handles prints in excess of 4ft x 8ft. We regularly print/ produce 4ft x 6ft canvas wraps and have done about 80 Acrylic Facemounts from 4ft x 5ft. to 4ft. x 8ft. We were looking at doing a 4ft x 18ft but are a bit held back by material sizes.
You're talking pixels, I was asking about pixels and high fps.
 

SereneSpeed

EOS T7i
Feb 1, 2016
78
22
Where is everyone getting their math from?

What have I gotten wrong?

8k is 16:9
8k is 7680x4320

I took the long side at 7680 (the only side that matters when upscaling to 3:2 ratio, right?) and multiplied it by 0.666 to get the '2' in the 3:2 ratio of our 35mm equivalent stills sensors. I got 5115. So a resolution of 7680x5115. That's the same aspect ratio of all our current sensors and 'contains' the aspect ratio for 8k at zero crop, right?

5115x7680=39283200, which is ~39.3 megapixels, no?

Definelty not saying I'm correct. But if I'm wrong, I'd love know where I made the mistake.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,320
1,675
Where is everyone getting their math from?

What have I gotten wrong?

8k is 16:9
8k is 7680x4320

I took the long side at 7680 (the only side that matters when upscaling to 3:2 ratio, right?) and multiplied it by 0.666 to get the '2' in the 3:2 ratio of our 35mm equivalent stills sensors. I got 5115. So a resolution of 7680x5115. That's the same aspect ratio of all our current sensors and 'contains' the aspect ratio for 8k at zero crop, right?

5115x7680=39283200, which is ~39.3 megapixels, no?

Definelty not saying I'm correct. But if I'm wrong, I'd love know where I made the mistake.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,564
641
119
I would, for the TS-E 17/4L and the EF 11-24/4L. The front filtering options for those lenses are a massive PITA, the TS-E has no rear gel slot and though the 11-24 does have the rear slot, gel filters don’t deliver the best IQ and polarizing isn’t an option. Even if Canon delives RF versions of those lenses, it seems unlikely they’d replicate the rear CPL/ND option, doing so would defeat the claimed advantages of the RF’s shorter flange distance (incidentally, regarding your point #2, see this: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-benefits-of-the-large-diameter-of-the-eos-r’s-rf-mount-explained.36465/).

Granted, it’s a niche use case, but it’s one of the main reasons I’d consider getting an EOS R.
Me too...

I have said the same thing several times here and own both the lenses you mention. For me the size weight and cost of an R body is justified simply on savings and use case for those two lenses, and filter use is the only reason I'm not leaning to getting a secondhand 5DSr.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,564
641
119
Assuming you're talking about a still+video camera rather than a Cinema camera, and assuming Canon aren't going to do anything dumb like change the aspect ratio that we're all used to shooting with an 8K video capable camera would need to have a minimum resolution of 8000x6000 - or 48 megapixels.

So the ~50mpix suggestion wasn't really wrong.
Well if 39 = >50 sure the comment was bang on track!
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
Where is everyone getting their math from?

What have I gotten wrong?

8k is 16:9
8k is 7680x4320

I took the long side at 7680 (the only side that matters when upscaling to 3:2 ratio, right?) and multiplied it by 0.666 to get the '2' in the 3:2 ratio of our 35mm equivalent stills sensors. I got 5115. So a resolution of 7680x5115. That's the same aspect ratio of all our current sensors and 'contains' the aspect ratio for 8k at zero crop, right?

5115x7680=39283200, which is ~39.3 megapixels, no?

Definelty not saying I'm correct. But if I'm wrong, I'd love know where I made the mistake.
Yes, Correct. 39.3 MP.
 
Aug 31, 2018
3
4
I think we all may be getting a little over excited about a missing comma here. Surely what he’s actually hinting at is an “8k, video capable camera.” The 8k surely refers to a high megapixel stills sensor that they will doubtless pull (heavily cropped) 4K from.
Christmas is over and sorry guys Santa’s not real.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,564
641
119
Code:
Max Resolution                       10 MP: 3680 x 2760
Video Format                         4096 x 2160p at ...
                                     3840 x 2160p at ...
                                     ....
What is supposed to be "awesome" here?
The way they use the sensor is very clever, you never get all of it but each aspect ratio uses the maximum number of pixels the lens mount will allow. It is the main reason the more expensive GH5 didn't get IBIS.

It was a real engineering solution and very clever.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,089
516
The way they use the sensor is very clever, you never get all of it but each aspect ratio uses the maximum number of pixels the lens mount will allow. It is the main reason the more expensive GH5 didn't get IBIS.

It was a real engineering solution and very clever.
So, they have a sensor that actually has more pixels than is needed for the job, but a part of those pixels is never used because the corners of the sensor are obscured by the mount?
 

Berowne

... they sparkle still the right Promethean fire.
Jun 7, 2014
242
85
I think, the most interesting part of the interview was not the 8k-video stuff, but rather the impression of some transparency in the answers of the Canon-People.

For instance the indirect admission, that there have been "challenges" (this reads as limitations) for further lens-development because of the restictions of the EF-Mount. The new RF 50/1.2 best proof of this. The emphasis which was put on the Mount-Development was also very interesting - and of course the adapter-development - and shows how immensly important the Mount-System is. Between the lines we could read very clearly, that the development of the EOS-Cinema line took all the resources for sensor developement. So this might change in the future and we can expect more innovations from Canon in the field of the sensor for still-photography.

And there are clear announcements: we can expect an entry-level body (pricing below the 6DII) in the near future and the holy trinity (2.8 zoom-lenses) is coming soon. A Pro-Level (1DX-like) is in "consideration". and there was no mention of a High-Pixel-Body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,564
641
119
So, they have a sensor that actually has more pixels than is needed for the job, but a part of those pixels is never used because the corners of the sensor are obscured by the mount?
Yes, it maximizes the format possibilities as opposed to a regular m4/3 that works like all other sensors with a simple crop. The maximum area that can be covered in any aspect ratio is used, as you go narrower it goes wider. Very cool engineering solution and means the actual area used off a m4/3 sensor is close to bigger sensors that are simple crops.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,564
641
119
Canon are having a hard time getting better sensors to market. Sony are having a hard time designing good lenses. Don't know if I'll call that a draw or a win for Canon...
What a complete load of bulls!t. Canon sensors are within a stop of the best sensors out there at most, at many iso points they best even the best, if you use the 5D MkIV dual pixel RAW files then they have more DR than any other 135 format sensor. Sony make some very good lenses, take a look at the LensRentals teardown of the Sony 400mm f2.8