Canon confirms 8K capable EOS R camera in development

Jethro

EOS R
Jul 14, 2018
252
126
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.
Also reassurance that DSLR development is going to continue and they will see what happens over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berowne

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
869
249
Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.
Ha!

I just bought a tv that has 4K capabilities. I have checked out some 4K content on Amazon Prime and Netflix and we couldn't tell the difference between it and 2K from our viewing distance.

I am sure 8K has its place, I am glad to hear Canon even talking about cutting edge technology, but 8K will not be a selling feature I desire.

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.
Me three. My transition to RF lenses will be gradual after I buy my first EOS-R. I simply have too much EF glass. I anticipate using my EF glass for probably 5-10 years before I transition over to RF lenses. The adapters are a very welcome feature and actually make it more likely that I buy an EOS-R body sooner than I would otherwise.
 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
480
518
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
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.
Your calculation is correct if ignoring the image circle. You can calculate in another way to find out what the the diameter of a circle that can enclose both a 16x9 image (7680x4320 pixels) and a 3x2 one. Using Pythagoras' Theorem, the diameter is roughly 8,812 pixels and the 3x2 image pixel size will be around 7332x4888 which is 35,838,816 or roughly 36 megapixels, if I am right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SereneSpeed
Mar 14, 2012
2,305
193
Ha!

I just bought a tv that has 4K capabilities. I have checked out some 4K content on Amazon Prime and Netflix and we couldn't tell the difference between it and 2K from our viewing distance.

...

Me three. My transition to RF lenses will be gradual after I buy my first EOS-R. I simply have too much EF glass. I anticipate using my EF glass for probably 5-10 years before I transition over to RF lenses. The adapters are a very welcome feature and actually make it more likely that I buy an EOS-R body sooner than I would otherwise.
I wonder how much of the difficulty in telling the difference between 2k/4k is due to the stream bit rate/quality. I have no experience with 4k content, but my blu-rays look a lot better than any video feed that I get from the cable provider because the feed is heavily compressed.

I thought my transition from EF to RF would be gradual, but it's happening faster than I anticipated. RF glass is really good, but I can't use it on my 5D4, and that's the rub. The most flexible kit is RF bodies with EF and RF glass. Just waiting for the 5D4 killer...
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

100

EOS 80D
Nov 9, 2013
182
8
Your calculation is correct if ignoring the image circle. You can calculate in another way to find out what the the diameter of a circle that can enclose both a 16x9 image (7680x4320 pixels) and a 3x2 one. Using Pythagoras' Theorem, the diameter is roughly 8,812 pixels and the 3x2 image pixel size will be around 7332x4888 which is 35,838,816 or roughly 36 megapixels, if I am right.
And how exactly do you get 4888 pixels from a sensor only 4320 pixels high?
 

Mr Majestyk

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2016
183
73
Of course it begs the question why, when they can’t and won’t offer decent 4K. 8K is so far from being a thing it’s ludicrous to jump on a bandwagon no wants to ride. Industry has lot the plot pushing this a market where 4K only has a toehold and the amount of 4k content is pathetic and processing is still requires very good hardware unless you like lots of long coffee breaks.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,619
2,105
Your calculation is correct if ignoring the image circle. You can calculate in another way to find out what the the diameter of a circle that can enclose both a 16x9 image (7680x4320 pixels) and a 3x2 one. Using Pythagoras' Theorem, the diameter is roughly 8,812 pixels and the 3x2 image pixel size will be around 7332x4888 which is 35,838,816 or roughly 36 megapixels, if I am right.
Huh? The image circle is defined by the EF lens specifications to be 43.2 mm. You can’t just change it to match the rectangle you want to inscribe within it. A 3:2 rectangle inscribed is 36x24mm. On the other hand, defining a diameter in terms of pixels is not logical, since those can have their size arbitrarily altered to fit the desired number into a sensor of a given size.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,419
798
Ha!

I just bought a tv that has 4K capabilities. I have checked out some 4K content on Amazon Prime and Netflix and we couldn't tell the difference between it and 2K from our viewing distance.
The photos that I posted on canonrumors looked much better then on my 2K monitor than they look now on my 4K monitor :(
 

100

EOS 80D
Nov 9, 2013
182
8
Of course it begs the question why, when they can’t and won’t offer decent 4K. 8K is so far from being a thing it’s ludicrous to jump on a bandwagon no wants to ride. Industry has lot the plot pushing this a market where 4K only has a toehold and the amount of 4k content is pathetic and processing is still requires very good hardware unless you like lots of long coffee breaks.
An 8k mirrorless camera in 2019 is sort of like a 4K EOS-1D C in 2013.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVPhoto
Mar 14, 2012
2,305
193
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.
Agree that it is niche. It is actually one reason why I broke down and got a filter system and sold the 16-35 f/4 IS (one reason at least) for the 16-35 f/2.8 III so that I can maintain the same filter ring size as the 24-70 (avoid step rings and interferences with hoods). It is also the reason why I tend to grab the 16-35 over other UWA options so often.

I know some people from this forum have had issues with Breakthrough, but I like their stuff, especially the dark CPL. That coupled with a tripod was sufficient for most waterfall shots and it was bright enough otherwise that I didn't have to constantly take on/off the filter.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,190
1,769
Canada
Really so where do I buy an 8K monitor or smart TV to watch the video from this camera. Being a 100% still shooter I wish they would make investments in better sensors than this Niche stuff.
We have a 16K monitor at work...... Canon is still playing catch-up :)
 

SereneSpeed

EOS T7i
Feb 1, 2016
87
29
[...] 8K is so far from being a thing it’s ludicrous to jump on a bandwagon no wants to ride. Industry has lot the plot pushing this a market where 4K only has a toehold and the amount of 4k content is pathetic and processing is still requires very good hardware unless you like lots of long coffee breaks.
I'm with you for the most part. I get paid almost regularly for minor video work alongside stills images. I never mention 4k and have never been asked for it. Thankfully, because my fast computer starts running like cold molasses at the mere mention of 4k.

But one thing to not be overlooked is amateurs who are now using the 5D4 and EOS R in 4k to grab stills images. I know people who do this and they're doing it right out of the camera. There may be more to 8k than just 'video' work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVPhoto

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
869
249
I wonder how much of the difficulty in telling the difference between 2k/4k is due to the stream bit rate/quality. I have no experience with 4k content, but my blu-rays look a lot better than any video feed that I get from the cable provider because the feed is heavily compressed.

I thought my transition from EF to RF would be gradual, but it's happening faster than I anticipated. RF glass is really good, but I can't use it on my 5D4, and that's the rub. The most flexible kit is RF bodies with EF and RF glass. Just waiting for the 5D4 killer...
I "cut the cord" last spring. The modern HD antenna provides a much better image than my cable provider did (Comcast). The difference being 1080P signal vs upscaled 720P signal (or 1080i). As I got very close, I could see the difference in the 4K tv, but I normally view it at about 10-12 ft. I think that is the issue.

I've seen different variations of this chart over the years, but the overall point is that you have to be close to see the benefit of higher resolutions:
1547077436767.png



My new TV is 55" and I view it at 10-12 ft. According to this chart, I would need to be 8 ft or less to really appreciate 4K.

As for the 5DIV vs the R. From a gear perspective, I get it. My problem, I really cannot think of a shot I am missing with my current kit (5DIV, 16-35 f/4, 24-70 II, 70-200 II, 50A, 100 L macro, 100-400 II, 500 II, etc). Wildlife, got it. Landscape, great. Portraits, 5DIV is beautiful, I could see maybe another prime....

So, just loving gear, I can see going with the R, face detect, etc. But taking pictures, I am pretty set for awhile. What has actually caught my eye is the Fuji 50R. :)
 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
480
518
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
And how exactly do you get 4888 pixels from a sensor only 4320 pixels high?
That is, you need a rectangular sensor that has the max of (7680x4320 pixels) and (7332x4888 pixels) which is (7680x4888 pixels).
It will be able to cover 8K (16x9 aspect ratio) video and 36 megapixel (3x2 aspect ratio) still image.
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
427
19
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Oh, Give me break!!:mad:

So wait...the company that CANT GET 4K RIGHT....is harping on 8k?:unsure:

...and you guys are excited?

BWAHAHHAAHHAAH :rolleyes:

Canon is the master of old and late...and now they are cooking something up that almost zero customers can realistically use.

I went by canons booth at B&H yesterday...cobwebs all over the booth, old and dusty camera bodies galore. But wait, they are still pushing the 5d4 for 3600 with lens. OMG LOLOL. I would love to upgrade my 5d3 to a mirrorless, but no chance in hell im putting a few grand on a 5d4 in its old age. AFMA? GTFO:confused:

i barely come to this site anymore because its always talking bout canon is planning in a year...who cares, nothing to see here. Boring company makes for a boring site. :cautious: