Canon EOS R body with more than 75mp on the horizon [CR2]

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,250
281
Davidson, NC
To be honest, I think 6DII is a great camera and your cat pictures are nice, but they don't really show 6dII advantages, same pictures could've been taken on a good phone, micro 4/3 or a crop camera. People will not think "wow, and those were taken with 6DII? wow..." :)
Think how detailed the whiskers could be from a 75MP camera!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ethanz

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,749
3,079
That's all true Alan, I'm well aware of the math behind it, note however the spatial resolution makes sense only when we take the whole system into account, i.e. camera+lens. In most cases, the lens is the limiting factor. Doubling the pixel count may not improve the actual spatial resolution by 1.414, there may be no improvement at all depending on the lens(es) you use. I wonder how many Canon lenses are able to resolve all actual 30Mp of 5DMkIV, for example.
Check the recent resolution tests by photozone.de (opticallimits.com). They now routinely do Canon FF MTFs on both a 5DSR and 21 mpx. Even an f/4 zoom is getting close to the extra 50% resolution http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1047-canon70200f4is2?start=1 The same is more true for the best wide aperture primes and to a good extent Even for the softer 150-600mm of lower aperture where diffraction is coming into play.
The cameras are still well within the sensor being the limiting factor for resolution, and not the lens,
 

addola

Sold my soul for a flippy screen
Nov 16, 2015
65
29
This depends on the sales of the current 5Ds & 5DsR. If it's not selling like hot cakes, then why introduce 75MP camera now? I am not against the idea, since high resolution has it's market, and Canon would eventually release the 5Ds/5DsR successors.

If I was Canon, I would focus more on bodies to compete with Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, & Fujifilm. So, I'd expect more of cameras towards high fps burst, and hybrid shooters (picture/video) than high megapixel.
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,058
329
Vancouver, BC
Now if I tell you that it would be nice if Canon made a dSLR as good as the Nikon D850, would you call that trolling? I don't think it is.
Having used a Nikon D850 for about a thousand shots (couple of half days), I really like the body. I don't think it's trolling at to want some of the D850 stuff. I too, wish that Canon had some of those features in a 5D series DSLR. On the other hand, I like some of the things that Canon does uniquely as well. I could just as easily ask, why can't Nikon (or Sony) put a flippy screen and DPAF into a DSLR, for instance? Why can't Nikon (or Sony) have tethering software that doesn't totally suck? Why can't Sony make a corded trigger that isn't a water/weather nightmare? Why does Sony have to make such a complicated, fragile, POS flash connector?

You get the idea. Anyways, having given the 6D2, 5D4, D850, A7R3, EOS R all a very fair shot, I have to say that at this very moment, the 6D2 is still my go to camera -- or an 80D -- because of the flippy screen and the remote shooting functions. I still prefer them over EOS R because a lot of my photography involves a lot of artificial lighting. My priorities aren't any more important than anyone else's though, and if someone else prefers the D850 or A7R3, all the power to them. Everyone should buy what they like, considering that they need. Probably, any of the cameras that are thousands of dollars, like you're talking about, are plenty capable to do any required task, but some cameras may produce slightly better results, or, importantly, do the task a more easily.

So, it's not trolling to want Canon to do some other good stuff that other camera manufacturers do. But I think it is unrealistic to want Canon -- or any other company -- to be at least as good at everything as everyone else while being superior in some ways. Just think about it. If that were so. Canon wouldn't have 50% of the market share... they'd have 100% of it.
 

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,285
193
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
@Talys: Good summary of the situation on the camera market (and maybe a lot other markets).

I have a hate-love-relationship to my Canon equipment but at the end it is to learn a camera / a system to get the images you want and while camera A has deficits here and camera B has it there ... at the end for ME it was the set of ~10 lenses which help me to stay with Canon. While not beeing 10 big whites they have been expensive enough and for some technical shooting as teacher, landscape/macro/nature photography and a little bit from other fields I do not need always the latest tech.

My last acquisitions are M50 + EF-M 32 and both together make a very profound camera which is easy to use, makes what I want and is very easy to carry around. It is good for 1m x 1.5m prints if I have done everything right but ... how many prints do I have of that size: close to zero!
So this entry level amateur camera with a good lens works for me who likes excellent IQ and at least good ergonomics.

If I would like to sell landscapes for 2x3m prints I would be happy to have an EOS M50Rs with an RF xyz mm 2.0 IS and I think it would be wise to produce such a camera. (With dual card slots, which are essential for such a large number of customers :)
 
Last edited:

mb66energy

EOS 6D MK II
Dec 18, 2011
1,285
193
Germany
www.MichaelBockhorst.de
This depends on the sales of the current 5Ds & 5DsR. If it's not selling like hot cakes, then why introduce 75MP camera now? I am not against the idea, since high resolution has it's market, and Canon would eventually release the 5Ds/5DsR successors.

If I was Canon, I would focus more on bodies to compete with Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, & Fujifilm. So, I'd expect more of cameras towards high fps burst, and hybrid shooters (picture/video) than high megapixel.
But what if Canon cannot compete? - I think that's the case in terms of frame rate due to the DPAF architecture and maybe some patents which avoid to make the sensor itself more "intelligent"!
If you cannot compete in the same field maybe it is a good idea to put effort in a field there DPAF is great and in my opinion DPAF has a unique feature: It is fast AND precise at the same time - not the fastest but maybe the AF system with the highest hit rate. This is essential for high res imagery.
Maybe they have to wait two or three years to use ideas that are then no longer patented? Maybe the same for IBIS?

If memory serves well Canon made (still makes?) the most money with office products, they sell semiconductor production machines, have medical products. Than there is the market for "Otto Normalverbraucher" market (Joe Citizen is maybe the equivalent) which makes lots of profit. And than there are those with the big whites who are important for advertising but maybe Canon has less profit on a 2.8 300 than on 5 low end powershots...
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
519
370
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Check the recent resolution tests by photozone.de (opticallimits.com). They now routinely do Canon FF MTFs on both a 5DSR and 21 mpx. Even an f/4 zoom is getting close to the extra 50% resolution http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/1047-canon70200f4is2?start=1 The same is more true for the best wide aperture primes and to a good extent Even for the softer 150-600mm of lower aperture where diffraction is coming into play.
The cameras are still well within the sensor being the limiting factor for resolution, and not the lens,
Yes that's the point, you need an L glass to get resolution improvement. Still, using data from your link, at 70mm f5.6
50Mp gives 4942
21Mp gives 3476
That's 1.42 times more. However for ideal spatial resolution, we'd have 50/21 * 1.44/2 = 1.71x. So instead of 71% increase in spatial resolution, we only get 42% (not even extra 50%). That's the lens being the limiting factor.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,749
3,079
Yes that's the point, you need an L glass to get resolution improvement. Still, using data from your link, at 70mm f5.6
50Mp gives 4942
21Mp gives 3476
That's 1.42 times more. However for ideal spatial resolution, we'd have 50/21 * 1.44/2 = 1.71x. So instead of 71% increase in spatial resolution, we only get 42% (not even extra 50%). That's the lens being the limiting factor.
Yes that's the point, you need an L glass to get resolution improvement. Still, using data from your link, at 70mm f5.6
50Mp gives 4942
21Mp gives 3476
That's 1.42 times more. However for ideal spatial resolution, we'd have 50/21 * 1.44/2 = 1.71x. So instead of 71% increase in spatial resolution, we only get 42% (not even extra 50%). That's the lens being the limiting factor.
The overall MTF of the sensor plus lens is a combination of the MTF value of the lens and and the MTF of the sensor. At one extreme, if the lens was very poor and the sensor of very high resolution, then the low MTF of the lens would be the limiting factor and increasing the resolution of the sensor would not increase the overall MTF. Conversely, if the lens outresolves the sensor, then increasing the resolution of the sensor will increase the overall MTF. In practice, for current sensors and lenses, the lenses are usually outresolving the sensors but both their MTFs make some contribution to the overall MTF. Here, in the example you quoted, there is a very significant increase in overall MTF on going from 21 mpx to 50mpx - if the lens were limiting, there would be no increase in MTF resolution whatsoever, but there is. The precise quantification is not as simple as your calculation as there are other factors coming in such as the effect of the Bayer grid and you won 't see the full effects of the increase because f/5.6 is close to the DLA of the 5DSR.

The interpretation of those photozone data is quite clear, there is a large increase in MTF on going from 21 to 50 mpx showing that sensor is largely the limiting factor but you don't expect the full increase because the resolution of the lens is beginning to intrude.

But, you also got the calculation wrong. The 21 mpx sensor has 6.4 µ pixels, the 50.6 has 4.14 and so the expected increase in spatial resolution is 6.4/4.14 = 1.54. That is not much more than the 1.42 measured.
 
Nov 24, 2018
8
5
We don't appreciate personal attacks on posters. If you have something of value to say just say it. Otherwise just go back to being an anonymous lurker.
Nothing anonymous. The whole thread is about 75mp and CANON providing a means to convert these mp to our perspective artform.
One would be totally naive to even think that Canon or any other manufacturer would give "everything ( including niceties) in a single budget bundle, without realizing what the bigger game plan is does show immaturity within the persons post.
75 mp might seem excessive to some and really " who cares" what others think. I know I don't "wish" Canon would do this or that seeing as Nikon had it. Big Picture see Hasselblad!
Canon sell great gear and with every new gen comes advantages and disadvantages but overall the tools rely on the tradesman! I will make 75 mp work for me
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,087
1,631
Irving, Texas
Don't need it. Somebody told me that my 20mp M4/3 camera puts the same number of pixels on target as an 80mp FF camera. Now that I know that I am hoping Canon will make a system with a 1/2 M43 sensor. I'll then have the equivalent of a 160mp monster! Smaller, lighter, less expensive snd millions are waiting for it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Talys

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,749
3,079
Don't need it. Somebody told me that my 20mp M4/3 camera puts the same number of pixels on target as an 80mp FF camera. Now that I know that I am hoping Canon will make a system with a 1/2 M43 sensor. I'll then have the equivalent of a 160mp monster! Smaller, lighter, less expensive snd millions are waiting for it.
An image filling a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor will have 20 mpx on target. The same image filling an 80 mpx FF sensor will have 80 mpx on target.

Your "somebody" is either numerically challenged or he/she meant something different. Maybe, it's that a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor has the same size of pixels as an 80 mpx FF. That means, though, there is no point in getting a 20 mpx M4/3 to gain extra resolution over a 80 mpx FF as the FF will have exactly the same resolving power with the same focal length of lens and twice the field of view as well as all of the advantages of FF. This isn't making a point for the sake of it - I went through the arguments of getting an Olympus OM-1 to gain extra reach with telephotos and did the calculations that it had hardly any edge over a 5DSR in resolution, and didn't have the range of fantastic Canon telephoto lenses.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,087
1,631
Irving, Texas
An image filling a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor will have 20 mpx on target. The same image filling an 80 mpx FF sensor will have 80 mpx on target.

Your "somebody" is either numerically challenged or he/she meant something different. Maybe, it's that a 20 mpx M4/3 sensor has the same size of pixels as an 80 mpx FF. That means, though, there is no point in getting a 20 mpx M4/3 to gain extra resolution over a 80 mpx FF as the FF will have exactly the same resolving power with the same focal length of lens and twice the field of view as well as all of the advantages of FF. This isn't making a point for the sake of it - I went through the arguments of getting an Olympus OM-1 to gain extra reach with telephotos and did the calculations that it had hardly any edge over a 5DSR in resolution, and didn't have the range of fantastic Canon telephoto lenses.
Yup!
 
Mar 17, 2014
6
1
Instead of jamming more pixels that are increasing insensitive to dynamic light range. Lets increase the overall dynamic range so that the spread from black to white has a lot more defined steps. Wow then we would see images that come closer to what the eye can see. It has been a long time since the true dynamic range of the cameras has increased to where it improves the image. But I guess if you so wrapped up in the PIXEL race you would ignore the area that could improve images significantly. I think with not a lot of effort a sensor with 36 bits of resolution could be produced.
 

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
I'm not tracking the people you see as offenders, meaning I don't know who is complaining both ways. But it is so easy to just lose patience and call those who don't share enthusiasm a troll. From what I understand, a troll is somebody who, perversely, posts in a forum for the sole purpose of angering reasonable forum members.

But what I'm reading in this thread, for the most part, is understandable frustration, skepticism, and concern. You might not agree with such sentiments, but people spending thousands of dollars, sometimes unwisely in terms of their own budgets, get emotional, cynical, and even bitter. If they are posting simply to express their feelings (and I'm seeing quite the surge in newer members since the EOS R was released), are we to just call them all trolls--without even engaging first to find out what their actual issues might be with a Canon releasing a 75 MP before, say, a best in class 40-50 MP? (Maybe Canon has discovered the Holy Grail of sensor tech, who knows?)

Now if I tell you that it would be nice if Canon made a dSLR as good as the Nikon D850, would you call that trolling? I don't think it is. Yes, Canon makes calculated, clear-eyed business decisions that have kept it the leader, but, as a customer, I can't help look at the competition and think to myself, I wish Canon made one like that. So, while I support the development of higher resolution bodies and lenses for those seeking such specifications, I'd also like to see Canon addressing the desires of many other photographers who, like myself, aren't seeking more MP at this time.

Is it rude to say, "Hey, what about me? My photography desires deserve priority!" while in a thread about rumored gear a member doesn't find appealing? In a way, yes, I'll grant you that, dak723. But it's an open forum with relaxed rules about staying on topic, and people react with their first thought, little filtering. I don't think it is helpful to just classify such posts as trolling, because, one, they are not, and two, it doesn't help the thread, the person posting, or the general feeling of goodwill that CR manages to maintain better than many other sites.

Just my opinion! :)
A well thought out response. I'm sorry that you took my comment so seriously. My point is merely that, no matter what Canon does, people complain. If you think that is what this forum is meant for, that's perfectly OK. I don't think that is what this forum (or any forum) is meant for and the constant complaining just makes people look ridiculous. My comment was meant as a generalization, nothing more.

Another point. When you ask, "Now if I tell you that it would be nice if Canon made a dSLR as good as the Nikon D850, would you call that trolling?" - no that is not trolling, but like most comments here, it is a rather meaningless question. "As good" - what is that supposed to mean? It is just a generalization meant to put down Canon in perhaps a more subtle way. Now, if you are saying that the Nikon is better than the Canon IN EVERY WAY, then your statement means something. Otherwise, you probably should be more specific. Do you mean the sensor DR? Noise? Color? Ergonomics? Touch screen? AF?

See what I mean?
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,145
1,079
Alberta, Canada
This is intriguing but as I see it, as much as I like to pixel peep and as much as I appreciate Alan's higher resolution images when they are cropped and show significant detail, my reality is this. Presently virtually no one I share photos with perceives they aren't super (assuming I have indeed taken care of the human aspects well). My audience is not made up of very many "Alans". If it were I'd be well aware of various failings.

At the moment, I do not print to huge sizes but if I did my perspective would change significantly - I'd be nuts about whatever gave me more resolution, both lens and sensor. I love one newer hospital where very large prints are on display but you can see the lack of resolution at closer viewing distances.

I do find myself FL limited quite often but suspect that my 400 X2 of L level glass is giving me close to an optimal old codger hand held experience (more than adequate physical exercise) so, as Alan has done, moving to a higher MP camera could benefit me and a second camera is on the horizon, probably in the R realm.

However, since making my choice of a 1DX2 with only 20 MP and after shooting with a 1D2 and a 1D4, I have come to realize that I simply love some of the 1 level features; who wouldn't. I dislike the somewhat excessive dimensions but mostly it's the weight. I'm impressed with how much sharpening can be done and how good higher ISO images are and I'm often forced into higher ISOs by fast shutter speeds with outdoor lighting. I love the video quality in spite of file size and so forth.

Which brings me to the point. I could have said it with out all this bla bla bla. We are still faced with trade offs. By switching cameras within brand or outside of Canon we are still faced with trade offs and some of them relate to physics and will remain. I can choose to be perpetually frustrated by perceived limitations to my photographic reality and constantly unhappy OR I can pinch myself in disbelief that I have equipment that far exceeds anything I could have dreamed of only a few years ago. One caveat; I'm not a pro in competition making money off this activity.

IOW, I can look at my plate or look across the isle at another person's plate or look at the plate of some poor refugee on the TV and choose to be dissatisfied or exceptionally thankful and blessed. I choose the latter for myself.;) Other folk have different perspectives and realities and that's fine.:)

Jack
 

ethanz

1DX II
Apr 12, 2016
1,059
304
ethanzentz.com
This is intriguing but as I see it, as much as I like to pixel peep and as much as I appreciate Alan's higher resolution images when they are cropped and show significant detail, my reality is this. Presently virtually no one I share photos with perceives they aren't super (assuming I have indeed taken care of the human aspects well). My audience is not made up of very many "Alans". If it were I'd be well aware of various failings.

At the moment, I do not print to huge sizes but if I did my perspective would change significantly - I'd be nuts about whatever gave me more resolution, both lens and sensor. I love one newer hospital where very large prints are on display but you can see the lack of resolution at closer viewing distances.

I do find myself FL limited quite often but suspect that my 400 X2 of L level glass is giving me close to an optimal old codger hand held experience (more than adequate physical exercise) so, as Alan has done, moving to a higher MP camera could benefit me and a second camera is on the horizon, probably in the R realm.

However, since making my choice of a 1DX2 with only 20 MP and after shooting with a 1D2 and a 1D4, I have come to realize that I simply love some of the 1 level features; who wouldn't. I dislike the somewhat excessive dimensions but mostly it's the weight. I'm impressed with how much sharpening can be done and how good higher ISO images are and I'm often forced into higher ISOs by fast shutter speeds with outdoor lighting. I love the video quality in spite of file size and so forth.

Which brings me to the point. I could have said it with out all this bla bla bla. We are still faced with trade offs. By switching cameras within brand or outside of Canon we are still faced with trade offs and some of them relate to physics and will remain. I can choose to be perpetually frustrated by perceived limitations to my photographic reality and constantly unhappy OR I can pinch myself in disbelief that I have equipment that far exceeds anything I could have dreamed of only a few years ago. One caveat; I'm not a pro in competition making money off this activity.

IOW, I can look at my plate or look across the isle at another person's plate or look at the plate of some poor refugee on the TV and choose to be dissatisfied or exceptionally thankful and blessed. I choose the latter for myself.;) Other folk have different perspectives and realities and that's fine.:)

Jack
TL;DR You're a fan boy

jk
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,146
1,673
Canada
I'm just a happy camper, counting my blessings. If more comes, great, otherwise life is good. I'm a fanboy of all the brands! :):)

Jack
I'm the same. I think Canon has the best glass and ergonomics, that Sony has the best sensors, that Panasonic is the most innovative, that Olympus is the most portable, and that Nikon makes the best P/S and bridge cameras. Right now, I sit in the Canon, Oly, and Nikon camps and they are all good!

I would love to see a camera combining all the best from everyone, but I also recognize that some desires are conflicting, such as the desire for low light ability (need FF cameras and big fast lenses) and portability (an Oly and a F6.3 lens). This is why we have such a huge amount of variation out there.....
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,749
3,079
I'm the same. I think Canon has the best glass and ergonomics, that Sony has the best sensors, that Panasonic is the most innovative, that Olympus is the most portable, and that Nikon makes the best P/S and bridge cameras. Right now, I sit in the Canon, Oly, and Nikon camps and they are all good!

I would love to see a camera combining all the best from everyone, but I also recognize that some desires are conflicting, such as the desire for low light ability (need FF cameras and big fast lenses) and portability (an Oly and a F6.3 lens). This is why we have such a huge amount of variation out there.....
The best "bridge" camera by a country mile, or maybe 10, is the Sony RX10IV. Its 24-600mm equivalent lens is simply incredible - it resolves at 600mm as well as does my 100-400mm II on my 5DIV and is really, really sharp at 24mm. And, it has the A9's AF system and can AF and AE at 24 fps in continuous AF mode. It is also about the same size as a 5D and is nice to hold.