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

[BeenThere]

And right now, Pentax is the only manufacturer (brand) with a wide range of existing lenses that would work. They even have the camera body. Just need a sensor...

As far as "cheaper to manufacture" lenses, look at the current DA Pentax lenses- which are NOT cheap, nor are they made in Japan even.

And....... a doubling of body and lens prices = a fairly small market.

 

[Don Haines]

And....... a doubling of body and lens prices = a fairly small market.

And portability! You think a 1DX2 is heavy, try hauling around a 4X5

 

[bokehmon22]

More bit depth does not in itself produce a wider dynamic range. Cutting the pie into more pieces does not make the pie bigger.

We shall see. If it's a Canon sensor, I would believe you but it's Sony.

 

[3kramd5]

We shall see. If it's a Canon sensor, I would believe you but it's Sony.

No we won’t. This sensor may have wider dynamic range than some other sensor, but it won’t be because of the precision. Similarly a beaker doesn’t have greater capacity simply because it has additional grading divisions.

Image sensor dynamic range is the ratio of full well capacity to the noise floor (defined as SNR=1). ADC precision doesn’t affect either.

 

[HarryFilm]

"....mage sensor dynamic range is the ratio of full well capacity to the noise floor (defined as SNR=1). ADC precision doesn’t affect either. ..."

---

ADC (Analog to Digital Converter) precision only has value in terms of number of gradations available for display on an output device. UNLESS your display supports the full 10, 12, 14 or 16-bits per colour channel range saved within your bitmap files, then ANY image you display simply won't have the colour and luminance fidelity of the original high-bandwidth capture devices (i.e. the display is not as good as your camera).

First thing is FIRST is when you shoot on a high-dynamic range cameras such as a 10-bit Panasonic GH5s! You SHOULD be doing all your editing and display on a 10-bit monitor! After that, you can output a final still photo or video in any 8-bits per channel or 10-bits per channel file format you so desire when you do your final export.

In terms of actual HARDWARE image sensor specifications, you should be looking at the UNDERLYING characteristics of the sensor itself such as finding out the following:

a) Underlying CMOS sensor substrate type and dopants added.
example: Certain models of Sony Exmor sensors use dopants that allow a greater well saturation within X-amount of time so more photons can be used to create a charge which can be counted and converted to a large integer value. This means certain additives within a CMOS sensor should be looked for in a product description because you can gather that more photons will convert to a measurable electron charge without extraneous "Shot Noise" from internal and external camera electronics "Contaminating" the electron count if those sensor additives are present. SOME manufacturers WILL tell you what dopants or substrate layer types are used.

b) Find a camera that has a sensor whose BASIC Signal-to-Noise ratio specification is HIGH! In the old days 65 DB (counted in Decibels) was considered a decent SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio). Nowadays 76, 78, 80 and even 84 to 96 DB are possible! The higher the number, the better because it means LESS shot noise from camera electronics and the local environment are able to contaminate the individual photosite photon counting and charge conversion.

c) In terms of the LEAST NOISE and CLEANEST looking image is actually the FUJI XT3 series and their much larger and more expensive Medium Format cameras.
It seems the Nikon D850 has the cleanest signal of the "More Affordable" still photo systems. Canon is in the middle throughout their range.

d) To REDUCE issues related to LIMITED DYNAMIC RANGE of any given sensor, (i.e. the ratio between the brightest and darkest areas in an image or scene)
SIMPLY ADD MORE LIGHT to your scene. Two or four extra light of even 500 lumens WILL allow you to recover MORE image information in post-production.
Soooo....buy an on-camera light or four lights on some stands! That's a LOT CHEAPER than buying a new camera!

In terms of Smartphones, the BEST lower-noise cameras are on the LG-V30, LG-V40, Asus Zenfone 3, 4 and 5, The Google Pixel-3 and the iPhone X.
You get the CLEAREST photos on the above. The HIGHER dynamic range smartphone cameras are on the Sony xPeria Z-series 4K premiums,
The iPhone-X, and the Huaweii P20.Those give you the greatest ability to shoot bright sunny days AND darkest nights and STILL get a viewable
image in BOTH the light areas (i.e. not too much clipping!) and Dark areas (i.e. not too much crushed blacks/shadows)

I would say the best all-rounder camera phones are the Apple iPhone-X and the Asus Zenfone 5 for a combination of image cleanliness (less noise) and higher dynamic range.

For DSLR/Mirrorless, your best bets are probably the Fuji XT3, the Nikon D850 and the Canon M50 in that order for a cost-per-performance ratio on image cleanliness, high dynamic range and low price! My PERSONAL preference is the Fuji XT3 for smallest size and highest clean-image performance for the least amount of money! For the absolute cleanest Image AND highest dynamic range in one camera, that is the Nikon D850 series BUT you WILL PAY for that privilege! For a Video Camera-centric DSLR, there is NO CONTEST, it's the Canon 1DxMk2 with its DPAF (Dual Pixel Autofocus) -- Good Video Has to be CLEAR and IN-FOCUS not Blurry! The Sony A7s2 isn't good enough for sports and action video even though it has the best low-light capability!

 

[danski0224]

And....... a doubling of body and lens prices = a fairly small market.

Difficult to say, right? Fuji seems to be doing OK with their digital mini-medium format camera and lenses.

There are a whole lot of old Pentax lenses out there that will cover a 645 sensor. Cheap.

All Pentax has to do is build one. They could stay with the same pixel size as the 645D, and I bet it would still sell like proverbial hotcakes. If it had an electronic shutter, live view and an EVF, and around $10k (or less), I might even get one, after adjusting to one kidney.

I am intrigued by the other medium format backs, but they will likely be forever out of reach financially for me. So is a $9k Canon 35mm format.

 

[mk0x55]

I really hope it’s not resolution for the sake of it. When the 5DSR was released I hired it alongside the D810 and always picked up the D810. You got a few less megapixels but the files were much cleaner. Better low light performance, better dynamic range and less noise.

The 5DIV was a step in the right direction and the sensor was much better than the 5DSR. Let’s hope the sensor holds up in areas other than just resolution.

Over 75 MP shall mean that Canon finally goes BSI (I can't see how they can make it otherwise). Will be interesting to see what sensors they use - their own or someone else's like Sony, Towerjazz or whatever. I just hope they will lift the DR to at least 14.x EVs instead of 12.x like on the 5DsR, although >75 MP on a 35mm might not quite allow such a lift.

Otherwise I agree - clean shadows are often important and for non-static scenes without great light control, the 5DsR is seldom the best choice. For static scenes, you can mean stack and achieve very clean output though.

 

[3kramd5]

Over 75 MP shall mean that Canon finally goes BSI (I can't see how they can make it otherwise).

They can easily make a >75MP full frame sensor which isn’t BSI.

This APS-H sensor is not BSI, is smaller than full frame, and has 60% more than 75MP.

 

[TAF]

"....More bit depth does not in itself produce a wider dynamic range. Cutting the pie into more pieces does not make the pie bigger....."

---

YOU HAVE HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON IT'S GLARING HEAD !!!!!

It's almost all about PHOTOSITE SIZE IN MICRONS!!!

The Canon 1DxMk2 is about 6.3 or 6.4 microns so it's image quality in terms of noise and low light capability is going to be pretty darn good! The Sony A7s2 has about an 11 to 12 micron photosite size, so IT'S low light ability is and DOES BLOW AWAY the 1DxMk2's! Now what SHOULD BE DONE in the camera industry, is that that manufacturers need to start getting into Medium Format sensor sizes STARTING at 56mm by 42mm at a MINIMUM of 30 megapixels (13.9 microns per photosite) up to 50 megapixels (6.8 microns per photosite) so you KEEP the high end low-light gathering power of the Canon 1DxMk1 and Sony A7s2 BUT get the increased resolution we so very much want these days. Lenses would be easier AND CHEAPER to manufacture AND we would get that beautiful Bokeh inherent to large image sensors!

IDEALLY, we should be moving into aspect ratio agnostic 70mm by 55mm sensors at 8192 by 6144 pixel image size (50.3 megapixels) which would give us an 8.5 micron photosite size which is probably what 99.9997 percent of us will find perfect-enough for BOTH day and night photography! That 70mm x 55mm and 4:3 aspect ratio can be cropped on just the vertical axis to ANY other aspect ratio we need for stills (3:2 and 4:3) and video (16:9 broadcast video or Cinema DCI 1.89:1). With that 50 megapixel we can EASILY use it for almost any stills and video purpose we want with enough LOW-NOISE and HIGH-END LIGHT GATHERING POWER that our imagery will be good for DECADES to come!

Soooooo, Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, Leica, Hasselblad, Phase One, etc how about getting 70mm by 55mm sensors at 8092 x 6144 pixels (4:3) onto YOUR cameras !!!!!

BRING IT ON BAAAAAABBEEEEEEEE !!!!!

I like where you're going; how about a 60x60 sensor and associated electronics that can conveniently be packaged into the removable backs found on Hasselblad, Rollei, Mamiya (maybe they need a 60x70?) etc.

(For less money than current approaches)

Then repackaged again for use on the Rollei TLR and other 120 film cameras.

 

[4fun]

I would only ever consider "Medium Format" if it has a sensor measuring not 1 mm less than 60mm x 60mm. And I'd also take 60x70mm.
44x33 is nothing but a cropped joke.

 

[dtaylor]

"It's almost all about PHOTOSITE SIZE IN MICRONS!!!

The Canon 1DxMk2 is about 6.3 or 6.4 microns so it's image quality in terms of noise and low light capability is going to be pretty darn good! The Sony A7s2 has about an 11 to 12 micron photosite size, so IT'S low light ability is and DOES BLOW AWAY the 1DxMk2's!

Nope. Pic related. At the same view size the A7s2 is soft and lacks detail, yet it doesn't really have less noise. Its noise is simply soft like the rest of the image. The color noise in these images disappears with default color NR (dpreview naturally turns this off) leaving the A7s2 at a severe disadvantage to the 1Dx2 and the 5Dsr at ISO 12800.

Typical reviews and online memes suggest the A7s2 is one of the best high ISO cameras. The same reviews and memes say the 5Dsr is "not a high ISO camera." I would rather work with a 5Dsr ISO 12,800 RAW file any day of the week.

As for extreme ISOs, the 1Dx2 and A7s2 show the same behavior through 409,600. The noise level is about the same but the noise is literally sharper on the 1Dx2, like the rest of the image. People tend to have an aversion to sharper noise while pixel peeping but at common view sizes the sharpness and detail stands out more than the noise. And the sharper, higher resolution image has more room for NR if the noise really bothers you. No matter how you slice it, the 1Dx2 is the better high ISO camera for stills. (Video can be another beast entirely depending on how the image is captured and scaled off the sensor.)

Since the introduction of gapless microlenses pixel size has not mattered for high ISO, given the same sensor size and level of technology.

DR should, in theory, be affected by pixel size. But in practice we're not seeing that. Some of the highest pixel density 35mm sensors are also the highest DR sensors, higher than MF offerings. And this has occurred not only with Sony's on-chip ADC sensors (Nikon D8x0 line, and now A7r3), but in the Canon line with off-chip ADC sensors. At introduction the 5Dsr was the highest DR Canon body until Canon's first on-chip ADC sensor bodies.

 

[3kramd5]

^ the images on the right don’t look “soft,” they look out of focus.

 

[scottkinfw]

After close to 1000 pictures with the R in the most adverse lighting conditions
there is only one pain point: It is too small for me. Grip and controls of the
5D MkIV are grievously missed.

If you like this camera, and your only complaint is that it is small, why not consider an L-Plate?

Really Right Stuff is rolling out a and Base-Plate and an L-Plate. This may be the thing to help you love your new camera.

I took the liberty of including a link:

http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/Canon-EOS-R?quantity=1&custcol36=1&custcol50=2

Scott

 

[dtaylor]

^ the images on the right don’t look “soft,” they look out of focus.

They're focused. They're just high ISO images pitting 12mp vs. 20mp and 50mp. Higher ISOs introduce softness, and when you scale down the higher rez files to the same view size it's game over.

I should also note that the image I uploaded appears larger than it does on the dpreview site. I think that's an artifact of me taking the screenshot on a 4k monitor and then the web site displaying it as if it's going to be on a HD monitor. Never the less, even at the "correct" sizing, the A7s2 is simply not as good at 12,800 as the 1Dx2 or the 5Ds/sr.

 

[stevelee]

They're focused. They're just high ISO images pitting 12mp vs. 20mp and 50mp. Higher ISOs introduce softness, and when you scale down the higher rez files to the same view size it's game over.

I should also note that the image I uploaded appears larger than it does on the dpreview site. I think that's an artifact of me taking the screenshot on a 4k monitor and then the web site displaying it as if it's going to be on a HD monitor. Never the less, even at the "correct" sizing, the A7s2 is simply not as good at 12,800 as the 1Dx2 or the 5Ds/sr.

All the pictures I post on this site are enlarged, so if I'm trying to make a point about sharpness, noise, whatever, that point is obscured by seeing the picture enlarged. Perhaps my mistake is resizing pictures to be a reasonable size. Maybe I should just post giant versions and the board wouldn't do that, but I haven't experimented to see. I have asked for guidelines and suggestions on optimum sizes for posting, but have never received a response.

 

[HarryFilm]

Nope. Pic related. At the same view size the A7s2 is soft and lacks detail, yet it doesn't really have less noise. Its noise is simply soft like the rest of the image. The color noise in these images disappears with default color NR (dpreview naturally turns this off) leaving the A7s2 at a severe disadvantage to the 1Dx2 and the 5Dsr at ISO 12800.

Typical reviews and online memes suggest the A7s2 is one of the best high ISO cameras. The same reviews and memes say the 5Dsr is "not a high ISO camera." I would rather work with a 5Dsr ISO 12,800 RAW file any day of the week.

As for extreme ISOs, the 1Dx2 and A7s2 show the same behavior through 409,600. The noise level is about the same but the noise is literally sharper on the 1Dx2, like the rest of the image. People tend to have an aversion to sharper noise while pixel peeping but at common view sizes the sharpness and detail stands out more than the noise. And the sharper, higher resolution image has more room for NR if the noise really bothers you. No matter how you slice it, the 1Dx2 is the better high ISO camera for stills. (Video can be another beast entirely depending on how the image is captured and scaled off the sensor.)

Since the introduction of gapless microlenses pixel size has not mattered for high ISO, given the same sensor size and level of technology.

DR should, in theory, be affected by pixel size. But in practice we're not seeing that. Some of the highest pixel density 35mm sensors are also the highest DR sensors, higher than MF offerings. And this has occurred not only with Sony's on-chip ADC sensors (Nikon D8x0 line, and now A7r3), but in the Canon line with off-chip ADC sensors. At introduction the 5Dsr was the highest DR Canon body until Canon's first on-chip ADC sensor bodies.

View attachment 181858

=====

In this case, you have given us truly DEMONSTRABLE EVIDENCE as noted above that the Sony A7s2 SHOULD NOT be used for Sports/Action photography due to it's inability to remain sharp at fast frame rates!

I personally don't remember the Sony A7s2 ever being that soft, but I should note I was using Zeiss Cinema glass for my Sony A7s2 shoots so LENS GLASS may be an issue here!
ISO-wise, I usually use it in really dark industrial setting, so noise is NOT a big deal to me, but rather sheer light gathering power at a given LOW light level was my primary concern.
I just needed to SEE the actual subject of my video and didn't care too much that it was a noisy image!

Again, I personally like the Canon 1DxMk2 as the best of the current range of DSLR's. I STILL SAY the Nikon D850 has the CLEANEST and BEST light gathering power at a decent price, so I say go with that one if CLEAN final image quality (less noise!) is what counts for you. For me, I need IN-FOCUS video and that means DPAF which means Canon......THAT IS......UNTIL NOW!!!!! ...... with my NEWEST GEAR which is a hundred steps BEYOND in terms of huge sensor low-light gathering power, high frame rates, high dynamic range, huge pixel counts and final super-clean, in-focus, image quality than what I have EVER USED BEFORE and which ALL OF YOU shall soon be able to get for yourselves! Hint Hint! Wink Wink! Nod Nod!

 

[3kramd5]

I should also note that the image I uploaded appears larger than it does on the dpreview site. I think that's an artifact of me taking the screenshot on a 4k monitor and then the web site displaying it as if it's going to be on a HD monitor.

Add to that I’m viewing it on a smartphone!

 

[Act444]

Think I stated in another thread but as an owner of both the 5D4 and 5DSR cameras, the basic difference is cleanliness (at high ISO) vs. detail. Unfortunately (at least within the Canon system) one can’t have both, so it comes down to which parameter the photographer values more. And it may depend on your shooting environment. I tried the 5DSR/24-70 2.8 II combo for the first time the other day and it was better than I expected- although not as crisp as the 35 or 85mm, at low ISO there was a clear increase in detail retention vs. using that same lens on the 5D4. Even at 6400, detail was greater (but images were far noisier as a result). Honestly although there were a few situations where a 5D4 may have fared better (especially at high ISO when I had to bring up shadows), overall I preferred the additional resolution and cropping power I had with the 5DS. Simply amazing how much I could crop into the image and still have a 30+ MP shot!

 

[Quackator]

If you like this camera, and your only complaint is that it is small, why not consider an L-Plate?

That would be mandatory, anyway. But it wouldn't generate
extra free manoeuvering space for my thumb on the back,
and it won't give me back the natural placement of index finger
and thumb on the control wheels.

The next R hopefully goes back to the proven ergonomics of the 5D MkIV.

 

[Nelu]

That would be mandatory, anyway. But it wouldn't generate
extra free manoeuvering space for my thumb on the back,
and it won't give me back the natural placement of index finger
and thumb on the control wheels.

The next R hopefully goes back to the proven ergonomics of the 5D MkIV.

Amen to that!
Nelu