Canon releases financials and lays out advanced EOS R plans

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,912
847
I do agree with you of course but you also understand cramming more and more is not a endless excersize of benefits, at some point there is diminishing returns on resolution, you cant just say this resolution is bigger on this sensor so it must be better, lets have as many photosites as possible. It does also have drawbacks on action photography and iso.
Yes I get tech keeps improving, but that can only go so far. This seems a more all around camera and I'd intend to use it for BIF and Landscape, a tighter pixel count also means faster shutter needed. This was already evident with the 1dxii and the 5div, I needed higher shutter to stop very fast action. Imagine what I'll need for 45mp. Cropping for me does nothing if the shot is motion blurred. But I get what you're saying as well.
Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?

I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....
 
  • Like
Reactions: crazyrunner33

crazyrunner33

EOS RP
Nov 4, 2011
278
90
Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?

I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....
I agree with you. This is actually an old issue that's been discussed for ages.

It's really only an issue if you're viewing things at 1:1. If you magnify an image to 1:1 with a minimum shutter speed for a lower resolution sensor, you'll see some motion blur. That's fine for people who aren't pixel peepers, but to take advantage of the higher megapixels, you'd need to increase the shutter speed. In low light, that results in more noise.

This phenomenon is why newer phone sensors like the 48 megapixel Sony sensor use quad bayering. They can produce a sharp image in the day, but it changes to quad bayering(using 4 pixels for a single pixel before going into the normal debayer process) for lowlight to produce only 12 megapixels. The new 108 megapixel Samsung sensor will actually debayer down to 12 megapixels, this one is an extreme example, but I'm excited to see the results.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene

Juangrande

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2017
53
75
I am still amazed that they really plan to introduce 8k video! First, I couldn't believe it but it looks seriously that they will do it. Given the small bodys of such cameras their engineers must have found a smart way to cool the sensors extremely effectively. Or the camera allows only for short video takes in the 8k mode - but that's not Canon like. Respect, they really try to regain leadership, but this time against the Goliath Sony, not against Nikon like so many decades in the past.
I heard the new bodies will made from unobtainium and will incorporate improbability drives.
 

Juangrande

EOS T7i
Mar 6, 2017
53
75
It’s not just about cameras, it’s also about lenses.
You can’t use the same lenses on FF and MF cameras.
If you have the FF lenses do you think it make sense to switch to MF and start buying new lenses all over again?
Not to mention it’s about having a complete ecosystem. Many commercial photographers need different bodies for different purposes and are likely to have 3 or more different purpose camera bodies.
 

Drcampbellicu

EOS 80D
Jul 31, 2019
112
82
I really disagree
This isn’t meant to forum of canon yes men
canon slipped recently and only market share losses and negative customer feedback has lead to change

Im just tired of entitled people coming here telling the rest of us what canon should do for them, I"ve said it before, dont like it, there is plenty of other systems out there. I'm done responding, thank you
 

NiktoCan

I'm New Here
Jan 31, 2020
10
10
I definitely think this gives more credibility to the rumors of the R5. I am a Nikon mirrorless user that can wait to switch to Canon - if most of these rumors are true!
 
Jan 31, 2020
3
30
I was planning to buy a new camera this year... just didn't know which, now leaning heavily towards the R5 along with a few of those impressive-looking RF lenses.
 

DBounce

EOS M50
May 3, 2016
42
81
I owned the 1DXMK2 but sold it after acquiring the EOS R. While I did hang onto my EF glass, I also bought the RF trinity. The new RF glass is epic. Great glass. It’s been in need of a worthy body. That R5 looks like it could be the one. I am absolutely interested. I may pass the EOS R with 24-105 f4 on to my girl. I don’t use that lens after getting the trinity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mechanical_EYE

mpmark

EOS 80D
Aug 9, 2016
141
160
Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?

I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....
Good question, less pixels means larger pixels, larger pixels gather more light then smaller pixels, which equates to needing less exposure to capture the same frame with the same light gathering lens.

If you truely are interested in learning that resolkution is NOT EVERYTHING then read this. If youre looking to get to the point directly then skip to "
Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?

I realise that one need a faster shutter speed to compensate for a camera shake when you shoot a stationary subject. But fast motion..... if your shutter speed is already 1/2000 or higher, why do you need faster with 45Mp sensor? Call me dumb....
Movement transitions across pixel to pixel faster with smaller/more dense pixel arrangement vs larger & less dense arrangement. Thus a faster shutter speed is needed to stop that transition which results in blur.

take a cheetah moving across your frame, in essence its moving across your sensor, less pixes eg: one part of the cheetah during the exposure will move across 3-4 pixels lets say, but if you take the same shutter speed, same scene, same movement but more dense pixels in the same are you now have that movement across lets say 6-7 pixels because of the density of the higher resolution, which translates to higher blur. Yes if you normalize the images it probably wont make a difference but whats the point of higher resolution then in the first place.

You say yeah, if you ahve 1/2000 who cares right? the point is a slower shutter speed can be used with a less dense sensor to stop the same action. This is mainly why a 1dxii and iii is only 20mp
 
Jan 31, 2020
3
30
I owned the 1DXMK2 but sold it after acquiring the EOS R. While I did hang onto my EF glass, I also bought the RF trinity. The new RF glass is epic. Great glass. It’s been in need of a worthy body. That R5 looks like it could be the one. I am absolutely interested. I may pass the EOS R with 24-105 f4 on to my girl. I don’t use that lens after getting the trinity.

Yeah, after everything I've read/heard/seen about the RF glass, the trinity is what I'm after.
 

beachcolonist

EOS M50
Nov 22, 2017
27
6
N.E.
Sharing your opinion on what you'd like in a camera is fine, but where do you get these random figures from other than your own bias? Plenty shoot video on FF.
Haha, and what % is, "plenty"? I got my figure from conjecture, as is evident in the post posed as a question. What does plenty mean? Is that an excited variation on "some?"
 

SereneSpeed

EOS T7i
Feb 1, 2016
94
42
I do agree with you of course but you also understand cramming more and more is not a endless excersize of benefits, at some point there is diminishing returns on resolution, you cant just say this resolution is bigger on this sensor so it must be better, lets have as many photosites as possible. It does also have drawbacks on action photography and iso.
Yes I get tech keeps improving, but that can only go so far. This seems a more all around camera and I'd intend to use it for BIF and Landscape, a tighter pixel count also means faster shutter needed. This was already evident with the 1dxii and the 5div, I needed higher shutter to stop very fast action. Imagine what I'll need for 45mp. Cropping for me does nothing if the shot is motion blurred. But I get what you're saying as well.

My statement wasn’t a blanket statement. At some point there will be diminishing returns. Sure. But, the 7Dii has much greater pixel density and that’s not stopping anyone from shooting sports or BIF. That sensor is now years old, and Canon’s latest PR release mentions new sensor tech.

I think your issues with the 1Dxii and 5Div (probably - I’m assuming) have more to do with the fact you’re trying to gain ‘reach’ with a sensor instead of lenses. Instead of needing to crop BIF images, using longer focal lengths would spread that motion across more pixels and diminish the effects of shutter speed. Motion blur at the pixel level, as a result of higher resolution, is only visible at the pixel level.

And I agree with nearly everyone in the is thread, we have more pixels than we need for printing and viewing images. 50mp easily covers entire walls with detailed prints. But, that’s only if you are using the entire sensor.

I’ve been laughing since the day I picked up my first 5D4. There’s so much latitude in those files, it’s crazy. I’m now using my fourth of that sensor tech, four years later (albeit, in a pair of eos r’s, now) and I’m still impressed. I have complete faith in Canon’s ability to create a 45mp sensor with at least the same quality. Probably better quality.

Sure, growth for the sake of growth is overkill. But for myself, and a lot of my colleagues, this is still growth for the sake of user benefit. And further, future growth will still be beneficial. Not for all, but definitely for some.
 
Last edited:

mpmark

EOS 80D
Aug 9, 2016
141
160
My statement wasn’t a blanket statement. At some point there will be diminishing returns. Sure. But, the 7Dii has much greater pixel density and that’s not stopping anyone from shooting sports or BIF. That sensor is now years old, and Canon’s latest PR release mentions new sensor tech.

I think your issues with the 1Dxii and 5Div (probably - I’m assuming) have more to do with the fact you’re trying to gain ‘reach’ with a sensor instead of lenses. Instead of needing to crop BIF images, using longer focal lengths would spread that motion across more pixels and diminish the effects of shutter speed. Motion blur at the pixel level, as a result of higher resolution, is only visible at the pixel level.

And I agree with nearly everyone in the is thread, we have more pixels than we need for printing and viewing images. 50mp easily covers entire walls with detailed prints. But, that’s only if you are using the entire sensor.

I’ve been laughing since the day I picked up my first 5D4. There’s so much latitude in those files, it’s crazy. I’m now using my fourth of that sensor tech, four years later (albeit, in a pair of eos r’s, now) and I’m still impressed. I have complete faith in Canon’s ability to create a 45mp sensor with at least the same quality. Probably better quality.

Sure, growth for the sake of growth is overkill. But for myself, and a lot of my colleagues, this is still growth for the sake of user benefit. And further, future growth will still be beneficial. Not for all, but definitely for some.
Glad you mentioned the 7Dii, prime example of pixel density issues with BIF, the 5Div although loses "reach" due to crop has much improved contrast over the 7dii using the same lens for BIF, why? Because contrast is sharpness and the contrast is better on the 5Div vs the 7Dii beacuse of pixel density.

The 1dxii has even better contrast vs the 5div of BIF using the same lens again because of pixel density. You can shoot with the 7dii, yes the focal length may seem closer but when you normalize the 5div to the same size image the 5iv image will be sharper (more contrast) at the smae settings then the 7dii because of pixel density. In the end the image is nicer.
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
45
72
Houston
From page 14 of their slides here: https://global.canon/en/ir/conference/pdf/conf2019e-note.pdf
Canon captured a market share of 47% for DILC. Pretty impressive.

On a personal note, I hope Canon will release a few lightweight and cheap RF lenses... The 24-120 lens doesn't appear to be small...
The need for more affordable and above all compact lenses is there, and I would also suggest that some of the flagship new L lenses see some serious price adjustments if Canon wants to accelerate the switching to RF and attract more adopters. Just like the R body was selling OK at its initial price but started flying off the shelves once they took $500 off the tag, lenses like the RF 70-200 2.8 or 15-35 2.8 would probably sell in larger quantities at a price between $1,500 and $1,800. Pricing such glass at over $2,500 guarantees that only professionals and really well-heeled amateurs will purchase them, precluding any gains in production efficiency through larger production batches. When you compare the very recent, high quality EF 85mm 1.4 IS at $1,500 with the RF 1.2 at $2,699, something is not right with that picture.
 

Czardoom

EOS T7i
Jan 27, 2020
59
131
The need for more affordable and above all compact lenses is there, and I would also suggest that some of the flagship new L lenses see some serious price adjustments if Canon wants to accelerate the switching to RF and attract more adopters. Just like the R body was selling OK at its initial price but started flying off the shelves once they took $500 off the tag, lenses like the RF 70-200 2.8 or 15-35 2.8 would probably sell in larger quantities at a price between $1,500 and $1,800. Pricing such glass at over $2,500 guarantees that only professionals and really well-heeled amateurs will purchase them, precluding any gains in production efficiency through larger production batches. When you compare the very recent, high quality EF 85mm 1.4 IS at $1,500 with the RF 1.2 at $2,699, something is not right with that picture.
What's not right with the picture is that you are not comparing equivalent lenses. The EF 85 f/ 1.2 is priced at $1,999 and was as high as 2,199 in 2014. So, yes, the RF lens is more expensive than it's EF counterpart, but nowhere near as much as you try to make it seem.
 

Rivermist

Mirrorless or bust.
Apr 27, 2019
45
72
Houston
What's not right with the picture is that you are not comparing equivalent lenses. The EF 85 f/ 1.2 is priced at $1,999 and was as high as 2,199 in 2014. So, yes, the RF lens is more expensive than it's EF counterpart, but nowhere near as much as you try to make it seem.
What's not right with the picture is that you are not comparing equivalent lenses. The EF 85 f/ 1.2 is priced at $1,999 and was as high as 2,199 in 2014. So, yes, the RF lens is more expensive than it's EF counterpart, but nowhere near as much as you try to make it seem.
Thanks for the input, rest assured I am not trying to bash any brand or person (my first camera in 1970 was a Canon FTb, followed by F-1s, etc...). My point is that at this early stage of a new mount, it would help increase the customer base if the lenses were not so expensive off the bat. Like many I am taking losses selling off my EF inventory already, and of course there is for all practical purposes no second hand buy & sell or much in terms of refurbished RF. With modern design and manufacturing technologies, the new lenses should be the same price as the EF equivalents or (to accelerate uptake) somewhat cheaper. Once the R mount has a full range of bodies from RP to super-pro, and all focal lengths covered with normally-priced USM, f:4 L, f:2.8L and then some exotic primes or super-wide zooms, Canon can price as it sees fit. Case in point the EF 35mm f2.0 IS is $550 after a $50 savings while the RF 35mm f:1.8 IS is $499 without rebates.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
880
708
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Good question, less pixels means larger pixels, larger pixels gather more light then smaller pixels, which equates to needing less exposure to capture the same frame with the same light gathering lens.
Sorry, that's absolutely wrong. The required exposure doesn't depend on the pixel size.

Help me understand how 45mp sensor requires a faster shutter speed to stop a a very fast action?
Smaller pixels make motion blur more prominent so you may want to increase the shutter speed to reduce the blur when viewing 1:1.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Joules

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,649
633
UK
www.flickr.com
Sounds like Canon really decided to raise from their laurels and DO something, before they lose too much shares of the camera market to Sony. Good to know for all who have invested a lot in Canon gear.
The takeaway from what they said seems not to be 'we're losing market share to Sony', but 'the market is contracting and we want to offset lower sales with more profitable products'. How many times must we repeat - the idea there's been an exodus of Canon users to Sony just isn't borne out by the sales figures?