EOS-R high resolution

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,635
2,142
A curved sensor would require specifically designed lenses. Although they could be substantially smaller than current designs, I doubt we’ll see anything like that given the recent spate of new RF lenses that have been released or are planned for release.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,235
4,130
A curved sensor would require specifically designed lenses. Although they could be substantially smaller than current designs, I doubt we’ll see anything like that given the recent spate of new RF lenses that have been released or are planned for release.
Would they have to oscillate around their focal point for IBIS rather than vibrate in a plane?
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,256
1,887
Canada
Only if you consider 80+ mp ground breaking. In most other respects it will probably mirror the EOS R.
I am expecting to see 83.2 Mpixels.

Just like the 20Mpixels of the 7D2 scales up to the 5Dsr, I would expect that a high density R camera would have the same pixel size as the 90D, and with a FF sensor we would have an 11,136 X 7,424 sensor, or 83.2 Mpixels
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
668
398
It will not be ground breaking. Nothing Canon ever does on the tech side of their cameras is ground breaking. They are slow and steady, and they release middle of the pack equipment, but with rock solid reliability because nothing makes it out for release until it's fully proven out.

I've resigned myself to the fact that no camera that Canon comes out with will blow my socks off. In fact it probably won't even match what Sony's got. But, it will be very reliable and work flawlessly, and that's important to me, so I grudgingly stick with them.
 

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
684
458
I am expecting to see 83.2 Mpixels.

Just like the 20Mpixels of the 7D2 scales up to the 5Dsr, I would expect that a high density R camera would have the same pixel size as the 90D, and with a FF sensor we would have an 11,136 X 7,424 sensor, or 83.2 Mpixels
That's effective Mpixels, right? The full sensor would be 88MPixels if the 90D one is scaled up.
 

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
684
708
It will not be ground breaking. Nothing Canon ever does on the tech side of their cameras is ground breaking. They are slow and steady, and they release middle of the pack equipment, but with rock solid reliability because nothing makes it out for release until it's fully proven out.

I've resigned myself to the fact that no camera that Canon comes out with will blow my socks off. In fact it probably won't even match what Sony's got. But, it will be very reliable and work flawlessly, and that's important to me, so I grudgingly stick with them.
What is ground-breaking about a Sony?
Is it ergonomics, color rendition, water leaking?
Yes, some specs are impressive, but they have an advance of a few Milc generations on Nikon and Canon.
I'm certain the next Canon "mirrorlesses" will be very convincing cameras.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,256
1,887
Canada
That's effective Mpixels, right? The full sensor would be 88MPixels if the 90D one is scaled up.
good point!

if they keep the same margin around the edge of the sensor, the effective pixels could be higher than 83.2 megapixels
 
What is ground-breaking about a Sony?
Is it ergonomics, color rendition, water leaking?
Yes, some specs are impressive, but they have an advance of a few Milc generations on Nikon and Canon.
I'm certain the next Canon "mirrorlesses" will be very convincing cameras.
Yeah I think so too. I see a lot of participants on workshops with Sony A7, Nikon, Fuji and Panasonic even but none of them are as 'convincing' as my EOS-R. The lcd screen on the R is miles ahead and image quality is superb especially with the RF lenses. More megapixels would be great so long as DR isn't suffering.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

koenkooi

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
684
458
good point!

if they keep the same margin around the edge of the sensor, the effective pixels could be higher than 83.2 megapixels
I looked at the 5Ds specs and it uses 97.44% of each side, which led me to an effective 83.6MPix. But I don't know how the 34.4MPix has been rounded, so it could very well be 83.2 instead of 83.6.
 

Kit Lens Jockey

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 12, 2016
668
398
What is ground-breaking about a Sony?
Is it ergonomics, color rendition, water leaking?
Yes, some specs are impressive, but they have an advance of a few Milc generations on Nikon and Canon.
I'm certain the next Canon "mirrorlesses" will be very convincing cameras.
Your post starts out by asking what's so great about Sony, and then immediately pivots over to admitting Sony is good, but making excuses about why Canon isn't as good.

The A9 can do 20fps with continuous autofocus and absolutely no blacking out or juddering in the EVF. The EOS R isn't even close. And yes I'm comparing the A9 to the R. The R is the best Canon currently has to offer, I don't care that it's cheaper than the A9. It's the best Canon currently has to offer us. I'd pay more for a better Canon mirrorless, but currently I can't.

Sony also has far more advanced autofocus technology than the Canon, even including face detection for animals at this point. Again, Canon does not have that, and it's widely held that the face/eye detect Canon does have isn't on the level of Sony.

Sony has pixel shift, giving you the possibility of effectively having photos of hundreds of megapixels when you're doing landscape or other still subject work. Canon has nothing like this.

Sony has had IBIS for a long time, which isn't really groundbreaking at this point, yet Canon is still lagging behind.



Listen, if you can't admit that technologically and feature-wise Sony is ahead of Canon, you're just playing yourself.



This doesn't mean that Canon makes a bad camera, or that it's even worse than Sony. I owned an A7 III for a little while. It had a lot of nice features, but I couldn't stand the menus, the way it felt in my hand, and the way it focused in very low light. I got rid of it, because at the end of the day it just wasn't a very good or efficient camera for me to use. I was missing shots because I was fumbling with the camera and/or it wouldn't grab focus in low light. So ultimately, Canon still makes a good camera. It doesn't have the features of the Sony, but its basic form and function is much better.

I truly don't understand this rabid defense of Canon in light of the fact that they lack the features and technology of Sony. Who cares? Just let Sony be ahead. Don't make a fool of yourself trying to say that Sony doesn't have any better features than Canon. Even if they do, it doesn't mean your Canon is any worse of a camera. In fact it does a lot of the basics better and more efficiently than Sony. And hopefully Sony will continue to push Canon to be better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beegee

canonmike

EOS 80D
Jan 5, 2013
126
58
What is ground-breaking about a Sony?
Is it ergonomics, color rendition, water leaking?
Yes, some specs are impressive, but they have an advance of a few Milc generations on Nikon and Canon.
I'm certain the next Canon "mirrorlesses" will be very convincing cameras.
Many of us out here in Canonland are hoping your last statement is so very true. Meanwhile, I have no problem with Sony, Fuji, Panasonic and whoever, pushing the boundaries of what they can produce, innovating where possible, giving us choices and hopefully, making us all better photographers.