High megapixel EOS R series camera in testing [CR2]

[Sporgon]

A 324 Megapixel file? Crazy clients. Do they really pint a 10x10 foot print at 150dpi? Who can print that? And why?

It would be printed in sections, but in terms of requiring that file size I’m inclined to agree with you.

 

[Gazwas]

I don't get it. How will sensor MP affect auto focus??? What am I missing?

I you read the original post, the question was what was the benefit to squeezing 100MP onto a small sensor. What good is a 100MP MFD camera if it cant focus very well on anything other than stationary portraits and landscapes.

A 100MP Canon that can do just about anything while producing super sharp images or 100MP MFD that produces superior results in only a very limited number of situations due mostly to its very poor focusing abilities.

If you don’t want a 100MP Canon then fair enough but some do and I personally see the attraction.

 

[slclick]

I was hoping to call it an R2, then maybe when they release the version two we call it a development not a version. So it would D2

These aren't the naming schemes you were looking for....Sorry.

R2D2's language was so vulgar they bleeped out every word he said.

 

[Dexter75]

I'm still of the thought that the "uber expensive" R5 will weigh in between $3299 to $3699.
Canon wants to eat Sony's lunch and dinner.
Pricing the R5 nearer to $4000 -$4500 range won't allow them to feast.

As soon as they go up for sale at my local shop, I'm trading in the R towards the R5.

Canon priced their RF 1.2 lenses no one else has $900 than their 1.4 competition. Expect to pay another huge premium in the R5 to get specs no one else has. $4,499-$4,999

 

[fox40phil]

I don't like that much of MP...you have already problems with 5Ds/r for wildlife etc... because of microshutterings etc.
You really need shorter exposure times with more pixel to have sharp images.

 

[M. D. Vaden of Oregon]

A 324 Megapixel file? Crazy clients. Do they really pint a 10x10 foot print at 150dpi? Who can print that? And why?

It was for a special event or trade show in some place like Aspen. Their spirits are named after unique redwoods, and wanted something from that forest. The tree I shared previous is in the same grove as a tree they named a bourbon or whiskey after. Originally I sent a full res 5DS file and they said it was too small. Their printer wanted 18,000 x 18,000, which is the lion's share of 12 images merged. The old road was the other scene offered as an option, but they went with the redwood titan tree below. At 100% even the small lichens, needles and spider webs in the bark crevices are evident. Both both scenes, I used a 70-200mm at about 150mm with the 5DS, getting back to avoid distortion. My earlier post with people was not the version, but it's same tree, so I shared that just to show some scale of its 23 ft. diameter trunk.

 

[unfocused]

It was for a special event or trade show in some place like Aspen. Their spirits are named after unique redwoods, and wanted something from that forest. The tree I shared previous is in the same grove as a tree they named a bourbon or whiskey after. Originally I sent a full res 5DS file and they said it was too small. Their printer wanted 18,000 x 18,000, which is the lion's share of 12 images merged. The old road was the other scene offered as an option, but they went with the redwood titan tree below. At 100% even the small lichens, needles and spider webs in the bark crevices are evident. Both both scenes, I used a 70-200mm at about 150mm with the 5DS, getting back to avoid distortion. My earlier post with people was not the version, but it's same tree, so I shared that just to show some scale of its 23 ft. diameter trunk.

View attachment 189250View attachment 189249

Nice. Actually, I'm frequently surprised at how crappy the image quality is of large prints used as wall art in hotels and other public and semi-public spaces. I've had images used as billboards before, but no one walks up to a billboard and looks at it from five feet away.

 

[deleteme]

I think if I go that high for megapixel...I'll just get a medium format camera sensor.

I'm shooting a bit of medium format film now alongside my 5D3 for digital.....and it really is great stuff.

I'll likely get the R5 after it comes out for a bit....read the reviews, see what it does/does not do and maybe even wait for a firmware update.

But for a larger sensor that what will be on the R5, I think I'd save my pennies and go to a larger medium format sensor, like maybe the Fuji offerings.

Or, I"m looking forward to the (hopefully) soon to be released new Hasselblad MF back that will fit in seamlessly with the old V series MF film cameras, but also have a new "camera" body that will integrate with their newer lenses, etc.

Yep, I anticipate it will be $$$$...but I think it would be tons of fun, to use with my 501 CM and older glass.

But I'm not sure how beneficial squeezing like 100MP into a 35mm digital style sensor would do that much good?

If I'm wrong, please someone explain it to me...I'm always happy to learn new things!!


cayenne

I think the 100MP on a FF sensor would fall short of the MF sensor if only because the pixels will be larger on the MF. The other thing I think about is that on my 5DsR ( which produces very high quality images) I get 8088 pixels on the long side. A Fuji GFX 50 gets 8256.
Of course the aspect ratios differ but the sensor width is 44mm to my 36mm (roughly speaking) thus the lens on my 5DsR would seem to need more resolution and correction to squeeze the needed IQ onto the sensor.
In film days we lauded the performance of Zeiss lenses on Hasselblad and Rollei and Schneiders, Rodenstock, Nikkor and Fuji on large format.
I was astonished when I learned that their resolving power fell far short of the best 35mm camera lenses as we only needed a 2x linear enlargement of 4x5 film to make an 8x10 as opposed to a 8.3x linear enlargement.
The pixel dimensions may be similar but the sensor size would seem to be the limiting factor in ultimate IQ because of those two issues.
As for 100MP I would be more comfortable with and even larger sensor than the GFX100 as nice as that may be.

Maybe someone else can chime in.

 

[usern4cr]

I'm a stills shooter, and most of the hype for the R5 has been the video magic it can do. So if they are coming out with a stills-oriented camera with 85-90ish MP sensor then it would definitely be what I would want. I'm into making huge panoramas, as well as printing still shots as big as they can sharply go, so I've gotten used to working with super large files on my Mac by offloading finished photos to external storage.

The main downside is that I will have to wait even longer for it than I was expecting when I thought the R5 might be the camera I was going to get.

 

[reef58]

I just shutter to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera. My computer is already a little slow sometimes. I run an Intel i7 processor from 2014 or 2015 (I think) and 16gb Ram with an Nvidia card that came with this Dell. I'd want something pretty snappy for files that big. Storage gets less expensive all the time, so no worry on that front. I'm sure I could use the computer I already have, but I hate waiting for an action or resize to process, or even for a file to open/close. I'm just an occasional shooter anyway, so all the money I throw into this hobby sometimes seems like massive overkill. If I shot more often with lots of different models (with off camera flash) I might get good enough to justify the expense and at least make the money I need for this hobby. It seems the charity I used to shoot for is withering on the vine, so dependable models that show up for TFP shoots are getting hard to come by.

The R5 is super cool but this is the model that interests me. It will be used primarily for landscape. It really won't be that taxing on a computer. I may go out all day and take 10 photos with my landscape rig be it a 5d4, rb67 or a 4x5. I may take 1000 photos in a day with my 1d cameras.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

Is the second one Howland Hill Rd? Looks familiar.

 

[slclick]

The R5 is super cool but this is the model that interests me. It will be used primarily for landscape. It really won't be that taxing on a computer. I may go out all day and take 10 photos with my landscape rig be it a 5d4, rb67 or a 4x5. I may take 1000 photos in a day with my 1d cameras.

This is my sentiment exactly. This is the type of rig you could set up with a particular mindset and goal of a shot and dial in all the particulars, patiently going through the changing lights phases. Quality over quantity (except in MP, lol)


Or you can spray and pray and join one of those replace your computer threads

 

[jvillain]

I just shutter to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera. My computer is already a little slow sometimes.

Stick an NVME drive in it and reinstall. Use your existing drive for long term archival. You will be shocked at how much faster it will be.

 

[jvillain]

Well, there are already 3rd party RF mount lenses, just not with AF that I know of.

Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 RF arrives as the first third-party Canon RF autofocus lens

Samyang AF 14mm F2.8 RF arrives as the first third-party Canon RF autofocus lens

The lens marks the first third-party autofocus lens for Canon's RF lens mount. Pricing remains a mystery, but the lens is set to be available around the world in November 2019.

www.dpreview.com

 

[SteveC]

So does anyone have any idea whether the R5s/R3 will be more or less expensive than the R5 (assuming 83MP sensor)?

The R5 has enough resolution for me (as well as a bunch of stuff I really don't care to pay for). If the R3 is expected to be significantly cheaper, it'll be worth waiting for, otherwise, I might as well suck it up and get the R5 when it comes out.

 

[slclick]

So does anyone have any idea whether the R5s/R3 will be more or less expensive than the R5 (assuming 83MP sensor)?

The R5 has enough resolution for me (as well as a bunch of stuff I really don't care to pay for). If the R3 is expected to be significantly cheaper, it'll be worth waiting for, otherwise, I might as well suck it up and get the R5 when it comes out.

Shoot, I went and coined the R3 but wanted it to be cheaper. We all know the higher numbers cost more so let's call it the Rs and lower the price

 

[joestopper]

So does anyone have any idea whether the R5s/R3 will be more or less expensive than the R5 (assuming 83MP sensor)?

The R5 has enough resolution for me (as well as a bunch of stuff I really don't care to pay for). If the R3 is expected to be significantly cheaper, it'll be worth waiting for, otherwise, I might as well suck it up and get the R5 when it comes out.

My guess: About the same. Why: While R5 has higher FPS and better video, the R3/R5S has the higher resolution. Neither has it all and for about the same price the customer decides what their priority is ...

 

[M. D. Vaden of Oregon]

Nice. Actually, I'm frequently surprised at how crappy the image quality is of large prints used as wall art in hotels and other public and semi-public spaces. I've had images used as billboards before, but no one walks up to a billboard and looks at it from five feet away.

Your are right. Much of the large wall art is lame. Or, the managers or designers don't realize better may be available. I remember walking into a car dealership a couple years ago looking at a tall wall mural of redwoods and most small detail was gone. It was almost abstract.

 

[Sean C]

I don't like that much of MP...you have already problems with 5Ds/r for wildlife etc... because of microshutterings etc.
You really need shorter exposure times with more pixel to have sharp images.

That sounds like a job for in body image stabilization. i.e. perhaps they're creating and solving the problem together. We can hope...

 

[Jack Douglas]

I just shutter shudder to think what it would cost to either upgrade my computer or purchase a new one after shelling out the money for the camera.

True proof of a photographer I guess.

Jack