IBIS and 100mp coming to an EOS R camera? [CR2]

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
450
256
Yes, that's the point I was originally trying to make. Maybe Canon's 100 MP sensor will be awesome but other manufacturers seem to be targeting much lower pixel counts for full frame sensors and it's not because they can't do 100. I guess we won't know until/unless they stop teasing and release something.
 

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
456
266
Frankfurt, Germany
Those pixels are really not all that tiny.

I don't own one, but from what I can see online the Canon G7x II is not considered to be hot garbage... And it has far smaller pixels! If you would scale that 1 Inch 20MP sensor (116mm^2) up to full frame size (864mm^2) that would result in a resolution of 149 MP.
Okay, you're right, I raise my little white flag. But I just was in a mood to make such a joke yesterday. Seriously, I think Instagram deserves a fast introduction of 500+ MP cameras... :devilish:
 

flip314

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2018
240
347
hard clipped highlights cannot be recovered past certain point downsampled or not. you gain sharpness and extra shadow recovery through noise suppression.
I hope that some day sensor manufacturers can figure out a way to have highlights degrade better. Adding some kind of a knee past a certain exposure would help to make up one of the few areas where film still has an advantage.

I nearly almost shoot my Canon at -2/3 exposure compensation just to make sure I don't blow out parts of the sky.
 

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
416
249
camera could take picture only from higlights before it takes picture and save it as backup if photograph wants fuse them later.
Could use 10x fasted shutter speed for that ,if camera just can do 2 shot with short enough interval.
 
Last edited:

Pape

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 31, 2018
416
249
i wonder if it would be best to abandon whole ibis consept on still cameras. Thing is we cant do all stuff with just one sensor like we cant do all stuff with one lens optimally.
How about interchangable sensor cassettes ,all with different pixel density . from ultra fast 5mpix to slow 100mpix
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
323
248
Hamburg, Germany
camera could take picture only from higlights before it takes picture and save it as backup if photograph wants fuse them later.
Could use 10x fasted shutter speed for that ,if camera just can do 2 shot with short enough interval.
Anything involving multiple images for dynamic range improvements will result in motion artifacts in some situations.

Canon could also just make access to the extra stop of dynamic range from the dual pixel sensors that is currently discarded easier.

Also, I don't think we will see modular sensors for these types of cameras. Interchangeable lenses with different mounts already offer a degree of flexibility and complexity that large parts of the market don't use or find confusing. And if people could just upgrade their sensor instead of a whole body to get IQ improvements over time, that might also hurt the manufacturer's profits.

And also, can a high resolution sensor not do everything a low res one can, if it has some good hardware binning implemented?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,397
840
Yeah, like everyone, 1200mm is the one I am always reaching for.
I was merely making the point that even higher density FF sensors from Canon would widen the envelope given Canon's lens lineup. And yes, there are wildlife photographers who would kill for 1200mm equivalent from their 600mm lenses.

When I got my DsR for architecture clients I thought that it would be a quantum step up i IQ. What it was, was a step up in processing time with excellent but not useful improvements in resolution. Side by side comparisons of tripod mounted shots at 30x40" showed a slight but nearly indiscernible improvement in sharpness.
Architecture, at that print size, is not something I would expect to benefit greatly from 50mp. I've said before that as much as I love the resolution and IQ I get from my 5Ds, we are clearly in a realm of diminishing returns as 24mp is enough for really excellent 20x30" prints of virtually any subject.

Very large prints of landscapes, fashion, and product advertising probably benefit the most from 50mp (or higher).

That said...something a D800E owning friend once said to me finally made sense when I started shooting the 5Ds, and it's actually the opposite of what the Internet would have you believe. "High resolution covers many sins." When you're starting at 36 or 50mp and your subject/print size combo only needs 16-20mp to 'saturate' the viewer with detail, you have a lot of room to maneuver in post. Whether that be cropping, sharpening, NR, etc. My files are larger but my work is less since going high resolution FF.

Any way...we know Canon is going higher resolution with their R-based 5Ds/sr replacement. Whether that will be 60mp, 75mp, 100mp is unknown at this point. But I'm sure there will still be ~30mp bodies for those who don't want to deal with the file sizes. 100mp is definitely for a specific niche, not for everyone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Normalnorm and Pape

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,397
840
Canon could also just make access to the extra stop of dynamic range from the dual pixel sensors that is currently discarded.
Why on Earth aren't they doing that? Why didn't they do it from the beginning? Bake it into the RAW file in camera, don't even require a special file format or converter to extract it. Completely forget about the two features currently advertised for DPRAW since no one is really using them. This would literally put the 5D IV on par with the D8x0 series at #1 in terms of DR.

Also, I don't think we will see modular sensors for these types of cameras.
It would be interesting to see a camera with interchangeable sensors. I'm imagining a 'cartridge' of some sort that slides into the bottom of a DSLR/MILC. The image processor and data bus would be fixed, so a high resolution sensor cart might only yield 5 fps while a lower resolution one would yield 10 fps. And yet another might be optimized for 4k video.

I don't think we will see such a beast, but I don't see why it couldn't be done. MF has had interchangeable backs forever.

And also, can a high resolution sensor not do everything a low res one can, if it has some good hardwere binning implemented?
In theory smaller pixels should lead to lower DR. In practice the highest DR cameras on the market right now are 42 and 45mp 35mm sensors. So at the moment, yes, for stills a high resolution sensor can do anything a lower resolution one can do and more.

Video is a different beast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,397
840
Yes, that's the point I was originally trying to make. Maybe Canon's 100 MP sensor will be awesome but other manufacturers seem to be targeting much lower pixel counts for full frame sensors and it's not because they can't do 100. I guess we won't know until/unless they stop teasing and release something.
45 and 42mp are not "much lower" pixel counts. Canon has split their lineup in pretty much the same fashion as Nikon and Sony. They just target slightly higher MP counts at each tier (24 vs. 26 or 30; 42/45 vs. 50).

Also: you can't extrapolate tiny sensor pixel densities to FF. I'm not saying Sony can't do 100mp FF sensors. I sure they can and eventually will. But there are additional challenges when scaling a given pixel density up to a larger chip. I don't think Canon or Sony can do a 100mp 35mm sensor at an acceptable price point today, though I imagine we're not far from that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,507
393
UK
www.flickr.com
I hope that some day sensor manufacturers can figure out a way to have highlights degrade better. Adding some kind of a knee past a certain exposure would help to make up one of the few areas where film still has an advantage.

I nearly almost shoot my Canon at -2/3 exposure compensation just to make sure I don't blow out parts of the sky.
That's interesting. I think it's more common (on older Canon sensors at least) to overexpose (ETTR). Shooting raw, there's a lot more info in highlights that initially appear blown, and one gets used to how far it's possible to overexpose before hitting the limits (I'm sure you know this, apologies for perhaps stating the obvious). But for high DR scenes I'd be tempted to bracket exposures in any case, to make sure (obviously this also has well-understood limitations). I do agree though with the inference that blown highlights are uglier than clipped shadows.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
4,091
1,637
Irving, Texas
Yeah, like everyone, 1200mm is the one I am always reaching for.

When I got my DsR for architecture clients I thought that it would be a quantum step up i IQ. What it was, was a step up in processing time with excellent but not useful improvements in resolution. Side by side comparisons of tripod mounted shots at 30x40" showed a slight but nearly indiscernible improvement in sharpness. Going larger shows the difference more clearly but the proper viewing distance eliminates the difference.
Then some clients whined about getting massive files.
But what he didn't tell you is that the Olympus bodies have a built in 2x electronic tele-converter... so 1200mm after all (equivalent FOV).
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
1,967
125
For me, the first thing I will look at if this is ever released will be the file size of mRAW and sRAW. If they are something like 25 MB and 50 MB, I could be tempted by this camera and typically shoot in one of those modes with occasionally breaking out the full RAW resolution of 100 MP.
Just curious...why would you ever NOT want to shoot full RAW?
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,149
1,678
Canada
Just curious...why would you ever NOT want to shoot full RAW?
Because you want to by a 100Mpixel camera for high resolution and use it in low? Because you think that a jpg is good enough? Because you never take a picture that has both bright highlights and shadows? Because you don't know what colour balancing is? Because you have always shot perfect exposure? Because you think lens correction data is for sissies? Because you don't believe in correcting chromatic aberration? See, all kind of reasons!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

jayphotoworks

EOS 80D
Aug 11, 2016
189
57
Because you want to by a 100Mpixel camera for high resolution and use it in low? Because you think that a jpg is good enough? Because you never take a picture that has both bright highlights and shadows? Because you don't know what colour balancing is? Because you have always shot perfect exposure? Because you think lens correction data is for sissies? Because you don't believe in correcting chromatic aberration? See, all kind of reasons!
I actually used mraw quite a bit when I was shooting with my 1D4 and 5DII back in the day. Canon was the only player offering sraw and mraw at the time (at least to my knowledge) and I would keep the cameras on mraw to get editing latitude without dealing with huge raw files on travel assignments where I would shoot thousands of images over a week. For comparison, the H6d-100 (100MP) shoots 220MB raws. A 128GB card can store only about 580 images, so if you were on assignment and shot 5000 images, you would be dealing with over 1TB of images. An sRaw would be a great setting without giving up too much flexibility vs shooting JPEGs.
 

docsmith

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 17, 2010
865
244
Just curious...why would you ever NOT want to shoot full RAW?
None of Don's reasons ;)

Jay is on the right track. Start with file size. Using 32 GB files, assuming the typically 100 MB full RAW file is ~120 MB, that is 266 pictures per 32 GB card. For every 10,000 pictures it would be 1.2 TB.

If needed, ok, buy bigger memory cards, more hard drives, and put up with the additional processing time. But a lot of time, for what I shoot, it really wouldn't be needed. I've seen a couple of comparisons of sRAW vs mRAW vs RAW and it is tough to see much of a difference. Nothing like jpegs.

The other reason is simply I would prefer a more flexible camera and the ability to make adjustments depending on what and how I am shooting. Getting that flexibility out of a single camera would be amazing.

If you stop thinking about 100 MB as resolution and think of the data simply as information, at full RAW, you would have 100+ MB of information for a given image. For a 100 MB camera, ideally it could then drop down to m/s RAW and have say 25 or 50 MB of information. If compressed well (and not throwing away bits), how different would that be from the current ~35 MB of information I am happily getting from my 5DIV?
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,149
1,678
Canada
None of Don's reasons ;)

Jay is on the right track. Start with file size. Using 32 GB files, assuming the typically 100 MB full RAW file is ~120 MB, that is 266 pictures per 32 GB card. For every 10,000 pictures it would be 1.2 TB.

If needed, ok, buy bigger memory cards, more hard drives, and put up with the additional processing time. But a lot of time, for what I shoot, it really wouldn't be needed. I've seen a couple of comparisons of sRAW vs mRAW vs RAW and it is tough to see much of a difference. Nothing like jpegs.

The other reason is simply I would prefer a more flexible camera and the ability to make adjustments depending on what and how I am shooting. Getting that flexibility out of a single camera would be amazing.

If you stop thinking about 100 MB as resolution and think of the data simply as information, at full RAW, you would have 100+ MB of information for a given image. For a 100 MB camera, ideally it could then drop down to m/s RAW and have say 25 or 50 MB of information. If compressed well (and not throwing away bits), how different would that be from the current ~35 MB of information I am happily getting from my 5DIV?
I was just trying to be funny.....

I shoot a lot for work in sRAW. most of the pictures are for technical documentation and do not need to be very large or detailed. For the few important pictures that may be published, yes, shoot big, but that is the exception to the rule...… and this is with 26Mpixels! If I had a 100Mpixel camera it would live on sRAW except for those same few occasions where I was pushing the camera.
 
Jan 10, 2019
4
7
I hope it comes in at under $4,000. I’m eager to try out a high MP body for my trip.
Under $4,000.00 hahaha, you do realize that it's Canon! Not saying it won't be good, but if Canon sticks to there normal marketing approach, it also won't be cheap. My guess would be in the $6,000.00 range.