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

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,181
380
The human eye/brain vision system relies on wavelengths in the middle of the visible spectrum for perception of details. Those wavelengths are squarely within the band of wavelengths for which the green filter in Bayer masked sensors is most efficient. Wavelengths near the edge of the visible spectrum on the blue end are the hardest for the human eye to resolve. That's why a green or red LED will look sharper across the room than a blue LED will. Our eyes are not able to focus blue light as well as they can focus green and , to a lesser extent, red light.

Speaking of which, the "red" cones in our retinas are actually centered on a wavelength that is more like "yellow-green" than red. There's a LOT of overlap between the M (green) and L (red) cones, and much less overlap between the M (green) and S (blue) cones. It's the difference between what we see without M and L cones that produces the perception of red in our brains. Likewise, the "red" filters in most Bayer masks are closer to yellow than to red. Trichromatic vision systems do not require that the same three colors are most responsive in the capture devices and in the display devices that display the results.
An excellent reply. Thank you for clearing that up.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,181
380
~~~~
Is there a metric or spec for the ration of total pixel area to total sensor area? Should there be?
It used to be quoted but that was in the days that the microlenses overlaying the pixels were almost circular. As I understand it, nowadays the microlenses are rather like an abstract paving pattern so all light hitting the sensor is collected in some fashion and so quoting the % area covered by pixels is almost redundant.
People often use the 'pixel pitch' of a sensor which is usually readily available.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,032
370
It used to be quoted but that was in the days that the microlenses overlaying the pixels were almost circular. As I understand it, nowadays the microlenses are rather like an abstract paving pattern so all light hitting the sensor is collected in some fashion and so quoting the % area covered by pixels is almost redundant.
People often use the 'pixel pitch' of a sensor which is usually readily available.
I’m not supportive of pitch for this particular situation. The center to center spacing says nothing about the actual size of the sensels, as it disregards the walls.
 

robotfist

5D Mk III, C300, C200
Oct 23, 2017
24
25
When people think about 100mpx being too much, they forget about the bayer filter that essentially means the accurate colour resolution of an image is 1/4 of the total resolution, because each of the 100 million pixels on the sensor is only receiving either red, green or blue light so the colour information from four pixels (at least, more in more complex algorithms) is required to generate the colour for a single pixel. Generally this isn't a big problem, but if you have images with large areas of predominantly one shade, such as a green plant or a red dress, the real perceptive resolution of what that sensor will provide will be significantly less than the 100 megapixels.

So, downsampling a 100 megapixel image to a 25 megapixel image would give you a 25 megapixel image with, assuming an ideal lens, the optimum sharpness and colour accuracy.

Is this important for most people? Of course not. But there are certain tasks, such as high resolution reproduction of artworks or natural objects, where capturing the finest detail accurately is important, and for that a 100 megapixel EOS R can't come soon enough!

Of course at 100megapixels diffraction is going to be a real bitch, but that's another thing altogether!
It’s also going to be an average (or poor) performer in low light having to cram that many pixel sensors on the chip. The more pixels the smaller the color sensors have to be to fit on the chip, which is why low megapixel cameras like the a7s can practically see in the dark. The sensors are larger and therefore more sensitive to gathering light. I really prefer less resolution and better performance in low light. Canon does not have anything like the a7s in their lineup. I wish they would focus on things like making chips with a faster readout, better lowlight capability and the ability to shoot high quality video in slow motion.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,013
1,466
Canada
It’s also going to be an average (or poor) performer in low light having to cram that many pixel sensors on the chip. The more pixels the smaller the color sensors have to be to fit on the chip, which is why low megapixel cameras like the a7s can practically see in the dark. The sensors are larger and therefore more sensitive to gathering light. I really prefer less resolution and better performance in low light. Canon does not have anything like the a7s in their lineup. I wish they would focus on things like making chips with a faster readout, better lowlight capability and the ability to shoot high quality video in slow motion.
For a good idea of what to expect from this pixel density/size, look at the performance of the latest micro 4/3 cameras from Olympus and from Panasonic..... they would scale up to 80Mpixels if they were made into FF size, so expect about a half stop worse performance.

Also, look at the Panasonic DMC-FZ1000, it is 20Mpixels on a 1" sensor, that one scales up to 150Mpixels if made FF size, expect a half stop better performance than it.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,032
370
It's a variation of the same sensor. The GH5S has quad bayering on the sensor, it's just being utilized in a 4K mode. The sensor uses binning on 4 pixels to create 1 to be used for bayer. It's very similar to this sensor for smartphones:

https://www.gsmarena.com/sony_introduces_imx586_sensor_with_48_mp-news-32367.php

Camera sensor technology is really being pushed hard in order to make cell phone cameras usable, we're just finally starting to see this technology trickle into larger sensors.
I’ve always been a bit confused by Quad Bayer. I strikes me as a cost savings method for Semiconductor fabrication rather than something to benefit the user base (unless savings is passed over). It allows them to make one high resolution sensor, and use different CFAs, one for high color resolution, and one for binned well capacity. This in place of building two sensors, one with small and one with large photosites. Unles I’m missing something (please let me know), the user can’t get both in a single end item (the CFA is fixed), and the advantage lies with the fabrication cost.
 
Last edited:

djack41

EOS 80D
Jul 12, 2014
133
74
No it doesn’t. Before I settled for the 5DS I tried both s and sr together. Obviously from unsharpened raw the sr is sharper with greater contrast, and, if we’re going to be anal, occasionally some colour aliasing. Equally obvious is the fact that from an unsharpened file the sr will produce a higher “resolution” MTF when compared with the unsharpened s. But apply a tiny amount of USM and the difference has gone.

Long live the AA filter on a Bayer Array sensor.
OMG. Wish I had known that before I bought a 5DSR. Someone should inform Canon!
 

Normalnorm

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 25, 2012
501
102
He said crop mode (software implementation) not a physical crop (semiconductor dicing). A camera which delivers either 100MP full frame images or 25MP when heavily cropped is not available now.View attachment 182632
Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
Just as many birders favor APS-C.
 
Jan 2, 2019
4
1
Just my thoughts:
For 100 megapixel FF sensor only some of the L lenses will provide acceptable sharpness.
With the same pixel density we should get a 40 megapixel APSC sensor.
I guess this makes no sense because most APSC lenses are not sharp enough even for 24 megapixels.
 
Jan 2, 2019
4
1
Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
Just as many birders favor APS-C.
Most L lenses look terrible on m43 with regular adapter (those without focal reducer lens aka speedbooster)
 

Talys

Canon 6DII
Feb 16, 2017
2,055
322
Vancouver, BC
Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
Just as many birders favor APS-C.
One of the reasons that birders like APSC is the field of view in the viewfinder. In a 5D/6D body, with a 400-600mm lens attached, a small bird is still very small. It might turn out ok in crop, but it's hard to tell if you're even in focus through the viewfinder with a full frame camera, without going to magnification liveview, even when you have enough pixels to make a decent photograph.

For me, one of the real benefits of a high res mirrorless is that if you can toggle between crop and full frame in the EVF with the push of a button, so you can use the wider field of view to compose -- or just find your subject -- and the cropped field of view in the EVF (and further magnification if you want it) to focus, or to simply end up with much smaller files instead of cropping in post. Plus, you can't shrink the original RAW by cropping.

Obviously, we have no idea how the high resolution Canon sensor will perform. But here's the issue with high-resolution sensors, to date -- they just aren't a replacement for having longer (or ideal) focal length lens, but it's sure tempting to try to do so. A MFT 300mm can be razor sharp, and yet the photos are not as pleasing as a 1DX with a 600mm at a much lower resolution. Or to put it another way, if you deeply crop 3 megapixels out of a 50 megapixel photo, it won't look remotely as good as if you had enough focal length to take 50 megapixels, and then reduced that to 3 megapixels.

Olympus MFT is the system I had after I switched from Nikon and before I came to Canon. One of the problems for it is that there simply are no 400mm-600mm+ lenses, and you can't get to those focal lengths without shrinking the aperture to way too small. In real terms, I don't have an issue with a full sized body and a 100-400 II lens mounted -- I can hike and shoot with that for 10+ hour stretches, and the results I get are just superior than an MFT with a 300mm, especially in bird in flight photos.

The reason I left Oly wasn't that I didn't like their cameras -- it's that I felt like I hit a ceiling with BIFs for even large-sized birds (like heron), where the keeper rate was significantly lower than Nikon, and I was frustratingly unable to increase it. Of course, that was a long time ago, and perhaps things have changed -- but now, I am a very happy Canon shooter, and for my non-birding stuff, Canon just has a much more complete lens portfolio with good options in a spectrum of price points. Plus, the third party accessory ecosystem is second to none.

Putting price aside, at 400mm and above, and especially with mirrorless, there is no advantage to MFT or APSC for the body, since the lens does not get any smaller with a smaller sensor, and I personally find that a larger body acts as a better balance to the heavy glass.

Anyways, all this to say, I'm excited to see how Canon's 100 megapixel RF performs. If it offers the kind of leap that the 5DSR did, I will probably buy one.
 
Last edited:

dak723

EOS 6D MK II
Oct 26, 2013
1,141
434
Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
Just as many birders favor APS-C.
I think the point is that you get two cameras in one. The 100 MP FF for when you want it and a 25 MP crop camera when you want it. At the moment, the new R has crop mode (as do some other brands' cameras) but the crop MPs are much less than the current crop cameras.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,013
1,466
Canada
The reason I left Oly wasn't that I didn't like their cameras -- it's that I felt like I hit a ceiling with BIFs for even large-sized birds (like heron), where the keeper rate was significantly lower than Nikon, and I was frustratingly unable to increase it. Of course, that was a long time ago, and perhaps things have changed -- but now, I am a very happy Canon shooter, and for my non-birding stuff, Canon just has a much more complete lens portfolio with good options in a spectrum of price points. Plus, the third party accessory ecosystem is second to none.
For me, it's the AF system. Canon will AF better than Oly. Even when something isn't moving, sometimes the Oly seems unable to hit focus, and when you are chasing a moving target, the 7D2 just blows it out of the water!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Talys

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,032
370
Yes I know that. However you are still left with the bulk, lens size, expense and file size of a camera that would be lugging around all for the "gain" of a crop mode.
If the reach and res of the crop mode is the goal then buying the smaller camera designed with that in mind is the better course of action.
Just as many birders favor APS-C.
Right, but his point was that you kinda get both in a single package, rather than specialized rigs to choose from, I suspect.
 

ashmadux

Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Jul 28, 2011
405
15
New Yawk
photography.ashworld.com
Canon rumors (not the site) just get more ridiculous by the day.

the idea that canon will leapfrog...well, ANYTHING, at this point...and its always a year a way...just, bah.
 

crazyrunner33

EOS RP
Nov 4, 2011
256
78
I’ve always been a bit confused by Quad Bayer. I strikes me as a cost savings method for Semiconductor fabrication rather than something to benefit the user base (unless savings is passed over). It allows them to make one high resolution sensor, and use different CFAs, one for high color resolution, and one for binned well capacity. This in place of building two sensors, one with small and one with large photosites. Unles I’m missing something (please let me know), the user can’t get both in a single end item (the CFA is fixed), and the advantage lies with the fabrication cost.
I agree, your theory seems correct. But from what we've seen in the GH5S, the quad bayering sensor has some of the best(if not the best) low light of any other micro 4/3, it'll be interesting to see how sharp(bad pun) it really is in this Sharp 8K camera mode. With any luck, some of the money that's saved will go into R&D for future products and not entirely into the shareholder's pockets.