Is a 150mp Canon EOS R camera on the way? [CR1]

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,308
499
I could almost go along with the idea but then I think of how often my active AF points are not in the centre. Mind you with a DSLR the furthest points are not exactly at the edge, but parts of the subject certainly are. What do you think?

Jack
I agree. If there is significant vignetting (sometimes hidden by in-camera software) it can affect the amount of light/contrast available for the AF. Though this will probably be more important for RF lenses where AF points go almost to the edge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
But how would I properly lit a landscape?..
But even in a controlled environment, the more contrasty the scene is the better. The controlled light may in fact increase the required DR.
False.

It doesn't matter how contrasty your scene is, if your display medium can only show 6-7 stops of DR, then you either have to squeeze all of that extra DR into 6-7 stops, allow some of the highlights to blow, allow some of the shadows to crush, or a combination of all of the above, or you just shoot it within 6-7 stops to start with. You lose far more contrast when squeezing twelve stops into seven than when you control the scene to be within seven stops to begin with. That's why we have all different kinds of tone mapping software - to try and restore some of that lost contrast when we squeeze more captured dynamic range into a lower dynamic range display medium.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
853
689
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
or you just shoot it within 6-7 stops to start with.
Being indoors, with no light from windows, you normally get a very flat light. Any controlled light you'd normally set up for portraiture normally increases the contrast and required dynamic range. In daylight, you may use a speedlight for fill light on order to reduce contrast, but normally using controlled light means you start in a shadowy low-contrast area and use your own light on top, which increases the contrast.

You lose far more contrast when squeezing twelve stops into seven than when you control the scene to be within seven stops to begin with.
All stages of image production - shooting, digital processing (in camera and/or in Lightroom), displaying - cause information loss. More bits and better DR in raw images give you a better quality. 14 bits vs 10 bits is a significant difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack Douglas

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,931
1,066
Being indoors, with no light from windows, you normally get a very flat light. Any controlled light you'd normally set up for portraiture normally increases the contrast and required dynamic range. In daylight, you may use a speedlight for fill light on order to reduce contrast, but normally using controlled light means you start in a shadowy low-contrast area and use your own light on top, which increases the contrast.


All stages of image production - shooting, digital processing (in camera and/or in Lightroom), displaying - cause information loss. More bits and better DR in raw images give you a better quality. 14 bits vs 10 bits is a significant difference.
I'm talking a fully controlled studio with no significant ambient light. 6-7 stops is still plenty of contrast. That's a key light at 1:1 and a fill at 1:64. Hair lights, background lights, etc. are all somewhere in between.

One does not need a 14 stop scene to produce a 6-7 stop image with good contrast.

There's also a huge difference between limiting a camera to 10-bits vs. limiting a scene to seven stops. One affects the size of each individual step between 0 (pure black) and full saturation. The other matches one stop in the scene to one stop in the display medium so that less image processing must take place.

If the final display medium can only handle seven stops, it matters not how much contrast the scene had, only seven stops can be displayed in the final output. If shot right, there's no need to stretch or compress the DR of the scene to the DR of the display medium!
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
474
287
When you say 'edge' and 'corner' how far are you talking from the centre? For example, if the 'problem' at 90% towards the edge, then why is your main subject out there?

I am not doubting reduced image quality, but your use of the word 'problem'.
Just because the edge is not as good as the centre does not mean it is 'a problem'. If it is not a problem with a 20MP sensor it is not a problem with a 45MP sensor. Or a 100 MP sensor. The viewing medium is no more detailed for a 20MP image or a 40MP image. Too many people look at 1:1 on screen and forget the image size they will actually reproduce it on.
I assume you have examples were an 8MP and a higher MP image with the same lens where the image on the higher MP image becomes problematic.....?
Anywhere from a third to a half way from center. Besides the comment that your main subject isn’t going to be that far off center is meaningless for many subjects. Photographing art, such as paintings, which I used to do, architecture, etc. all require sharpness far off center. Good contrast and lack of flare too.

And the parallelism issue is a major one too. The higher the sensor rez, the harder it is to keep the mechanical specs up to snuff. And then, focus. The higher the rez, the more focus issues come to the fore.

but it’s also the physics of optics. Lenses can only be made sharp to a certain point. After that, not much can be done.
 

Mikehit

EOS 5D MK IV
Jul 28, 2015
3,308
499
Anywhere from a third to a half way from center. Besides the comment that your main subject isn’t going to be that far off center is meaningless for many subjects. Photographing art, such as paintings, which I used to do, architecture, etc. all require sharpness far off center. Good contrast and lack of flare too.
Which comes back to my earlier point - if you are shooting a supertelephoto to shoot that plane, you will NOT be using it to photograph architecture or paintings.
If you are zooming in like that, you will choose an excellent lens with the appropriate characteristics and being 'relatively poor' at the extremes of the image is not the same as 'being bad'.
If a 250MP sensor is released I can guess the one reason people will be refusing to buy it will not be 'it shows that my excellent lens is not as good at the edges as in the centre'.
 
Last edited:

Diko

7 fps...
Apr 27, 2011
436
5
37
Sofia, Bulgaria
The vast majority of cameras on the planet have a pixel density higher than a 150 MP small-format sensor. And even if you dismiss phone cameras, 20MP 1" sensor cameras make great images at a similar pixel density, as has already been mentioned in this thread.

I don't see your point. I presume you have experienced 5Ds yourself or?
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
474
287
Which comes back to my earlier point - if you are shooting a supertelephoto to shoot that plane, you will NOT be using it to photograph architecture or paintings.
If you are zooming in like that, you will choose an excellent lens with the appropriate characteristics and being 'relatively poor' at the extremes of the image is not the same as 'being bad'.
If a 250MP sensor is released I can guess the one reason people will be refusing to buy it will not be 'it shows that my excellent lens is not as good at the edges as in the centre'.
That image was released because it showed something that would make it seem as though the high rez sensor can show detail. It’s not the type of picture people will take under any normal circumstances. I doubt people will be buying expensive cameras and lenses to take pictures of specis in the sky at the center of the frame.
at any rate, it looks as though this rumor may be nothing more than that after all.
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,128
224
I think their exclusivity and a portion of their market could go to Canon regardless of format. Large agencies will adopt with a vendor like Canon because of the support. Hasselblad nor Fuji can compete with Canon there. Hasselblad will not be dethroned at the top of their game. The H6D-400c is an amazing tool and Hasselblad's Color System is probably the best in the industry. New Hasselblad as 50MP for under $6,000 USD. I do think Hasselblad saw an opportunity here the x1D proves it. I see no reason why Canon can't compete if they can get "Color". Look at the C500 Mark II and the color rendition, any doubt that Canon could replicate that? I don't. An advantage to Hasselblad with workflow for still photography. Any doubt Canon could standardize workflow? Why not? I do think Canon could monetize the enhanced systemic workflow with stills the way they have with cinema.
I would not hesitate to look at a Canon 100MP product regardless of format. Give me focus, DR, Color and resolution at a fair price with support and I'm there!!!
I love my cannon, but I've been playing with MF film and got me a v system camera, while they're still reasonable.

I got the 501CM....and aside from wanting to shoot film, I saw that Hasselblad is coming out with a new system that includes the CFV II 50 digital back, that will hook right in seamlessly on my old V system camera and open up MF digital to me, allowing me to use older, but very nice lenses.

Hasselblad: 907X and CFV II 50C

I mean sure, a step by Canon into the MF field would be niche....but we're all seeing the trends of normal consumers moving mostly to phone cameras, and I believe even Canon themselves said they were going to be concentrating more into the pro (and I think Prosumer) area which themselves are becoming niche when compared to the general public's interest in photography tools.

cayenne
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,128
224
I think many on CR consider sharpness and resolution the pinnacle of success and often the composition is not even given a second thought. This tends to be true when it comes to wildlife or maybe birds in particular because the shooter often, like me, really loves birds and just acquiring an image of some species gives a shiver down ones spine.

This has been pointed out to me over the last few years by a few of the big boys and I'm thankful for that. I now at least give some thought to basic principles, having read The Photographer's Eye a couple times, especially when it comes to cropping, which is almost a given when shooting birds.

Of course this is just me as a person who is coming with no formal training in photography. Reading some of my earliest posts to CR and the questions I was asking, would be rather embarrassing, so I don't do that. ;)

Hmm, maybe I'm still displaying the same ignorance and I just don't realize it!:cry: Either way it gives me a laugh and I still enjoy photography for the fun of it.

Jack

Is this the PHotographer's Eye. book you were referring to?

I've been looking to find some good composition study materials.....this is. a good book?

TIA,

cayenne
 

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
85
35
riker.hu
It's possible that the 150 mp is just a high resolution mode with pixel shift in the R5 and they got confused with the rumors?

Meanwhile more R5 pics (i can't have enough of them)
OMG I hate that 100-500. I just wanted a 100-400 which was already perfect. Come on! Anything above f/4 is an amateur/travel lens anyway - absolutely no need to go beyond 400.
I don't think I can respect anyone seriously thinking he needs 500mm but then also thinking f/7.1 is fine ;)
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,367
2,109
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
OMG I hate that 100-500. I just wanted a 100-400 which was already perfect. Come on! Anything above f/4 is an amateur/travel lens anyway - absolutely no need to go beyond 400.
I don't think I can respect anyone seriously thinking he needs 500mm but then also thinking f/7.1 is fine ;)
Wow! That's quite an opinion. I guess we are lucky to have such experts contributing to this site. Why do you care? Since anything above f4 is for amateurs, then you wouldn't want a 100-400 f5.6 anyway. By the way, the EF 100-400 works just fine on an R body, so if you can lower yourself to use an f5.6 lens, just use that one.

Oh, also, I'm not sure anyone cares if you respect them or not.
 

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,367
2,109
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Why do you say 'unfortunately'? The Michael Freeman book is excellent.
I find your comment about Szarkowski's book rather patronising.
Szarkowski's six pages of introduction followed by five chapters of brief two or three paragraph introductions to the essence of photography is a classic. Coupled with "Looking at Photographs" Szarkowski set standards for exploring photography in a serious way that few writers have matched in the 50+ years since it was first published. It is the kind of book that you can read a hundred times and still learn something from. If you really want to explore photography in a serious way, Szarkowski is an excellent starting point.

Patronizing? No. I simply think that people should avail themselves of the very best.
 

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,442
1,602
Alberta, Canada
Is this the PHotographer's Eye. book you were referring to?

I've been looking to find some good composition study materials.....this is. a good book?

TIA,

cayenne
The Photographer's Eye by Freeman is very good and worth every penny. It's this one - https://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=the+photographers+eye&qid=1584504825&sr=8-3

The particular one you linked, The Photographers Eye: A graphic Guide: Instantly Understand Composition & Design for Better Photography, I'm sure is good too but it's not the one I have

Jack
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,128
224
Szarkowski's six pages of introduction followed by five chapters of brief two or three paragraph introductions to the essence of photography is a classic. Coupled with "Looking at Photographs" Szarkowski set standards for exploring photography in a serious way that few writers have matched in the 50+ years since it was first published. It is the kind of book that you can read a hundred times and still learn something from. If you really want to explore photography in a serious way, Szarkowski is an excellent starting point.

Patronizing? No. I simply think that people should avail themselves of the very best.

Hmm....maybe I'll get BOTH!!
;)

It appears for the foreseeable future, I'll have time at home to catch up on some reading!!!

C
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,128
224
The Photographer's Eye by Freeman is very good and worth every penny. It's this one - https://www.amazon.com/Photographers-Eye-Composition-Design-Digital/dp/0240809343/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=the+photographers+eye&qid=1584504825&sr=8-3

The particular one you linked, The Photographers Eye: A graphic Guide: Instantly Understand Composition & Design for Better Photography, I'm sure is good too but it's not the one I have

Jack
Thank you Jack,

I saw that one too....from what I could tell, it seems the one I linked to is an updated version of the one you linked to.

C