Is a brand new 32.5mp APS-C sensor from Canon on the way? [CR1]

Chris Jankowski

6DII + various lenses, 200D + 15-85
Jul 27, 2013
49
7
The lack of a mirror does not make code development and integration easier. Using it may require one addition step, mirror lockup, which most every recent mirrored camera likely already has available.
In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,363
1,704
The logic is based on the following factors:
  • Mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and will become even cheaper in the future with falling prices of electronic components.
  • Mirrorless cameras may be much smaller than equivalent DSLR. Market in general wants this.
  • Mirrorless cameras allow easier addition of new gizmo features. Think pet eye AF. Important for marketing.
  • Got any data to support the claim that production of MILCs is cheaper than for DSLRs? Even if they are cheaper to make, does that automatically mean lower prices for the buyer? Do you believe that cost of goods is the only or even the main driver of retail prices?
  • If the market wants much smaller cameras, why are DSLRs outselling MILCs?
  • There’s a long history of adding new gizmo features to DLSRs, no reason that won’t continue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,363
1,704
In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.
So? You suggested those features are important for marketing. That holds true even if the feature is only available with the mirror up. 4K video doesn’t work through the OVF. Canon has advertised ‘5-axis image stabilization’ which is only available for video and with an IS lens attached, etc.

Sorry, your logic is falling apart...
 

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
With the current technology, I want to see a 51mp full frame sensor, same in my 5DSr, but better ISO, better dynamic range, redesign the low pass to be variable, add focus peaking, improve the viewfinder whether mirrored or not, but do not go past 60mp or so unless you put 4 DIGIC 8's in it, haha. I like my 5DSr, but it could be SO MUCH BETTER, and do not get me started on its weaknesses vs its unique strengths. I am going to call bull&#%* on this one because I don't think Canon has solved their biggest engineering problem yet, and when they do, it will be to reveal a mirrorless 1DX that far surpasses in burst speed a mirrored 1DX, and look for it to shake up the market like EOS/EF did back in '87. They wouldn't waste a clever engineering work-around on introducing an APSC sensor if the technology that enables that high mp/burst shooting/pixel density also works too on full frame and ff mirrorless. A Canon sensor of 32mp APSC certainly is a bad step Canon WOULD make, Canon having not a distinct clue what they are doing when it comes to body/sensor design and what people want, but some of the R/RP/RF designs seem to have had user input, so maybe that is all the more reason a 32mp apsc is not happening.

Bottom line I just don't see that happening on an APS-c. They really need to reassure the product/landscape shooters that want a pro-level high-mp body that they are working hard on a solution, because I see all my EF L glass, and I look at my obsolete mirrored 5DSr, and medium format is starting to look tastier and tastier. Please Canon, please......
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,035
372
In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.
Right, hence entering lock-up mode to use it, as mentioned.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

mpmark

EOS M50
Aug 9, 2016
26
23
If this information is taken seriously, then you are looking at a 80MP sensor full frame camera coming as well.
 

Cryve

EOS 80D
Jul 4, 2018
104
67
Germany
the new high megapixel mirrorles camera from canon will either have 62mp ( rumored apsc 24mp sensor upscaled) or about 84mp (rumored apsc 32,5 mp sensor upscaled)

the 5ds(r) sensor was the 20mp sensor from the 70d/7d ii upscaled to full frame. the same thing is going to happen here agin.
there is no other choise, there will be no "better 50mp sensor". it will be either of those.
 

Chris Jankowski

6DII + various lenses, 200D + 15-85
Jul 27, 2013
49
7
  • Got any data to support the claim that production of MILCs is cheaper than for DSLRs? Even if they are cheaper to make, does that automatically mean lower prices for the buyer? Do you believe that cost of goods is the only or even the main driver of retail prices?
  • If the market wants much smaller cameras, why are DSLRs outselling MILCs?
  • There’s a long history of adding new gizmo features to DLSRs, no reason that won’t continue.
  • MILCs eliminate essentially all opto-mechanical components except optional sensor stabilisation assuming that electro-mechanical shutter will be replaced with electronic one. This essentially leaves only digital electronics. There is a well documented trend since circa 1975 that digital electronics components typically drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity.
  • Cheaper to make does not automatically translate to lower prices for the buyer, of course. Manufacturers would like to increase their margin, but competition is likely to force them to lower prices in the end. However, looking at it from the point of view of a manufacturer is is very desirable to have low production cost. You can then can higher margins and still be competitive.
  • DSLRs are outselling MILCs because the bottom range DSLRs are actually quite cheap. At least until recently their prices were generally lower than those of MILCs. Rebel T6 with kit zoom lists on Canon US web site for $399.99 and the street price is much lower.
  • I would respectfully disagree with your view that adding gizmos to DSLRs can continue. In my view, this is not the case and certainly not on the scale possible in a MILCs. In the AF area the main limitation is the number of AF points in a DSLR. The other limitation is that you by definition cannot display all these gizmo visual effects in the OVF. Of course, you can display them on the LCD in Live View, but then why to have a mirror and OVF, you could just as well use your phone + Instagram. Well, it is actually obvious to me that DSLRs reached maturity. Of course, sensors still change slowly, but the main concept of the DSLR remains more or less constant. The last revolution apart from transition from film to digital was autofocus, but that was 35 years ago still in the film days. The maturity is a good thing in a way and this is why I still use a DSLR.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -pekr-

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
206
183
Madison, WI
With the current technology, I want to see a 51mp full frame sensor, same in my 5DSr, but better ISO, better dynamic range, redesign the low pass to be variable, add focus peaking, improve the viewfinder whether mirrored or not, but do not go past 60mp or so unless you put 4 DIGIC 8's in it, haha. I like my 5DSr, but it could be SO MUCH BETTER, and do not get me started on its weaknesses vs its unique strengths. I am going to call bull&#%* on this one because I don't think Canon has solved their biggest engineering problem yet, and when they do, it will be to reveal a mirrorless 1DX that far surpasses in burst speed a mirrored 1DX, and look for it to shake up the market like EOS/EF did back in '87. They wouldn't waste a clever engineering work-around on introducing an APSC sensor if the technology that enables that high mp/burst shooting/pixel density also works too on full frame and ff mirrorless. A Canon sensor of 32mp APSC certainly is a bad step Canon WOULD make, Canon having not a distinct clue what they are doing when it comes to body/sensor design and what people want, but some of the R/RP/RF designs seem to have had user input, so maybe that is all the more reason a 32mp apsc is not happening.

Bottom line I just don't see that happening on an APS-c. They really need to reassure the product/landscape shooters that want a pro-level high-mp body that they are working hard on a solution, because I see all my EF L glass, and I look at my obsolete mirrored 5DSr, and medium format is starting to look tastier and tastier. Please Canon, please......

IF the readout speed is vastly increased, I could see digic 8 being fast enough to handle an aps-c sized processor with increased pixel density. It's handling a full frame right now just fine with eye-af, especially with the new firmware. The big hangup has been how fast the speed readout from the chip is. If it was mirroreless, more than likely you'd be able to get 7dMkII like FPS with that setup as well since it's only having to process af points from a much smaller chip, and the 90d will not be displaying that real time. Even with increased pixel density it's still less points than the current R when in live view. If you use the digic 8 to interpret phase detect focal systems it will not even begin to tax the chip.

The 2020 olympic ready mirrorless sports 1dx type camera would need both the increased readout speed AND a newer Digic 9 chip. If they release a full frame version of this newly designed chip in the 70-100 megapixel range the increased readout speed of the sensor would make the current Digic 8 chip work in a hypothetical 5ds replacement, but with slower fps than the R, just like the 5ds versus 5dIII.

The more I think about it, the more getting rid of the 7D line makes sense from what I always considered the primary reason why the line existed: Fast fps, 1dx level tracking
Both the RP and the R exhibit tracking on par with the 1dx, even if they can't fire off shots as fast as it can. This level of tracking will be in ALL future mirrorless bodies and all future bodies with live view. The only differentiation is in FPS speeds. The 80D already was only 2 fps lower than the 7dMkII, and had a better sensor to boot. So why wouldn't they add in the 1dx tracking and use the digic 8 to handle it? Even with that advanced setup, in some respects it will have worse tracking than the R and RP outside of speed! If you add that in, at that point what you are losing is better weatherproofing and a joystick. And I'll bet we'll see at least one of those on the upgraded (and upgraded price) body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

AlanF

Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A E
Aug 16, 2012
5,238
2,256
Could someone confirm that the RP and R exhibit tracking on par with the 1dx - I have no direct experience and am very intrigued. And with what lenses?
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,363
1,704
  • MILCs eliminate essentially all opto-mechanical components except optional sensor stabilisation assuming that electro-mechanical shutter will be replaced with electronic one. This essentially leaves only digital electronics. There is a well documented trend since circa 1975 that digital electronics components typically drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity.
  • Cheaper to make does not automatically translate to lower prices for the buyer, of course. Manufacturers would like to increase their margin, but competition is likely to force them to lower prices in the end. However, looking at it from the point of view of a manufacturer is is very desirable to have low production cost. You can then can higher margins and still be competitive.
  • DSLRs are outselling MILCs because the bottom range DSLRs are actually quite cheap. At least until recently their prices were generally lower than those of MILCs. Rebel T6 with kit zoom lists on Canon US web site for $399.99 and the street price is much lower.
  • I would respectfully disagree with your view that adding gizmos to DSLRs can continue. In my view, this is not the case and certainly not on the scale possible in a MILCs. In the AF area the main limitation is the number of AF points in a DSLR. The other limitation is that you by definition cannot display all these gizmo visual effects in the OVF. Of course, you can display them on the LCD in Live View, but then why to have a mirror and OVF, you could just as well use your phone + Instagram. Well, it is actually obvious to me that DSLRs reached maturity. Of course, sensors still change slowly, but the main concept of the DSLR remains more or less constant. The last revolution apart from transition from film to digital was autofocus, but that was 35 years ago still in the film days. The maturity is a good thing in a way and this is why I still use a DSLR
  • The 'drop in prices at least 20% per annum for the same functionality or capacity' certainly hasn't happened in the MILC segment so far. I suspect it won't even after global shutters are the norm.
  • Prices for some m4/3 MILC models are equivalent to entry-level DSLRs (<US$400 for a kit). So much for that argument.
  • You can certainly disagree. But consider that you stated that the popularity of DSLRs was due to the bottom end of the market (and I agree that the low end drives the market overall, but as stated that doesn't differentiate MILCs). Still, the low end driving popularity means there are plenty of higher end features – for both DSLRs and MILCs – that will trickle their way down the lines.
  • MILCs aren't a 'revolution'. Autofocus took over the market in about 10 years. Digital took over the market in less than 10 years. MILCs in current form have been around for over a decade, and still haven't managed to capture simple majority of the ILC market, much less come to dominate it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

neonlight

EOS 80D
Jul 10, 2015
122
15
The iPhone has 1.4 µ pixels, which give a DLA of f/2.25, larger than its f/1.8 lens. The 48 mpixel sensor on the Sony is unique, and I don't really understand it. Its pixel size is 0.8 µ, which would be give a DLA of f/1.3. But, it has what is described as "Quad Bayer" technology, with each pixel a member of a block of 4, with an effective size of 1.6 pixels. It seems to me that the true resolution may well be that of a 12 mpixel sensor of a DLA of f/2.6. Can you tell me more about it?
From what I can see, I'm guessing that the pixels really are 0.8 microns, arranged in conventional RGGB Bayer colour filter format, and I'm supposing that in low light they are used in pairs so that two neighbouring reds are operated in parallel to generate an effective 1.6 micron pixel to reduce noise. That's not, though, how Sony's diagrams appear: they suggest the sensor works the other way round, starting with 1.6 micron pixels in 2x2 format are somehow subdivided to make a 4x4 array with RGGB layout in each sub-block using software. So I too am a little puzzled by this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,487
1,087
Irving, Texas
In the case that I gave as an example - pet eye AF - this is about the resolution and coverage of the AF sensor. With on sensor AF you can have thousands of AF points spread over nearly all sensor. In a DLSR you have tens, typically low tens and in basic DSLRs like 200D you have 9 all bunched up in the centre. Tracking a small eye of a moving pet requires a fine granularity of the AF system and wide AF coverage. Not possible on a DSLR in a regular mode i.e. when using OVF.
I've been hoping for pet-eye-Af for a long time. My bearded dragon moves fast when the cat is chasing him around the house. Pet-eye-AF will be a Godsend. Though, I have to wonder whether the camera would confuse the lizard eye with the holes in my Fruit Loops if he happens to be near the bowl. Any word on insect-eye-AF development?
 

Dantana

EOS RP
Jan 29, 2013
223
65
Los Angeles, CA
www.flickr.com
I've been hoping for pet-eye-Af for a long time. My bearded dragon moves fast when the cat is chasing him around the house. Pet-eye-AF will be a Godsend. Though, I have to wonder whether the camera would confuse the lizard eye with the holes in my Fruit Loops if he happens to be near the bowl. Any word on insect-eye-AF development?
Sure, but what if I want the Fruit Loops in focus? How will the camera know whether to use the Lizard AF Algorithm or the Cereal Hole Detection De-focus Mode?
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,363
1,704
around here, it ranges from $650 for an OMD-Em10 II with a 14-42 lens, to $3900 for an OMD-E-M1X body.... the same price as a 5DIV body!
Do you have Olympus blinders on, or is it just that they don’t sell Panasonic or Fuji MILCs in Canada? :unsure: The Lumix GX85 w/ 12-32mm kit lens can be had for under US$400 (list is $500). The Fuji XA5 (APS-C) w/ 15-45mm lens also lists for $500, although the discount offers are not as good because it’s a much newer camera.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,021
1,477
Canada
Do you have Olympus blinders on, or is it just that they don’t sell Panasonic or Fuji MILCs in Canada? :unsure: The Lumix GX85 w/ 12-32mm kit lens can be had for under US$400 (list is $500). The Fuji XA5 (APS-C) w/ 15-45mm lens also lists for $500, although the discount offers are not as good because it’s a much newer camera.
The low end Panasonic is the same price here, but of course I use Canadian Dollars
 

canonnews

EOS RP
Dec 27, 2017
256
155
Canada
www.canonnews.com
IF the readout speed is vastly increased, I could see digic 8 being fast enough to handle an aps-c sized processor with increased pixel density. It's handling a full frame right now just fine with eye-af, especially with the new firmware. The big hangup has been how fast the speed readout from the chip is. If it was mirroreless, more than likely you'd be able to get 7dMkII like FPS with that setup as well since it's only having to process af points from a much smaller chip, and the 90d will not be displaying that real time.
There really no guarantee that it's the readout sensor speed, versus the speed of DIGIC itself. unless you've seen some data, in which I would really be interested in seeing it, because I'm geeky that way ;)

Someone on dpreview did a quasi test of the sensor readout speed of the EOS R and it came out to ~75-83ms to read out the sensor on the EOS R. This equates to 12fps from the sensor itself. Assuming the problem isn't the mechanical shutter fps, that would lead one to believe that the problem is on DIGIC that limited the speed to 8fps with full AE/AF lock which means the hangup isn't DPAF either.

At times it's sensor speed as well, for instance the 24MP APS-C sensor that is in the M5 has to be dropped down to 12bit to achieve it's highest continuous burst mode. But is that the data transfer rate versus heat in the camera? who knows really.

Therefore in theory at 240MP/sec a 32.5MP sensor running with DIGIC 8 would be around 7.4fps. Even though a M5 right now shoots at 9fps max. I think it would be the first time that even with a resolution bump, that Canon has downgraded fps significantly from one version to the next, with the exception of the 50D to 60D when they downgraded the entire camera.
 
Last edited: