Very unlikely. The 1-series has been on a 4-year refresh cycle. It's also possible (perhaps even likely) that the R3 was a one-off, and there will be no R3II.
Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I'd be very surprised to see a R3-II in 2 years (R3 is barely out now in quantity). I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!
unfocused
EOS-1D X Mark III
As usual there will be a of whining when the R1 finally hits. People have poured so many unrealistic conflicting expectations into that body that it is bound to disappoint. If folks can’t find what they want in the existing lineup they aren’t trying.I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!
Last edited:
I expect the R1 to make a lot of people (that can afford it) very happy. My personal guess is that it will have a fast QP BSI sensor with a reasonable MP count (~45?). It will have other bells and whistles, but I won't guess any further there. But I'm in the "smaller body" camp so I'd still prefer a R5 II to come out.
Speaking of the R3, it only took me 2 weeks to get one from Canon direct (delivered 2 days ago)I'd be very surprised to see a R3-II in 2 years (R3 is barely out now in quantity). I would expect the R1 to hit within that time and it better be a big hullabalu for Canon and most of those here!
That's good to hear that Canon has (hopefully) got enough availability now. Good for them, and for us.
Canon has been using gapless micro-lenses above the circuitry for at least a decade or so. Almost all of that light previously "lost" to circuitry is now funneled into the well. BSI has advantages, as do stacked layer sensors, but the loss of area to circuitry is nowhere near the issue it was 15-20 years ago.
As to resolution: I'd get an R5 tomorrow if I could justify the cost/benefit in terms of revenue stream. But I wouldn't necessarily be thrilled with even the 45MP it offers. I do want more than the 20 MP offered by the R6, though, and there isn't much choice in between at the moment in the RF line. So I'm still shooting with a 30MP 5D Mark IV for my FF body.
I'd love a 32MP APS-C body because I would use it for a different use case than the FF bodies and would rather have a speedy 32MP APS-C sensor than an 82 MP FF camera with the much larger files sizes, not to mention cost. Unfortunately, with no vertical grip available for it, I doubt I'll be getting an R7. My old shoulder makes it difficult for me to shoot in portrait orientation without vertical controls.
I have absolutely no need for a 100 MP+ camera. Most of my work these days is displayed digitally, either web based or on relatively low resolution monitors (2K is only 3.7 MP, 4K is only 8.8 MP). I can't remember the last time I've had anything printed larger than 24x16. 30MP is fine for that.
Rental patterns don't necessarily reflect overall sales patterns, though. For some things, different types of users rent vs. buy. For others, people buy what they plan to use frequently and only rent what they will occasionally use.
For shooting video, maybe. But for shooting stills with an eye level viewfinder they are significantly different. Optical VF vs. detachable electronic VF that ties up the hot show when no PC terminal is provided. Dedicated PDAF array vs. on sensor hybrid DPAF.
Last edited:
We're talking about AF speed, not output image quality.
In terms of how many scan cycles per second the camera can do AF, it's all about processing time which is directly impacted by data volume. Even if one had a global shutter, which no camera like the R3, R5, α1, α9, or z1 yet has, it would still be about how long it takes the camera to process that information and move the AF system in response to that data.
The camera can't store that data to be processed later and use it to effectively control AF until it has processed that data in the way it needs to in order to use that data for AF purposes.
No one cares if rolling shutter influences AF speed, because the algorithms can compensate for the distorted shapes. People only care if rolling shutter affects the captured image.
No matter how fast a sensor can be read out, it will always take less time to process the data from only 2/3 of the lines that it will to process all of the lines when talking about using that data to control AF response.
But the $10,000 question is will you get 5X, or even 2-3X as many lp/mm by spending 2-3X as much?
As one approaches the absolute resolution limits of the lens (the so-called diffraction cutoff frequency), the gain from significantly increased sensor resolution becomes more and more miniscule.
Few would disagree that money spent on photographic equipment follows the law of diminishing returns. But, sometimes the miniscule increase is just enough to make it worthwhile (like that extra degree of waterproofing, for example).
The manufacturing cost alone will not be $26,000. However if you add the mask cost ( at least 20 for the wafer and a few more for the micro lenses) for a limited amount of wafer(due to very low volume production) and the testing cost of individual sensor. Then the $26,000 may be reasonable.
People salivating for more REZ here in the forums.
I am in the commercial (advertising) photography world, shooting and producing for companies like L'Oreal, LVMH, J Walter Thompson, Apple, Google, Amazon, Williams-Sonoma, Sephora, Martha Stewart…etc etc.
No one, and I mean NO ONE is asking for more pixels.
Just my two cents, from commercial experience.
Cheers.
I am in the commercial (advertising) photography world, shooting and producing for companies like L'Oreal, LVMH, J Walter Thompson, Apple, Google, Amazon, Williams-Sonoma, Sephora, Martha Stewart…etc etc.
No one, and I mean NO ONE is asking for more pixels.
Just my two cents, from commercial experience.
Cheers.
I understand your needs about a vertical grip based on your shoulder. With that in mind, do you have a R3? If not, wouldn't that be a good compromise in a gripped body for you right now?
As far as image MP, I sometime make panoramas of lots of images and print them (myself) up to 8' on a side at 600 DPI (and yes, I drop the DPI lower when I have to). More frequently I just print a single R5 image at large scale and the (usually cropped to taste) 45MP file is nice, with the sharpness & big background blur of the RF 100-500L really appreciated. So I do use high MP's. Would a 100+ MP sensor really give me better results? I'm guessing that it would (based on what I've heard from AlanF), but I wouldn't look forward to more TB storage for it. But I'd make it happen somehow if I got it on a non-gripped body (since I'm OK doing the 90 degree flip).
If I can't justify the cost/return on investment of the $3,800, 45MP R5, what do you think the numbers for the $6,000, 20 MP R3 look like?
Instead of using a 120-300mm/2.8 with either the 7D Mark II (same pixel density as a 50MP FF camera) or 30 MP 5D Mark IV to shoot sports under lights at night, I'd need to spend what a 400/2.8 costs to get roughly the same number of pixels on subject for field sports at night.
Even comparing a 32MP APS-C camera + 70-200/2.8, like the upcoming R7, to get close to the same number of pixels on subjects almost 100 yards away at the other end of a football/soccer field or from behind home plate to the warning track (or vice versa) for baseball with a 24MP FF camera I'd need a 600/2.8 (which is not available at any price...)
R7 + RF70-200/2.8 = $4,300.
R3 + RF400/2.8 = $18,000 plus the need for another body and shorter zoom lens for when the action is too close for 400mm
There's no way a $6,000 camera and a $12,000 lens makes sense for anyone shooting local youth and high school sports and needing to be, at the very worst, revenue neutral.
Stitching multiple images doesn't really work that well for sports/action.
Can’t disagree with your view on rental patterns, however, those who own the high mp versions then need to rent the “normal” mid level mp model ? That would seem odd to me. Personally I don’t think the very high mp version of a model range is anything like as popular as many of those who frequent the likes of CR would like to think.
As we inevitably go higher and higher, the R5 is after all very high res / output, the “high mp” model may become even more niche and if so I’d expect it to be sold at quite a premium.
I have yet to come across a model over the age of about 21 who wants ultra sharp, ultra high res images of themselves !! And don’t get me on to weddings of middle aged couples !Well, there's always post production....I mean, it isn't like anyone doing portraits is selling them to clients straight out of the camera, you know?
cayenne
Regarding mirrorless being suitable for adapting old glass, I agree with you 100% . I’ve created some interesting images using my collection of 1960’s era Takumar lenses adapted to an RP. In fact the user interface in terms of focus peaking and allowing practical magnification for pin point focus accuracy very quickly is actually making these lenses viable in a live shoot I think. I don’t want to bore people here on a 100mp thread with a picture, but as I know you like these old lenses I’ll pm you with one taken on a 1964 Takumar 105/2.8, which is a rather beautiful lens.
Similar threads
