Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]

[unfocused]

R10 with kit lens: $1,099
M50 II with kit lens: $700

Which camera better fits the budget of a young person?

It depends on how much money their parents have.

 

[unfocused]

Those concerned about file size should know you can always shoot c-raw with little to no loss of quality.

 

[amorse]

Got to wonder what the use case is.
If the DLA is only f/4.7 then at most lens' sweet spot of f/5.6-8 then diffraction will start to be noticeable and will counter act the fine resolution so what's the point ?
Am I missing something?
Maybe astronomy , but a dedicated astronomy sensor would be cheaper and better anyway.
If there is a strong use case it must be pretty niche

I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.

 

[Chig]

I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.

Interesting thoughts Amorse but focus stacking 100mp ?
You'll need a monster computer and I doubt it'll be possible in camera

 

[amorse]

Interesting thoughts Amorse but focus stacking 100mp ?
You'll need a monster computer and I doubt it'll be possible in camera

Ha, oh yes. It's going to be a task! I just upgraded to an M1 max MBP and it's been blazing fast so far. I'm hopeful it's enough! With that said, my working PSBs are already often over 2GB anyway and it's not uncommon for me to get well over 100mpx by stitching. And I don't really trust photoshop's stacking tools so I usually just end up doing it manually. I've learned patience in these sort of situations! It's not too bad though - I probably only produce maybe 50 images a year, so I can tolerate spending a lot of time per image.

What can I say, I'm a glutton for punishment!

 

[stevelee]

Storage manufacturers are salivating at the prospect of selling more disk storage to those new owners of extreme megapixel cameras.

I just upgraded to an R5 (from a 5DM3) and going from 22MP to 45MP, and faster frame rates has seen my disk usage explode. I can only imaging what a 100MP image will do.

I have two Promise RAID arrays (R8 and R6) and I'm seriously replacing all the drives in one tower to the largest 20TB drives I can get to keep me happy for the next few years.

How would one even manage 100MP images?

My new Mac has a 2TB SSD, and probably about 15TB free space on external drives to archive RAW files on. I’ve thought through this a bit. Storage is not the reason I’m not looking to buy the Fuji GFX 100S. I can’t think of an excuse to buy one in terms of what I would do with it that is different enough from what I already can do and don’t really shoot that much.

 

[2Cents]

All other features aside. A dual Digic X processor setup would probably get this into our hands sooner rather than later.

 

[Dragon]

I am sure there are some people that would take a $10,000 camera out in the wild to shoot birds. But with a massive recession coming on I am not sure there will be that many.

During a recession, the poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. During the Great Depression, Packards, Cadillacs, Lincolns, and Duesenbergs sold quite well.

 

[Dragon]

Went through all posts and only one other person mentioned DLA. is it a limiting factor?

For a landscape photographer, what is the advantage if diffraction causes loss of sharpness at apertures smaller than f/5, which landscape togs typically shoot at?

Focus stacking is now built in, so which is better for high-res landscape, a 120MP focus stack at f/5 or a stitched pano of 20MP shots at f/11 or f/16? Probably scene dependent, but either approach will have some artifacts. Worth note that most lenses have best resolution at f/4-f/5.6.

 

[Sporgon]

I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.

Only if you’re going to be outputting the image at full native size or larger. Even then it’ll be pretty much imperceptible. As for tilt allowing desired depth of field at larger apertures, it’s not as useful as some imagine. The facts are, if you want the benefits of an ultra high mp sensor you need a larger format.

 

[Del Paso]

What I have understood till now is that I'll have to test it before buying.
Since most of my macros and landscapes are shot between F8 and F16, will I really see a difference (DLA!) compared to the R5?
Anyway, one certainty: this will be a fantastic tool for astronomy and other specific uses.

 

[Berowne]

What I have understood till now is that I'll have to test it before buying.
Since most of my macros and landscapes are shot between F8 and F16, will I really see a difference (DLA!) compared to the R5?
Anyway, one certainty: this will be a fantastic tool for astronomy and other specific uses.

There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

 

[stevelee]

There is a fantastic tool for astronomers and you have nothing to pay for it or care about DLA, just wait and enjoy.
JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

The Webb telescope sees in infrared and maybe lower. It can look into the distant past by detecting galaxies moving away so fast that the light from our perspective is red shifted enough that even Hubble can’t see them. It may show us more about the earliest times of the universe, but is not likely to produce images as aesthetically pleasing as what someone with a telescope can shoot out in the yard.

 

[stevelee]

Worth note that most lenses have best resolution at f/4-f/5.6.

Is that now true? Traditionally the rule of thumb was that lenses are at their best two stops down from wide open. When I was shooting the solar eclipse a few years back I was using the not-so-hot 75–300mm lens on my T3i. So I found tests of the lens that indicated it was best (or least bad) at f/11, so I used that for most of my shots. So I’m a bit skeptical of any statement as broad as yours seems to be.

 

[john1970]

I think landscapes are a pretty solid use case and I will very likely be after one for that. Even past the DLA the sensor will continue to provide more detail than otherwise possible on lower resolution sensors. Yes, it won't hit maximal sharpness, but what it will do is still out perform other sensors. And depending on what you're shooting and how you're doing it, you can likely work around the DLA. For instance, I'm already focus stacking pretty often so this will be no different if I really want to maximize sharpness. Alternatively, I could also use a tilt shift to keep that aperature low and try to maintain as much depth as possible in the foreground of my landscapes.

I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?

 

[Del Paso]

I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?

Many reasons in my case, at least.
First, I don't use my camera(s) exclusively for landscape, but also for macros, cities, people, animals etc...
Second, I'd miss many lenses that I find useful, like UWA, TS and long tele-zooms.
Third, weight, bulk, weather resistance and cost.

 

[amorse]

I do see a 100 MP sensor being used for landscape. If one is serious about high-res landscapes is there a reason why they would just not go to MF especially when the price difference is minimal as an overall system (camera + couple of lenses)?

I've thought a lot about exploring the 100s, but I've kind of come to the conclusion that it isn't a perfect fit. Beyond the Fuji system, I haven't researched other brands extensively but I suspect the same limitations would keep me out of them as well, and of course price for them as well.

My biggest issue is lens selection - they don't really have anything that wide (though it is coming) which is a pretty common use case for me. Ideally for me, being wide isn't enough - I'd like it fast as well and the 15-35 f/2.8 is a pretty good fit. I'd be even more excited if Canon released something wider and faster, which I think Canon is more likely to do than Fuji. On the other side of the spectrum of lenses, I've found myself using my 70-200 for landscapes a lot, and I'm craving some more reach. I've been a hair away from buying a 100-400 for my 5Div over and over, but have convinced myself to save my pennies until I have an RF camera and can go for the 100-500. I don't see Fuji producing anything equivalent, so the system, for my use case, will never completely fit. It is an extremely attractive system, and I've considered it a few times, but my decision always gets held up on lens selection when I look through my current images and think "I couldn't have taken this on the 100s, or that, or that." So at the end of the day, the better fit is a full frame system with very high pixel density, at least in my opinion.

 

[john1970]

I've thought a lot about exploring the 100s, but I've kind of come to the conclusion that it isn't a perfect fit. Beyond the Fuji system, I haven't researched other brands extensively but I suspect the same limitations would keep me out of them as well, and of course price for them as well.

My biggest issue is lens selection - they don't really have anything that wide (though it is coming) which is a pretty common use case for me. Ideally for me, being wide isn't enough - I'd like it fast as well and the 15-35 f/2.8 is a pretty good fit. I'd be even more excited if Canon released something wider and faster, which I think Canon is more likely to do than Fuji. On the other side of the spectrum of lenses, I've found myself using my 70-200 for landscapes a lot, and I'm craving some more reach. I've been a hair away from buying a 100-400 for my 5Div over and over, but have convinced myself to save my pennies until I have an RF camera and can go for the 100-500. I don't see Fuji producing anything equivalent, so the system, for my use case, will never completely fit. It is an extremely attractive system, and I've considered it a few times, but my decision always gets held up on lens selection when I look through my current images and think "I couldn't have taken this on the 100s, or that, or that." So at the end of the day, the better fit is a full frame system with very high pixel density, at least in my opinion.

Thank you for sharing your viewpoint.

 

[cgc]

Not so sure.
By comparing results obtained using the same lens (Zeiss 100mm macro planar) on a Leica M 240 (24MP) and on an EOS 5D4 (30MP), it becomes obvious that the Leica picture is sharper.
Leica had to use microlenses on their sensor, not because of "old" designs, but because most of their WAs are no retrofocus designs, an optical choice! The microlenses were needed to get sharper picture sides, compared to a conventional sensor ("guiding" light rays).
Many Leica WAs "plunge" deep into the body.
They removed the AA filter explicitly to get a better definition.
I too hope for a sensor without AA filter, even though, at 100MP +, will that really matter?
And, Leica's "marketing experts" never gave a damn about the internet, and never tried to influence it. This is a pure conspiration theory!

Note that sharpness may be fake. Aliasing (and false sharpness/detail) always exists. Google for "circular sunburst aliasing"... every camera will generate aliasing taking a shot of such a picture (at a big enough aperture): the false/invented resolution is still there in any other subject, but is not so easy to spot, because you didn't know in advance how the picture was in real life.

Leica did removed the AA filter because it was too thick for their classic lenses (see this link). At the very least they were not sincere with their customers, because at low pixel count that causes a sensible tradeof, including the risk of totally false colors (completely unaceptable e.g. for a wedding dress).

There is a good reason because digital audio is sampled at twice the human ear resolution (44 KHz vs 22 KHz) and then passed through a low pass filter, which still keeps it "effectively" above the required 22 KHz but with most of the aliasing getting rid. The same applies to digital image processing. We don't want a XX megapixel sensor... we actually need 2x the amount of pixels and a low pass filter (plus when handling images, a proper sharpening technique, like deconvolution-based ones, will recover most of the perceptually lost sharpness). No AA filter is perfect (none will not remove all the aliasing nor will be "free" in terms of resolution) but things improve a lot with them. They are required for engineering reasons.

In photography, each time resolution doubles, the aperture threshold for aliasing decreases a full stop. So e.g. at 50MP, in a full frame camera lacking the AA filter, F11 is "safe" (only traces) and F16 is nearly zero-aliasing territory. With 100MP we are safe at F8. And we need 800MP to be safe at F2.8. In fact, there is no need to go further, because there are no lenses sharper at F2.0 or bellow (even at the center of the image, a great F1.2 or F1.4 lens improves slightly stopped down to F2 or F2.8) so at wide enough apertures, aberrations replace diffraction as a aliasing-free grantor (provided the amount of pixels is enough, e.g. the mentioned 800MP for full frame).

 

[Del Paso]

And why doesn't Leica fit their SL2 sensor with an AA filter, lenses cannot be the reason (all WAs are retrofocus type) ?
My Wetzlar contact (R/D) confirmed they suppressed the AA filter to obtain better sharpness, and I'm convinced he knows what he is talking about. Even the M could have been fitted with a thin AA filter, at the cost of sharpness reduction.
It was a choice, not a necessity, no matter what the internet believes to know. The Leica M sensor microlenses were a necessity which doesn't exist for the SL, SL2 and SL2s. The drawback is a higher risk of moire.