Canon to release a 100mp EOS R system camera next year [CR2]

MarinnaCole

I'm New Here
May 9, 2016
16
22
I'm primarily a hobby landscape photographer and the vast majority of my use is for personal consumption, with limited sales of calendars, prints, and the odd paid job. My desire for more resolution is linked to me really liking (and wanting to produce) high detail metal prints to be viewed from close.

I often perform a bit of cropping for the sake of composition, but not usually anything crazy. It's not uncommon for me to sacrifice maybe 30% of the resolution depending on the situation. I'm currently shooting with a 5D IV and finding typical crops are not providing sufficient resolution for 20x30 inch metal prints (at the distance they're viewed from) which is a pretty common size for me. An R5 is likely plenty for that size, but I've got a few panoramas at 6 feet long which I absolutely love. Those are often north of 90mp.

My intent with a camera like this is to produce high detailed prints at maybe ~48 inches long by 38 wide, again, to be viewed from close (i.e. in a hallway). 100 is definitely more than I need and even 80 is likely high, but I could personally justify more than 45. I don't need high burst rates or any video really, so the biggest gap I currently have in my equipment is resolution (and autofocus for those odd paid jobs to be fair).

With all that said, my biggest concern with that much resolution is diffraction limited aperture. I'd anticipate being diffraction limited at most apertures I'd be shooting at, so I'm not sure that I'd get the full resolution I'd be after all the time anyway. I'm in no rush to buy so I'm content to wait until it's available and judge for myself or take it out as a rental and see if it suits my needs as intended.
MF camera shooter crop very often. So the idea is to take a wider shot and handle the framing in post-processing. That is how to use big pixel sensor.

For diffraction I was reading that mirrorless sensor is closer to the lens so it is not as bad as DSLR. If they drop that AA filter in front of sensor I think it shouldn't be too bad. This is optics not sensor design so at the end of day we are bound by geometry not sensor.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,523
5,781
I'm primarily a hobby landscape photographer and the vast majority of my use is for personal consumption, with limited sales of calendars, prints, and the odd paid job. My desire for more resolution is linked to me really liking (and wanting to produce) high detail metal prints to be viewed from close.

I often perform a bit of cropping for the sake of composition, but not usually anything crazy. It's not uncommon for me to sacrifice maybe 30% of the resolution depending on the situation. I'm currently shooting with a 5D IV and finding typical crops are not providing sufficient resolution for 20x30 inch metal prints (at the distance they're viewed from) which is a pretty common size for me. An R5 is likely plenty for that size, but I've got a few panoramas at 6 feet long which I absolutely love. Those are often north of 90mp.

My intent with a camera like this is to produce high detailed prints at maybe ~48 inches long by 38 wide, again, to be viewed from close (i.e. in a hallway). 100 is definitely more than I need and even 80 is likely high, but I could personally justify more than 45. I don't need high burst rates or any video really, so the biggest gap I currently have in my equipment is resolution (and autofocus for those odd paid jobs to be fair).

With all that said, my biggest concern with that much resolution is diffraction limited aperture. I'd anticipate being diffraction limited at most apertures I'd be shooting at, so I'm not sure that I'd get the full resolution I'd be after all the time anyway. I'm in no rush to buy so I'm content to wait until it's available and judge for myself or take it out as a rental and see if it suits my needs as intended.
It’s all horses for courses of course, and thanks for the genuine reply. I must be honest if I was shooting landscape images for 48” prints I’d be using a GFX 100/s, I wouldn’t be looking at any FF camera.

But your answer really does align with my earlier comment, the drive and desire for these mp’s is primarily from the photographers not the customers. I was in a gallery in Hawaii a couple of years ago looking at an amazing 8’ x 5’ print backlit on Perspex, the staff told me it was the photographers best selling print in all sizes including the amazing one on display.


Why was it amazing? Because it was utter crap, it had obviously been under exposed and lifted in post when shot with a 5D II era sensor and resolution, the noise was horrific and the shadows a rainbow expanse of colored puke/pixels. Yet the customers, and I browsed long enough to confirm the interest myself, absolutely loved it!

It was a sad day for me :) but it did make me realize the difference between my expectations of myself and my work, and my customers. For instance I use TS-E lenses for real estate, I could easily use my 11-24 and crop and get exactly the same image, but that isn’t who I am. But delivering 100mp base images isn’t something I see as close to being asked for or needed by any but the very top end and most discerning of clients, and I have had exhibition billboards, life sized displays, posters, wallpapers etc made quite happily from my images.

But again, thanks for the genuine reply, I appreciate it.
 
Last edited:

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,301
975
Yorkshire, England
The comparison was 5DSR to Sony A7S II. They both arrive the market around 2015/2016 and 5DSR was unarguably horrible.
Earlier you stated that you were a 5DSr user for six years. If that's how you felt about the sensor why on earth did you use one for that length of time then ?
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
314
229
What would be the use of such a high mp camera?
I can think of a few:

Printing life size portraits of elephants to fine detail.
Life size landscape prints.
Spending quality time at the computer downloading files.
Spending quality time with the family shopping for additional external drives to store the pictures I take but never process.
Learning patience as I process my pictures on my old computer.
But the main reason is so I can say my camera has more mp than yours.
Ahhh, the same old song we get every time MPIX increases. Curiously - but predictably - each and every high MPIX camera critic eventually ends up buying a camera with the same useless high MPIX count - or even higher. I wonder why?
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
89
86
100 MPIX sounds great. 120 MPIX would be perfect. Less would hardly be enough compared to the 5DS/R. Was really worried that they would settle for 75 MPIX.

Regardless this sounds like the camera I have been hoping and holding out for since Canon announced their entry into the mirrorless market. One Preorder here Canon - thank you!
I would expect at least the same pixel density as the 90D, if not much higher. the 90D is excellent image quality.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,301
975
Yorkshire, England
......each and every high MPIX camera critic eventually ends up buying a camera with the same useless high MPIX count - or even higher. I wonder why?
Well probably because eventually there is nothing left for them to buy other than high mp ! However I think that’s going to change as mp becomes extreme, and we’ll see lower mp versions of cameras that are still featured like the high end models, maybe as we are seeing with the R6 & R5. Personally as someone who has two 5DSs I’m really missing a good up to date 20mp body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pzyber

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,402
Canada
www.canonnews.com
The comparison was 5DSR to Sony A7S II. They both arrive the market around 2015/2016 and 5DSR was unarguably horrible. (even Nikon at that time is better than Canon) Same game if I want to judge the sensor on this camera I would want to compare with the best FF in the market which is EOS R5 (not even the latest Alpha 1 could match, though they are very very close)
why on earth would you compare two cameras meant for different markets (unless you meant A7R II).

even then, the comparison is meaningless. Canon has quickly advanced their sensors since that point in time, which was the point of what I stated. a new 100mp+ camera from Canon right now would be two or arguably up to three generations of sensors better than the 5Ds/R .. so it's pointless trying to equate this back to that camera.

as an example, compare the R5 to any Sony - the difference is slight, it wasn't the case back in the 5DsR time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

amorse

EOS R
Jan 26, 2017
823
1,113
www.instagram.com
It’s all horses for courses of course, and thanks for the genuine reply. I must be honest if I was shooting landscape images for 48” prints I’d be using a GFX 100/s, I wouldn’t be looking at any FF camera.

But your answer really does align with my earlier comment, the drive and desire for these mp’s is primarily from the photographers not the customers. I was in a gallery in Hawaii a couple of years ago looking at an amazing 8’ x 5’ print backlit on Perspex, the staff told me it was the photographers best selling print in all sizes including the amazing one on display.


Why was it amazing? Because it was utter crap, it had obviously been under exposed and lifted in post when shot with a 5D II era sensor and resolution, the noise was horrific and the shadows a rainbow expanse of colored puke/pixels. Yet the customers, and I browsed long enough to confirm the interest myself, absolutely loved it!

It was a sad day for me :) but it did make me realize the difference between my expectations of myself and my work, and my customers. For instance I use TS-E lenses for real estate, I could easily use my 12-24 and crop and get exactly the same image, but that isn’t who I am. But delivering 100mp base images isn’t something I see as close to being asked for or needed by any but the very top end and most discerning of clients, and I have had exhibition billboards, life sized displays, posters, wallpapers etc made quite happily from my images.

But again, thanks for the genuine reply, I appreciate it.
Happy to provide my use case, and I agree on client standards vs photographer standards. I've seen over and over again that many popular images to non-photographers are full of visible errors or very low quality - especially with really obvious composites presented as real scenes. I think people who shoot for their own personal use are often incredibly discerning on what does and does not work for them, and I'd put myself in that category.

I did consider the 100s, and while I'm sure it's a great system, I'm most concerned about lens selection. I've really been enjoying longer focal length landscape photography from others, and the GFX system doesn't really have anything comparable to say a 100-400. We'll see on that front. Again, I'm not really in a rush to make decisions since this doesn't put food on my table.

And P.S. - thanks for the advice a while back on home printers. On your comments I did end up picking up a pixma pro-200 and it's producing some wonderful images out of my 5D IV. It's been a lot of fun to put out smaller prints that I would likely never had printed otherwise - some images are much better appreciated in print than on a screen!
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,523
5,781
Cue "no-one needs 100megapixels, because I don't need it and my computer is too slow" comments in 3...2...1....
And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.

Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera?

There is the focal length limited wildlife use, but wouldn’t that be much better served with a similar pixel density crop RF camera, an R7?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

amorse

EOS R
Jan 26, 2017
823
1,113
www.instagram.com
And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.

Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera?

There is the focal length limited wildlife use, but wouldn’t that be much better served with a similar pixel density crop RF camera, an R7?
Not that I wouldn't consider "because I'd like it" a suitable reason for a company to produce a product and for a consumer to buy it, but in my use case I'd more liken my response to "because what I'm trying to create will be better served by that product than by other current offerings".

At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd suggest that there is a difference between implying "there is an insignificant commercial use case for x camera" and "there is no solid use case for x camera". I think one of those comments has more merit than the other. As you said, horses for courses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
314
229
I t
And so far despite being asked only one person has pointed out why they’d be interested in getting one and they admit it essentially boils down to ‘because I’d like it’.

Does anybody have a solid case use for using a 100mp 135 format sensor camera?

There is the focal length limited wildlife use, but wouldn’t that be much better served with a similar pixel density crop RF camera, an R7?
I take maybe 30000 portraits a year in portrait mode and often need to make them into landscape mode - loosing a little more than half the pixels. Commercials and fashion mags always ask for largest files possible.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,523
5,781
Not that I wouldn't consider "because I'd like it" a suitable reason for a company to produce a product and for a consumer to buy it, but in my use case I'd more liken my response to "because what I'm trying to create will be better served by that product than by other current offerings".

At the risk of splitting hairs, I'd suggest that there is a difference between implying "there is an insignificant commercial use case for x camera" and "there is no solid use case for x camera". I think one of those comments has more merit than the other. As you said, horses for courses.
Oh no I absolutely agree with you, I am not disparaging you’re earlier reply, I greatly respect it. Nobody needs any ‘justification’ over and above because I want it. I’m just trying to gauge what technical requirement is met by it.

I sell 24” x 36” portraits of horses, they are high contrast and high detail and the truth is the only similar shooters use medium format and charge a lot more than me! But they really do benefit from high detail and high mp’s, but the truth is I don’t need anything close to 100mp to keep my customers happy, the content drives the sales not the technical merits of the images.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,523
5,781
I t

I take maybe 30000 portraits a year in potrait mode and ofren need to make them into landscape mode - loosing a little more than half the pixels. Commercials and fashoin mags always ask for largest files possible.
But at what point do they say ‘that file is too small to use’? I have sent magazines files they have said are too small to use even at full resolution, I have simply resampled them and sent them back! They are looking for a number not the actual technical quality of a file.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,481
2,346
But at what point do they say ‘that file is too small to use’? I have sent magazines files they have said are too small to use even at full resolution, I have simply resampled them and sent them back! They are looking for a number not the actual technical quality of a file.

To the average schmoe, the one figure of merit for a camera is the megapixel count. (It wasn't all that long ago when I was there, and I probably still show signs of it--it's not the sole figure of merit for me but it's a very important one.)

And they'll quickly filter pictures the same way. It can lead to false positives (deemed good enough, when it isn't) and negatives.

I've seen plenty of stuff online that is clearly blown up too much, 150K JPG files displayed 1500 pixels wide and the like. That sort of thing can confirm the MP prejudice.
 

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
89
86
Be interesting if Canon use a cropped version of this sensor in the R7 which would be about 40mp as a crop sensor
I’d expect the R7 sensor to be a revised/updated version of the 32.5MP sensor in the 90D, with faster readout, lower noise, and enter DR, though the 90D is already pretty good IQ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig

landscaper

I'm New Here
Feb 3, 2020
15
19
Not Sure I Can Hold Off till 2022
For Canon R5s or RS Hi Res Body

Seven years between High Resolution Upgrades is Way way way too Long
(5dsr shipped in Spring 2015)

Sony on 24+ Month upgrade cycle on their Bodies

I'm sure Sony - Fuji Already Have a
150 Megapixel GFX Sensor under Development

The Fuji GFX 100s Beckons to Me

Dense and Well Designed DSLR Sized Body -
I only give up Speed and Video Specs over R5 class body.
I shoot my Landscapes Slowly at iso 100 anyway

Many of my Canon EF Lenses will
Adapt quite Nicely to GFX with the New TechArt Eos to GFX Adapter

Tse 24mm
Tse 50mm
100 Macro

I Hope Canon can pull this High Resolution Body off Sooner
Otherwise I'm Afraid its Fuji GFX in my Future
 

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
89
86
It’s all horses for courses of course, and thanks for the genuine reply. I must be honest if I was shooting landscape images for 48” prints I’d be using a GFX 100/s, I wouldn’t be looking at any FF camera.

But your answer really does align with my earlier comment, the drive and desire for these mp’s is primarily from the photographers not the customers. I was in a gallery in Hawaii a couple of years ago looking at an amazing 8’ x 5’ print backlit on Perspex, the staff told me it was the photographers best selling print in all sizes including the amazing one on display.


Why was it amazing? Because it was utter crap, it had obviously been under exposed and lifted in post when shot with a 5D II era sensor and resolution, the noise was horrific and the shadows a rainbow expanse of colored puke/pixels. Yet the customers, and I browsed long enough to confirm the interest myself, absolutely loved it!

It was a sad day for me :) but it did make me realize the difference between my expectations of myself and my work, and my customers. For instance I use TS-E lenses for real estate, I could easily use my 12-24 and crop and get exactly the same image, but that isn’t who I am. But delivering 100mp base images isn’t something I see as close to being asked for or needed by any but the very top end and most discerning of clients, and I have had exhibition billboards, life sized displays, posters, wallpapers etc made quite happily from my images.

But again, thanks for the genuine reply, I appreciate it.
I often find myself really unhappy with images that my clients absolutely love. It’s important to remember that the vast majority of paying clients are not technical enough to discern what we see as errors. They have the benefit of being able to enjoy an image for what it is, and not sit there and pick it apart from a technical perspective. As photographers, there is such a thing as good enough, and we need to remember that we don’t decide good enough if there is a paying customer. They do.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
314
229
But at what point do they say ‘that file is too small to use’? I have sent magazines files they have said are too small to use even at full resolution, I have simply resampled them and sent them back! They are looking for a number not the actual technical quality of a file.
I've had that discussion already. Not worth it. Clients should to be happy - rational or not (and sometimes it really matters, such as if they only want to show the shoes or a bag etc).
 
Last edited:

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,743
1,307
Serious question, what are you outputting that requires 80-100mp? I’m seriously interested in peoples use case for this type of camera.

If it’s prints what size and how many are you doing a year, if it’s wildlife for cropping what focal length do you normally use, that kind of thing.

5Ds/sR file at 48", with no cropping, is only 180 ppi. That's actually still pretty good, but short of saturating what a modern photo ink jet can put to paper. I think anyone doing 48" or larger prints would benefit. Whether or not it's needed or requested by the viewer/buyer/client is a separate question.