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

Refraction

EOS M50
CR Pro
Sep 5, 2020
32
25
I know it's in jest, but I do crop heavily post with wildlife (skittish).. even after using sigma 150-600 + 1.4x TC. the freedom to work with that data is helpful. I've learned to tune out the pixel peeping some, but it does let you tell the difference between ok focus and sharp focus.
The ability to crop and reframe an image is one of the reasons I have 3 x R5's. Coupled with the RF glass, it changes the way I deliver images from pre Eos R days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
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.
And my point was if you are regularly printing to 48” other camera systems are already better suited to that than a 100mp 135 format. But how many of us are regularly printing to 48”? I suspect a lot fewer than R5s’s will be sold!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
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.
I wonder if you’d really see much difference between the 50mp interpolated up with the latest software compared with a 100mp camera at normal viewing distances given that you'd need about 140mp to achieve 48" long side @ 300 dpi anyway. To me the angle of diminishing returns is beginning to get pretty steep.
 

Czardoom

EOS RP
Jan 27, 2020
313
687
Just speaking personally, I have no interest in a 100 MP camera. One reason is due to some very rough and general comparisons I made a couple years ago between my R in crop mode (less than 12 MP) and my M5 (24 MP). Shooting hand held and taking pics of real life objects (not test charts). In my first comparison, I was using an old Canon EF 100-300mm L lens. There was no noticeable difference in my shots between the two cameras. Some of my shots had more resolution with one or the other, most were essentially the same. It occurred to me that the most important factor was not the sensor MPS, but on how still I was holding the camera. Later I tried the same comparison, but with the Canon EF 70-300mm L. In this case, the 24 MP sensor did perform a slight bit better, but I needed to pixel peep at 80-100% to see any difference. This sort of confirmed what some reviewers said when Sony (if I remember correctly) released the A7 (24 MP) and A7R (36 MP). Some reviewers said that hand held, they could not see a difference in resolution between the two cameras - they needed a tripod to get the benifit of the extra MPs.

It will be interesting to see if anyone does some comparisons of shooting hand held with this new 100 MP camera and the 45 MP R5. Will there actually be any noticeable difference? Until I see that type of comparison, I will be skeptical that the 100 MPs isn't more of a marketing gimmick than a real noticeable jump in real world shooting resolution. I hope, quite frankly, that my skepticism will be proved wrong.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
And my point was if you are regularly printing to 48” other camera systems are already better suited to that than a 100mp 135 format. But how many of us are regularly printing to 48”? I suspect a lot fewer than R5s’s will be sold!

Define "better suited." 35mm has the most glass, tech, and R&D investment. A 645 (or crop 645) sensor will always have a noise and sharpness advantage over 35mm, assuming similar tech in the sensor stack and equal lenses. But I can easily see someone who needs 80-100mp deciding to go 35mm instead of MF because of the costs, lenses, and tech (stuff like top of the line AF). It happened with the D800 and 5Ds/sR.
 
Nov 19, 2020
3
4
In theory pixel size should be directly related to dynamic range because of full well capacity, and lower density sensors should have a distinct advantage.
True at the pixel level, but at a fixed spatial scale, it tends to be the opposite because as pixels shrink, their input-referred read noise at base ISO tends to shrink faster than (the square root of) the number of pixels from which to add the read noise grows. (At high ISO, it tends to be the opposite.)

For example: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_e.htm#Sony ILCE-7M3_14,Sony ILCE-7RM4_14

The α7 III has a saturation capacity of 93 703 e⁻ per pixel at base ISO, and the α7R IV “only” 34 452 e⁻, but since it has 2.5× as many pixels, that’s 86 842 e⁻ in the area of an α7 III pixel, so just 0.1 stops below the α7 III. So the upper bound is practically the same. But if we look at the lower bound, the α7R IV has 2.9 e⁻ of read noise instead of 6.4 e⁻. Even taking into account that the read noise is added in quadrature from 2.5× as many pixels, that’s still only 4.6 e⁻ in the area corresponding to an α7 III pixel, an advantage of ~0.45 stops. So, according to the measurements from PhotonsToPhotos, the α7R IV ends up with a ~1/3-stop advantage in DR over the α7 III at base ISO.

Not sure exactly why the DxOMark results don’t quite match this (the α7R IV also has an advantage there but it’s smaller). Normalizing the PhotonsToPhotos data to 8MP like DxOMark does, we end up with 14.64 and 15 stops of DR respectively, instead of the 14.7 and 14.8 found by DxOMark.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
Define "better suited." 35mm has the most glass, tech, and R&D investment. A 645 (or crop 645) sensor will always have a noise and sharpness advantage over 35mm, assuming similar tech in the sensor stack and equal lenses. But I can easily see someone who needs 80-100mp deciding to go 35mm instead of MF because of the costs, lenses, and tech (stuff like top of the line AF). It happened with the D800 and 5Ds/sR.
Image quality. Sensor area isn’t beaten by technology in similar ages of sensor. Throw in MF 16bit capture and there are real IQ benefits for larger sensor users printing large.

Considering the prices even modest large format prints are sold for the price of MF gear for 48” print specialists seems very doable, for goodness sake a GFX100s is $2,000 more than an R5, and an R5s will be even closer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
Image quality. Sensor area isn’t beaten by technology in similar ages of sensor. Throw in MF 16bit capture and there are real IQ benefits for larger sensor users printing large.

When Chris Niccolls compared the 5DsR + Otus lens to a Pentax 645z the 5DsR was actually sharper and equally detailed. All factors being equal the 645z should be sharper, but when lens R&D is poured into 35mm things aren't always equal. The 645z had better base ISO DR (expected given Canon's ADC tech at the time) and high ISO (expected, larger chip). But if you're not regularly pushing into those areas of the imaging envelope, then there's no practical IQ advantage. Someone who needs 100mp could look at their work and decide they would rather have the 35mm lens options and tech like Canon's DPAF.

At some point you hit various limits on lens MTF curves and pixel level circuitry which mean for higher IQ you have to go to a larger format. But I think that's past 100mp for a 35mm sized chip. I don't think there would be much to gain with, say, a 150mp or 200mp 35mm chip. But through 100mp there are still gains to be made.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
When Chris Niccolls compared the 5DsR + Otus lens to a Pentax 645z the 5DsR was actually sharper and equally detailed. All factors being equal the 645z should be sharper, but when lens R&D is poured into 35mm things aren't always equal. The 645z had better base ISO DR (expected given Canon's ADC tech at the time) and high ISO (expected, larger chip). But if you're not regularly pushing into those areas of the imaging envelope, then there's no practical IQ advantage. Someone who needs 100mp could look at their work and decide they would rather have the 35mm lens options and tech like Canon's DPAF.

At some point you hit various limits on lens MTF curves and pixel level circuitry which mean for higher IQ you have to go to a larger format. But I think that's past 100mp for a 35mm sized chip. I don't think there would be much to gain with, say, a 150mp or 200mp 35mm chip. But through 100mp there are still gains to be made.
This is just arguing for arguing sake. You say lens selection and quality is better in 135 and has the added benefit of better AF. Then list a range four highest end manual focus only lenses that cost between $4,000 and $5,000 each.

The very small number of people printing regularly at 48” and above know well enough the advantages a system with a larger sensor brings to the table. Indeed several that I know of that do specialize in big prints are already stitching their medium format images.

As to your final paragraph, we might be approaching agreement in that if you want to get ‘better’ you have to go bigger. We just disagree on the tipping point of that move.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
This is just arguing for arguing sake.

No, it's the decision process some photographers will go through.

You say lens selection and quality is better in 135 and has the added benefit of better AF. Then list a range four highest end manual focus only lenses that cost between $4,000 and $5,000 each.

The results would have been similar with a number of lenses, they just happened to use that one in their comparison.

The point isn't that 35mm is just as good in all situations. The point is that some people will look at how good it is and decide they want to be in the R system. Others will stick with or move to MF. It's not a clear cut answer for everyone when IQ is as close as it is between a 35mm and MF sensor with the same sampling frequency.

The very small number of people printing regularly at 48” and above know well enough the advantages a system with a larger sensor brings to the table. Indeed several that I know of that do specialize in big prints are already stitching their medium format images.

And I know people who migrated from MF to 35mm when the higher resolution sensors hit. Canon is building the camera because the market is there. It's a good bet Sony is doing something similar.
 

pape2

EOS 90D
Mar 19, 2021
117
147
I bet this is just another R1 rumour.
Making 80mpixel quad bayer sensor doesnt make sense. 100mp is psychologallly lot more impressing number.
If they want impress someone with R1
 

JohnC

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 22, 2019
212
225
Gainesville,GA
I haven’t personally printed any of my images over 30 inches. I’ve done that with 20mp and the results look great to me.

Having said that, if they come out with 100mp I’m almost assuredly getting it assuming it doesn’t come with some huge compromise. Can’t wait. Love the R5 and if this 100 happens I’ll put a grip on it and call it my action cam.
 

MarinnaCole

I'm New Here
May 9, 2016
16
22
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.
I did meant A7R II.
The comparison is straight to the point - two cameras sold in the same time to the market to the same group of people. and Nope Canon did not catch up fast. Their DSLR sensor was lagging by more than one generation for 3-4 years until EOS system reaches the market. It is long enough that I was seriously evaluating possibility to switch side. There were real doubt that Canon will never be serious about mirrorless as the first few crop models also failed miserably
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
Canon is building the camera because the market is there. It's a good bet Sony is doing something similar.
Yes I know the market is probably there, my point was that as far as I can see the market is being driven by photographers personal desires not a technical requirement necessary for customer work (except for possibly a tiny fraction of a very small niche).

Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

dilbert

EOS 90D
Aug 12, 2010
114
92
I wonder if you’d really see much difference between the 50mp interpolated up with the latest software compared with a 100mp camera at normal viewing distances given that you'd need about 140mp to achieve 48" long side @ 300 dpi anyway. To me the angle of diminishing returns is beginning to get pretty steep.

Or even photoshop 2* resolution feature on a 24MP picture vs 100MP picture.
 

dilbert

EOS 90D
Aug 12, 2010
114
92
Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.

Might be the wrong forum - you might need to ask somewhere that people with Phase one backs post...

... or maybe this rumor is just Canon's way of doing market research on whether or not people will buy it (I won't as it'll be too hard to get good results with hand held photography.)
 

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,726
2,135
Hamburg, Germany
Yes I know the market is probably there, my point was that as far as I can see the market is being driven by photographers personal desires not a technical requirement necessary for customer work (except for possibly a tiny fraction of a very small niche).

Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.
I haven't read all posts here but I saw you acknowledge that any work that requires heavy cropping benefits from such a sensor. In that post, you also dismissed that, since a crop body would suite that use case even better. But I don't think that captures the whole picture. If you do reach limited photography as well as regular one, getting one body that performs well in both instead of two specialized ones may be worth it.

With either electronic shutters getting even faster (Like in the Sony A1) or global shutters emerging, the only advantage of a crop body becomes sensor price (+ size and weight, if Canon develops a special crop RF lens lineup). With the speed of current electronic shutters from Canon, FPS would remain an advantage. But I think it is fair to assume that will faint in the future.

So a FF body with 2.56 times the resolution of a crop body is a straight superset of it. For it to make sense to buy a regular FF body and the crop body, the high resolution camera must cost more than the sum of the two. So the premium you pay for the high resolution has to be greater than the cost of a whole crop camera for it to make sense to get two bodies, instead of one to do it all.

As to moving to a larger sensor format in the pursuit for higher resolution, one may already have an EF or RF lens collection, that's holding you back. And don't the typical drawbacks like cost and lesser technology still apply to these bodies?

I think with most specs you will not find an actual need for them anymore, with the exception of few very special use cases. But there's a desire for more MP, more FPS, more video resolution, etc. Having and not needing something is better than needing and not having it.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
Which to me begs the question what is driving photographers to ask for 100mp 135 format sensors? So I asked, and so far one person has said they’d like it because they’d like it.

You seemed to dismiss my answer that any photographer making 40/48/60" and larger prints might want to shoot a 35mm system, if there was a 35mm sensor with a high enough resolution to meet their needs (in a single frame). It's a niche, but those people exist.

Personally I can't imagine asking for more than 100mp from a 35mm sized sensor. The MP race slowed down considerably in the 2010's and I think we're near the point where it ends. But if Canon delivers an 80-100mp R body, I will be looking to buy it based on how well it performs on standard tests. Judging from 90D/M6 mark II image quality (similar pixel densities), there's one more leap left to make in the MP race.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr