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

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,775
I NEED 100+ MEGAPIXELS

Because I Print 60" x 90" Prints on the Canon imagePROGRAF PRO Printer our Company has

I Need 300+ dpi / ppi for Sharp Close Viewing "Hallway" Prints

Simple Math :

Ideally I Need

300 dpi x 300dpi x 60" x 90"
= 486 Million Pixels (Megapixels)

Many of my Landscape Shots I Can't :

PIXEL SHIFT
PANO STITCH
SOFTWARE UPREZ
SOFTWARE STEP SHARPENING

Because of Subject Movement
Of Vegetation, Water , Sky , Wildlife

I'll Take as Many Pixels as Technologically Possible
You have had the GFX100 for a couple of years, now the GFX100S. If you truly are doing what you say no 135 format sensor now or in the next ten years is going to be ‘what you need’, and probably never will.

Mind you given the price of decent 60” x90” prints you should be using Phase One backs that have even bigger sensors and have had over 150MP for years.

The tools are already there for you, pretending you need a saloon car to win a F1 race is a joke.
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,301
975
Yorkshire, England
As a side note, I have to say that I'm not sure what dark magic Canon has employed but I would swear that the 20mp files from my 1Dx III appear to have significantly more apparent resolution than the files from my 1DX II. I'm willing to entertain the notion that it is simply confirmation bias on my part, but then again, it sure doesn't seem like that's the case.
I think it will be the revised AA filter tech.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
314
229
The bigger you print, the less image pixels per inch you need unless you have an extremely bad habit of sticking your nose up against a large print. People don’t stick their nose up against a 4K TV when watching TV, why they do that when looking at a large print is beyond me.
I often see this argument - but I disagree. People have much higher expectations to all media - Tv, film, video, photo, prints, coffee shop books etc than they used to have. Sure for you family shots and prints its all up to the subject. But show people a pictures of a clear moon today and they will intuitively scan it for the finest detail. Also, look at all the 4K youtube videos and channels out there. Content wise it should make no difference for the producers except it seemlingly does - and so the people behind the channels use a lot of more time and processing power and more expensive equipment to have that upgrade. The fact that recommended size/viewing distances for TV's and video games have reduced dramatically compared to previously says everything. People do stick their noses into our prints today (if there is fine subject detail to be admired).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JohnC

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,654
596
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!
I"m trying!!!

;)
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,775
I"m trying!!!

;)
Indeed we know you upped your game this past year but we also know you have the GFX 100 so are already past this 135 format big print contretemp!

Funnily enough I printed a borderless 24” x 39” image yesterday from a 135 format file and used the new PS Enhance to up the resolution from the customers base file. It worked very well though the truth is it had been ‘Topazed’ anyway so was more painterly and didn’t give an accurate demonstration of raw detail.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,743
1,307
You have had the GFX100 for a couple of years, now the GFX100S. If you truly are doing what you say no 135 format sensor now or in the next ten years is going to be ‘what you need’, and probably never will.

A 100mp R5s will deliver substantially the same IQ as a GFX 100S, or even as a full 645 sensor at 100mp. The larger sensors would certainly have a high ISO gain, and could possibly yield some more base ISO DR. They would also be a bit sharper out of camera if all other factors are equal. But the differences would not be night and day.

We've seen this every time, over the past 15 years, that 35mm sensors have momentarily matched 645 and crop-645 sensor resolutions. 1Ds mark III and 5D mark II vs Mamiya ZD. D800 vs 30-40mp backs. 5Ds and 5DsR vs 40-60 MP backs.

I'm guessing that will not hold beyond 100mp. But I think it will prove true again at 100mp. And if he has determined that he only needs roughly 130 ppi for satisfactory viewing of 90" prints (at a corresponding distance) then he won't have to wait 10 years for a 35mm sensor to deliver.

Now he did say he would love to have 300 ppi at that size. If that's the long term goal I would agree it will only be met someday by a full 645 sensor camera.
 

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,402
Canada
www.canonnews.com
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

I said the R5 caught up. I stated the 5Ds / 5Ds was at least 3 generations back of even Canon's own sensor technology that this 100mp camera would have, and that they caught up now as demonstrated by the R5.

so comparing A7RII to the 5DS and trying to come up with equivalence to where canon is today is misguided and woefully inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
89
86
Shooting 50mp...I never want to go back.
Same here. I've been shooting with the R5 for a while now. Just this past weekend I pulled my little EOS M5 out and shot some stuff while down at the beach with my family. Looking at those images on the computer, I kept thinking I must have missed focus or didn't have the shutter speed up high enough as it just was missing that fine detail and overall sharpness. 24MP is not a slouch, but roughly double the MP is significantly better looking.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
89
86
I often see this argument - but I disagree. People have much higher expectations to all media - Tv, film, video, photo, prints, coffee shop books etc than they used to have. Sure for you family shots and prints its all up to the subject. But show people a pictures of a clear moon today and they will intuitively scan it for the finest detail. Also, look at all the 4K youtube videos and channels out there. Content wise it should make no difference for the producers except it seemlingly does - and so the people behind the channels use a lot of more time and processing power and more expensive equipment to have that upgrade. The fact that recommended size/viewing distances for TV's and video games have reduced dramatically compared to previously says everything. People do stick their noses into our prints today (if there is fine subject detail to be admired).
We'll have to respectfully disagree. I do actually have a *very large* 4K TV, and do regularly make *very large* prints. Subject matter is king above all else. If you actually have a compelling large image, more people will step back to take it all in than those who will step forward to inspect fine detail. Even then, they'll come in to get a closer look to get better appreciation, not to inspect it and pick it apart. As long as you have enough fine detail so that the closer look does show more detail, you don't have to be totally pin sharp, just have more detail. The vast majority of viewers are more interested in the content of the image, not the technical minutae of what went into it.

That's not to say if you can totally pack in the fine detail and actually render max res at max print size that you shouldn't. You just don't have to in order to have a large print that people can appreciate, so don't be afraid to print large, even if you don't have the high resolution. If it's a good image, people will appreciate it.
 
  • Love
Reactions: Michael Clark

MarinnaCole

I'm New Here
May 9, 2016
16
22
I said the R5 caught up. I stated the 5Ds / 5Ds was at least 3 generations back of even Canon's own sensor technology that this 100mp camera would have, and that they caught up now as demonstrated by the R5.

so comparing A7RII to the 5DS and trying to come up with equivalence to where canon is today is misguided and woefully inaccurate.
I was simply saying 5DSR is HORRIBLE comparing to Sony. That was a very dark history of Canon and I DIDNOT state anything nearly close to that Canon is still horrible today. I honestly don't know where you got that impression from. In fact your comparison between sensors 5~6 years apart was woefully wrong. No one in history would ever do comparison between product this far apart. It simply makes no sense
 

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,178
886
Davidson, NC
Indeed we know you upped your game this past year but we also know you have the GFX 100 so are already past this 135 format big print contretemp!

Funnily enough I printed a borderless 24” x 39” image yesterday from a 135 format file and used the new PS Enhance to up the resolution from the customers base file. It worked very well though the truth is it had been ‘Topazed’ anyway so was more painterly and didn’t give an accurate demonstration of raw detail.
I have a 13” x 19” print of a picture I took In Alaska in 2002 with a 4 MP camera. It is framed and hanging with other pictures in my hallway. I can’t see anything wrong with it even close up. I didn’t do anything special to it. The printer software may have done some magic, but it was just the stock software for the printer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,522
5,775
I have a 13” x 19” print of a picture I took In Alaska in 2002 with a 4 MP camera. It is framed and hanging with other pictures in my hallway. I can’t see anything wrong with it even close up. I didn’t do anything special to it. The printer software may have done some magic, but it was just the stock software for the printer.
Printers do work wonders with their interpolation, but there is are huge differences in images and the detail and contrast within them. Some low contrast low detail images are easily printed oversize very effectively, other images with high contrast and fine detail can break down surprisingly easily or benefit from very high pixel to print resolution.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
100 MP camera with 40-60 MP lens. Hmmm...
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,743
1,307
I was simply saying 5DSR is HORRIBLE comparing to Sony.

And that's where your message falls flat. It was not horrible. Higher resolution, competitive high ISO, but worse base ISO DR by about 2ev. Put another way, it "only" had the DR of Kodak Portra :rolleyes:

That's not "horrible" by any reasonable definition of the word. Saying the 5DsR was horrible for only having 12.4 stops of DR is like saying the A7rII was horrible for only having 42mp. I guess those 36mp cameras from Nikon and Sony were really trash.

The 5DsR is not horrible even today, 6 years later, as it's still one of the highest resolving 35mm sensors and still has competitive high ISO. (High ISO doesn't move much, blame physics.) Now it's behind on base ISO DR by about 2.5ev as the very best sensors here have improved a little bit. Note I said 'very best' because most shipping FF sensors are around 13-14ev, not 14-15ev.

If my 5Ds ever produced a horrible image file, it would be my fault, not the camera's. You can expand that to pretty much any camera made in the last decade.
 
Last edited:

adrian_bacon

EOS M6 Mark II
Aug 12, 2020
89
86
And that's where your message falls flat. It was not horrible. Higher resolution, competitive high ISO, but worse base ISO DR by about 2ev. Put another way, it "only" had the DR of Kodak Portra :rolleyes:

That's not "horrible" by any reasonable definition of the word. Saying the 5DsR was horrible for only having 12.4 stops of DR is like saying the A7rII was horrible for only having 42mp. I guess those 36mp cameras from Nikon and Sony were really trash.

The 5DsR is not horrible even today, 6 years later, as it's still one of the highest resolving 35mm sensors and still has competitive high ISO. (High ISO doesn't move much, blame physics.) Now it's behind on base ISO DR by about 2.5ev as the very best sensors here have improved a little bit. Note I said 'very best' because most shipping FF sensors are around 13-14ev, not 14-15ev.

If my 5Ds ever produced a horrible image file, it would be my fault, not the camera's. You can expand that to pretty much any camera made in the last decade.
I think people tend to get caught up in specsmanship on paper, and forget that it's all relative. Anything over 11-12 stops of DR is totally usable in real life. In certain instances it may not be as well suited as a different camera with higher base ISO DR, but that does not make the camera garbage or horrible, and does not mean you can't use it, you just have to get to the intended picture a different way, like bracketing shots. Sure, you might be able to get it all in one shot with a Sony, but in reality, if I were doing it for a paying job, I'd be bringing a tripod and bracketing shots no matter what anyway to make sure I got the shot, and at that point, I'd rather have the 50MP over the higher DR of the Sony. Again, it's all relative.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
931
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
You have a good point with the FF 100MP being better for tracking with the wider view, but not everyone can afford this, The APS-C is more affordable for hobbyists so I think it should stay.
For sure, for now there's an important price diferential. But as sensor prices fall and the price differential between APS-C and FF narrows (and I doubt the R7 will be cheaper than the entry FF R camera the RP) the justification for separate APS-C bodies will diminish.