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

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,154
857
Davidson, NC
What do you mean, “nothing wrong with the old one”? ! The damn batteries fail after two years !
More like 3. I had the 6S, and Apple had a deal that ran out on December 31 that year where they would replace the battery for $29.95. My battery was showing 75 or 80% still, but I decided a new battery would let me keep it at least another couple years, and about all the new ones were larger. So I got the battery and kept the phone until the new SE came out.

For a lot of folks, maybe most, the reason for upgrading the phone is to get a better camera. If I want a better camera, I buy a new camera. The new reason to upgrade the phone is to get 5G. I spend so much of my life in range of wifi that I don't see any benefit to me of 5G. And no matter how fast my phone is, I don't talk any faster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
More like 3. I had the 6S, and Apple had a deal that ran out on December 31 that year where they would replace the battery for $29.95. My battery was showing 75 or 80% still, but I decided a new battery would let me keep it at least another couple years, and about all the new ones were larger. So I got the battery and kept the phone until the new SE came out.

For a lot of folks, maybe most, the reason for upgrading the phone is to get a better camera. If I want a better camera, I buy a new camera. The new reason to upgrade the phone is to get 5G. I spend so much of my life in range of wifi that I don't see any benefit to me of 5G. And no matter how fast my phone is, I don't talk any faster.
I’m still on a 6s, which I got secondhand, it has had 4 screens and two replacement batteries and costs a few dollars to repair each time.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
This is not the sensor gap for me, I'm waiting for the more than the R6, less than the R5 camera. No, that's not the R....Still, this (sort of ) reminds me of the return to the 1D dual body setup, one for sports/journalism and one for studio/landscape. When you dis that thought, remember how I wrote 'sort of'.

Canon never really stopped the duality of a offering a high resolution camera for studio/commercial/landscape work and another flagship for sports/action/PJs. The 22 MP 5D Mark III was introduced the same year the 21 MP 1Ds Mark III was discontinued with the introduction of the 18 MP 1D X (which superseded the 16 MP 1D Mark IV).

In reality, the 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV replaced the 1Ds series as Canon's premier high resolution FF camera. From the 5D Mark III on, the AF system used the same hardware as the 1D X series (with a few more sports oriented options included in the 1D X Mark II firmware). Since the 1Ds was much more likely to be used in studio/commercial environments that don't present the extreme types of environmental and high usage stresses that the 1D and 1D X bodies were subject to when used by photojournalists, sports/action photographers, etc. the 5D series didn't need quite the same durability and weather resistance as the 1D/1D X series has for most users. Not to mention that by the 5D Mark IV, durability and build quality was getting very close to that of the older 1D and 1Ds series bodies, just without the built-in grip/vertical controls/higher capacity battery.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in. That alone would make it worth while fore me. As for being designed for studio and landscape photographers it is hard to think of two more diametrically opposed gropus of photographers. If I am shooting landscape I want weather sealing. In the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscape weight and size matters in the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscapes dynamic range is a huge factor. In the studio I light so it doesn't matter. About the only thing they have in common is they want more megapixels.

When you crop and then enlarge the crop to display at the same size as the original full image, you give away depth of field in the same way as if you had used a crop sensor from the same distance with the same focal length to begin with. The higher your enlargement ratio (between the sensor size and the display size), the easier it is to see the same amount of blur as projected by the lens, and the lower your depth-of-field. Blur that still looks sharp at smaller enlargement ratios can be seen as blur when you enlarge it enough. That's what the illusion of depth-of-field is all about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
It's just March. Canon never releases cameras in an Olympic year early in March. Most often it's June. So you have to wait. You'll see a lot more leaks in April and May. And then in June, Bam! Same as last year, but right before the opening ceremonies. Canon always has the perfect timing. Reason every other manufacture either tries to release quickly or make a mistake and wait. Canon ruled the marketing in 2020. Heat or no heat, it was all about the R5. The entire second half of 2020. And now it's chatter all about "Active Cooling". The bar set by Canon.

Go back and recheck history. The 1D X was released in March, 2012 before the 2012 Summer Games.

The 1D X Mark II was *supposed* to be released in March/April as well, but production problems pushed it to June, when the first bodies were reserved for those who would use them at the 2016 Summer Olympics.

The 1D X Mark III was released in February 2020, just before the 2020 Olympics actually happening in the summer of 2020 began to be in doubt.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
As someone who still shoots with real MF, in 6x7, in all honesty I think the “medium format look” is everywhere now. What is, or was the medium format look ? It’s an expression from film days and was the result of noiseless, smooth, well defined and pin sharp images, often with very shallow dof if portraits and the subject bang in focus. It was always much easier to accurately focus a MF camera than it was 35 mil due to the size of the viewfinder. We have all that now with even a crop digital camera, so IMHO the “MF look” is ubiquitous today.
However cramming 100mp into a FF sensor will create undesirable side effects. If someone really needs 100mp I think they’d be better served with a larger format. When resolving detail a long way off and very small, so the likes of landscape photography, diffraction will begin to impact on the visible IQ at around the f/11 mark, and I’m guessing shot noise (photon noise) will be quite apparent in the likes of skies at native output. Not that that’s a big problem but some people won’t like it.

On the other hand, the larger the sensor and the lower the needed enlargement ratio to get to a specific display size, the easier it is to make a lens that can resolve highly enough to take advantage of the resolution of a high density sensor.

If a lens for a 645 camera (56x42 mm frame size) can resolve 50 lp/mm, to get the same resolution per image height at the same display size out of a 135 format camera (36x24 mm), I need a lens that can hit 87.5 lp/mm!
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,657
4,084
Irving, Texas
I’m still on a 6s, which I got secondhand, it has had 4 screens and two replacement batteries and costs a few dollars to repair each time.
We had Casio Gz'one phones we bought in 2010. Finally got a letter from our mobile provider in 2019 that the phones would no longer be supported starting 2020. Forced to upgrade. :(
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Most 5DS/R reviews were quite negative. "Only for studio" was a popular claim. Curious, as it beat the "all-rounder" 5DIII in almost every aspect imaginable. Camera was also damaged because the original Adobe RAW profile was extremely poor leading to heavy clipping of whites and blacks - and thus a perceived lack of DR. Finally, reviewers did not understand the optical properties of handheld induced blur leading to claims that it was more difficult to hand hold the 5DS/R than other cameras. Some of these misunderstandings linger.

Those things and also a failure to understand that viewing a 50MP at 100% magnification is a much higher magnification than viewing 24MP images at 100% magnification. The 17.14µm² pixel of a 5Ds R enlarged to fit a single screen pixel is more than 2.25X the magnification used to enlarge a 39µm² pixel from a 5D Mark III to fit the same screen pixel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor and Fischer

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,497
5,723
It will reduce the need to focus stack macro shots. Back the camera up giving yourself more depth of field and then crop in. That alone would make it worth while fore me. As for being designed for studio and landscape photographers it is hard to think of two more diametrically opposed gropus of photographers. If I am shooting landscape I want weather sealing. In the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscape weight and size matters in the studio not so much. If I am shooting landscapes dynamic range is a huge factor. In the studio I light so it doesn't matter. About the only thing they have in common is they want more megapixels.
Seriously? You think backing up and cropping gives you the same image? Do you think backing up then cropping (greater magnification) gives you more dof?

Wow, just wow. Now I can see who Canon are going to sell these things to...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I'm not a PC guy. Definitely a Mac guy. Not going to 'build' a Mac for $600. I'm not knocking PCs, just been using Mac for the last 25 years.

There's a BIG difference between a $600 homebuilt (what you said) and a $1,600 homebuilt (what he said).
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Lenses are designed to project a flat image. Of course, it can't be perfectly flat, but they can come close by throwing more elements into the lens.

Put in a curved sensor and all of that extra design becomes a detriment. Are there going to be lenses coming out that don't correct a curved focal surface to a plane, so that this sensor will work properly? If so how long will it take before every lens someone might want comes in a curved version? How much kvetching will there be over how slow they come out?

Not only that, but the radius of curvature would need to be different for each focal length...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

What was the subject of that 8' x 5' Perspex? Consumers don't care that much about optical image quality. For them it's all about what the photo is a picture of.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

Yep.

Consumers select images based on their content, not on their absolute image quality.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

Who does 48" inkjet prints? I get them printed on real photo paper for anything over 4x6 or 5x7. LOL!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

Many of us use tripods in the "real world" because we're willing to go to the trouble of using them for the benefits they provide.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

Not even equal lenses. FF lenses need to be significantly sharper to get the same final resolution at the same display size.

To get the same final image height resolution at the same display size, a FF lens needs to be able to resolve 87.5 lp/mm to match a 645 lens that can do 50 lp/mm. This is because the 645 image has to be enlarged less than the FF image to be displayed at the same size.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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.

All of that assumes the light field has the same intensity from one side of the sensor to the other. That may or may not be the case depending on subject matter.

Doing astro work, for example, means very small points of light that are much brighter than the areas surrounding them. With such a use case, full well capacity does matter when adjacent sensels surrounding it are getting much less signal than the single (or two, or four) sensels which they are surrounding.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
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

If you are talking about the EOS M series, it's only the best selling interchangeable lens camera system in the entire world. It just didn't sell well to begin with in North America and Western Europe for a variety of reasons, mainly poor marketing to consumers in those markets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee