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

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,745
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.
Typical Hawaii beach scape with very under exposed black sand and lava rock in the bottom corners. For sure a technical DR challenge that the photographer missed by a mile...
 

Michael Clark

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

One body to replace two works great until you need to shoot with different lenses hanging on both at the same time...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,745
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.
But a ff sensor with the same pixel density of a high resolution crop sensor is going to be compromised in other areas just because it has even more pixels you won’t often use. Things like FPS, more expensive media cards, excessive storage requirements etc etc.

The 5D lI/III plus 7D II era proved how popular a two camera two sensor sized combination was.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,160
864
Davidson, NC
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.
I was very happy with the 6S. I used it for years. When they came out with the SE I was afraid it might be their last “small” phone for a while. (Not long after I bought it, they came out with the 12 mini, so I needn’t have worried.) Presumably the SE will survive more iOS version upgrades than will the 6S at this point.

As much of a factor as any was that I had got a Apple Card account, and it is way too easy and painless to buy Apple stuff, just a few clicks. I got a decent trade in amount for my old phone, 3% cash back, and 24 months to pay with no interest, and the SE didn’t cost a lot anyway. So my credit card bill is just unnoticeably higher each month. What I’m afraid of is that late some night I will buy a new Mac or something on a sudden impulse.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,745
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!
But it’s much more difficult, and expensive, to make big glass, that is why some of the best resolving lenses made are on phones.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
But it’s much more difficult, and expensive, to make big glass, that is why some of the best resolving lenses made are on phones.

Not more difficult in most cases, just more expensive due to the much higher quantity of materials needed.

It is more difficult to make a larger lens for the same size format as a smaller lens in terms of aberration correction, etc. But in that case the same magnification ratio is being applied to both lenses to get to a specific display size.

With the larger lens for the larger format, though, the lower magnification ratio needed to get to the same display size decreases the amount of correction needed for many aberrations to get the same performance at a specific display size.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
301
216
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...
1) He's saying the opposite. The ability to back and crop will give him a different image. That's why he is considering such a camera.

2) He's right. Its elemental optical knowledge. As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane. With enough pixels you can afterwards crop in to get the magnification you need. I do not do macro myself, but can see how this could be an advantage as much macro work has a very shallow focal plane to work with. Try imagining a gigapixel camera with a hypothetical lens to match. You take a garden shot - and afterwards you could crop down to a bee sitting on one of the flowers. And all of the bee would in perfect focus.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
If you like 24 month refresh cycles you may be better off with Sony rather than Fuji. But then the Sony is only 60mp.........
P.S. I hated the AE-1 ;)

The 24 month Sony cycle is certainly a good thing for Sony owners who upgrade every new model considering the shutter life of the α7 III.

 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
Since the AE1 days, I have gotten married to almost 40 Canon lenses that would be nearly impossible to part with. So I have the ball and chain on me. But I am in need of two body's that have higher resolution than our 5DSR's and have good working shutters. We are on our last leg on one body already ............

Canon will gladly install a brand new shutter assembly in your 5Ds R bodies for around $500 per. It's not like the rest of the camera is junk just because the shutter has reached the end of its life expectancy.

Do you buy a new car every 100,000 miles to avoid paying a few hundred dollars to replace the timing belt as recommended?
 

Michael Clark

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

A large part of it is the difference between the respective anti-aliasing filters for each camera.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I'd make use of it for high-resolution macro images. And for everything else pretty much.

And no, absolutely not, a crop RF camera at the same pixel density would be a poor substitute for this because you're losing all that extra area around your central point for tracking the subject both in terms of what you can see through the viewfinder and more importantly, the autofocus AI.

So even if you ALWAYS crop your images to APS-C, you'll still be better off using a FF 100mpx camera and cropping down. (This is why APS-C will die and the R7 will be a one-off I suspect.)

I strongly disagree.

If you want all of that extra area and the resulting slower processing and larger file sizes, more power to you. Have at it. But please stop insisting that what you perceive is best for you is also best for everyone else!

I don't need all of that extra area and the processing speed penalty it imposes. I also don't want the extra data size when archiving the raw images.

Some of us don't seem to have near as much trouble tracking erratically moving targets as much as others of us seem to have. Many of us learned to shoot with both eyes open a long time ago. It helps prevent getting clobbered on the sidelines of field and gym sports as well as allows one to see what is going on outside the narrow field of view in the viewfinder.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
From Canon's perspective, "Because I'd like it," is more significant than any solid use case. After all, there are a lot more cameras sold because "I'd like it," than those sold because "I need it."

Yes, and this is becoming ever more the case as the number of full time photographers making a living with their cameras continues to dwindle to a mere fraction of what it was a couple of decades ago.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I would much rather have the subject appear closer in the viewfinder, both for tracking and focus. And I would much rather have a Crop camera with the same pixel density, compared to a full frame 100 MP camera likely costing twice as much.

I understand the big push towards full frame. I just wonder how many camera buyers are going full frame due to the constant marketing of YouTube reveiwers and influencers and forums like this one that make it seem as if only Full Frame can give you what you really want. As sensors have improved over the years, I have found that the low light advantage of Full Frame is nowhere as important now as it was a few years ago. There are so many advantages for me and what I like to shoot using a crop camera (I shoot MFT) that I just sold my Canon R and lenses. If Canon comes out with some Crop "R" cameras, I will definitely be in the market. And, since I do shoot a lot of sunsets, I will not rule out a new Canon FF camera if it is affordable enough - something in the price range of the Nikon Z5 - or the RP with a newer sensor on par with the current R. If APS-C crop were to die out, that would be a major blow to those of us who are still looking for less expensive and smaller kits. Without the marketing hype, I would have thought FF was far more endangered and APS-C crop was more likely to survive long term.

In my experience, almost all of those I know who use, for example, a Canon 7D Mark II or a Nikon D500 for specific use cases also own full frame cameras that they use for most of the use cases they shoot.

It doesn't have to be only one or the other.

Even if I have a high resolution FF body for other use cases, I'd rather use a crop body with a high density sensor when I know I would have to crop the FF images to less than APS-C size.

Or to put it another way: I'd rather pay for one very expensive high resolution FF body that I use for jobs that almost always involve relatively few frames per shoot and also pay less for a another high-density APS-C body that I can wear out when shooting thousands of frames per sports/action shoot (than wear one of the two expensive bodies out in only 2-3 years). When I'm shooting high school (or youth or small college) sports I'm almost always shooting with a 70-200/2.8 on the crop body and a 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/4 (that thing is an absolute TANK that has been smashed into, rained on, bled on, etc. and just keeps on working) on a FF body. I might shoot 200 frames total with the wider angle setup and 2,000+ frames with the "long" body/lens combo.
 

Michael Clark

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

Some people who tend to be the loudest gearheads have much higher expectations for some forms of media, such as movies/TV programming and home theater screens.

The vast majority of people have made it exceedingly clear by their recent purchasing habits that they are more than happy with the quality of photos they get from their smart phones.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
You can always expand the viewfinder to only show the 1.6 crop area, this way you can nail the focus as you wish but the AF still has the advantage of the expanded area. And as increasingly nailing the focus is going to be down to the camera and not you (especially with fast action) again there's advantage from using FF.


As I said before, with a FF sensor, and everything else being equal, you have more chance of getting something in focus (using autofocus) than having an APS-C sensor.



The ONLY real disadvantages for using FF over APS-C assuming the sensor is otherwise identical are the potential for faster frame rates due to smaller RAW sizes, smaller end files to work with, and of course, the price differential. But these issues will slowly become less and less important as the tech improves and the pricing differential narrows. And at some point Canon will see there's little point in carrying on with RF APS-C bodies. It may take 5 years, maybe more. But it will happen, I'm sure of it.

If one is already nailing focus well over 90% of the time using an APS-C sensor, then there's no real need to "increase the chances" by using a FF sensor.

If one is having difficulty nailing focus with todays top APS-C cameras such as the Canon EOS 7D Mark II or Nikon 500D, compared to using same generation FF DSLRs, the problem ain't the sensor size...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
I agree with your comments regarding the benefits of using FF bodies in crop mode. But you forgot to mention that the APS-C can have a body and lenses that are significantly smaller and lighter. I still miss my M43 Olympus for that reason, and if they'd stayed in business I might have kept it with their latest body & lenses for when I want to go with the smallest & lightest possible, while keeping the R5 & lenses for the best IQ possible. Canon's APS-C could be the same if they focused on that aspect.

Most of the potential buyers of an R7 type camera, like most of the buyers of the 7D Mark II or Nikon D500 have been, are not interested in smaller and lighter APS-C only lenses. They're interested in getting more "reach" out of existing FF telephoto lenses and benefitting from the handling speed performance gains of a cropped sensor camera vs. a FF camera with the same pixel density. That and the lower cost for a body that is going to get a lot of "high mileage" use shooting sports and action.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
:) I know where you're coming from and I think that I will always keep one 5DS body in the future. It's just when you come back from an event like a wedding with 600 to 800 images which will never be printed larger than 17", with maybe an odd canvas at 24" it's a hell of a lot of data baggage. I do have a reasonable work around solution though, and that is writing medium jpgs to the SD card, and full raw to the CF. Then I convert the raws in LR to 24mp TIFF. This way with the exception of the raw upload my workflow is pretty quick and not slowed by the size of the raws. I find that with very accurate exposure the OOC jpegs from the 5DS are pretty good.

Anyone who shoots a 5Ds as their primary body for weddings is a masochist. Maybe for the posed portraits with proper photographic lighting. But for everything else... pure masochism!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,839
2,189
But a ff sensor with the same pixel density of a high resolution crop sensor is going to be compromised in other areas just because it has even more pixels you won’t often use. Things like FPS, more expensive media cards, excessive storage requirements etc etc.

The 5D lI/III plus 7D II era proved how popular a two camera two sensor sized combination was.

More like the 5D III/IV and 7D II era.

5D Mark II was introduced in 2008, one year before the original 7D.
5D Mark III was rolled out in 2012.
7D Mark II came in late 2014.
5D Mark IV came in early 2016.