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

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
299
215
It's totally relevant to your comment. When you crop and then enlarge, you give up the gain in Depth of field you got by backing up, just like you give it up if you increase focal length after backing up. In the end only two things matter for depth of field: total magnification and aperture. The following factors all affect total magnification: subject distance, focal length, enlargement ratio (sensor size to display size ratio), and viewing distance. If you crop, it's exactly the same as reducing the sensor size without changing your shooting distance.
As I already said - I did not comment on this aspect. But feel free to continue the "discussion".
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,180
As I already said - I did not comment on this aspect. But feel free to continue the "discussion".

What you said is quoted and in bold below. If you can't understand how what I've said applies to what you've said, I apologize for not being able to explain it in a way that you can understand.

"As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane."

As you move away the subject also gets progressively smaller as projected by the lens onto the sensor.

"As you move away from the subject (using the same lens) more of the subject moves into the focus plane."

There's only one distance at which the subject is most in focus. The focus plane has no real depth. Everything further or closer to the camera is blurrier to one degree or another. Exactly how much it is blurred determines if we perceive it as "sharp" or "blurry".

There is no magical barrier at the edges of depth-of-field at which everything is equally in focus and beyond which everything is equally blurry.

On either side of the singular focus distance, things gradually get blurrier and blurrier until they get blurry enough for us to see that blur. What we call depth-of-field is not an area in which everything is equally in focus. It is an area in which things are not yet so blurry that we can tell they are blurry. Only the actual focus distance is in sharpest focus. Things at the edge of the depth-of-field are blurrier than things at the actual focus distance, but they're not quite blurry enough for us to see them as blurry. Things on the edge just outside the depth-of-field are barely blurry enough for us to tell they are blurry, but they are only marginally blurrier than things just inside the edge of the depth-of-field.

"With enough pixels you can afterwards crop in to get the magnification you need."

When you increase magnification by cropping and displaying at the same size as before the crop, you increase the size of all of the blur in the photo. Parts of the image that didn't look blurry at lower magnification will now be seen as blurry at higher magnification.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,421
928
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
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.

It's not 2008 any more. Hard disks are cheap, modern computers are pretty damn powerful (My 2013 MacPro is perfectly capable of editing 50Mpx+ images rapidly, and that's an 8 year old machine now.)

You're perfectly fine in doing what you want to do in the way you want to do it, but all I'm saying is that APS-C has no long term future on the R mount, for all the reasons that I mentioned.


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.

None of this contradicts what I said. You may be getting great shots with an APS-C camera. But that doesn't mean your hitrate couldn't improve if the sensor is larger and able to predict/track movement better because of it.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,421
928
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
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...

if you're getting 90% with an APS-C sensor and 95% with a FF because of the better tracking capabilities, that might not be worth the investment to you. But that one missed shot that you might have got otherwise...
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,180
It's not 2008 any more. Hard disks are cheap, modern computers are pretty damn powerful (My 2013 MacPro is perfectly capable of editing 50Mpx+ images rapidly, and that's an 8 year old machine now.)

You're perfectly fine in doing what you want to do in the way you want to do it, but all I'm saying is that APS-C has no long term future on the R mount, for all the reasons that I mentioned.

If APS-C has no long term future in the R mount it is not because of the decreasing cost of storage nor the increased processing ability of newer computers. Those things don't amount to a hill of beans as far as Canon is concerned.

If APS-C has no long term future in the R mount, it will be because Canon thinks there can be more profitability for Canon, Incorporated by not offering R mount APS-C bodies than there can be by offering APS-C R mount bodies. As far as profitability goes, there is a school of thought that says low cost, high performance bodies such as the 7D Mark II or the D500 do not directly generate much profit for their respective makers, but what they do contribute to the bottom line are higher sales of the lenses typical buyers of such cameras tend to use with them. Primarily, these are lenses with good profit margins in the constant aperture Telephoto to Super Telephoto range of lenses.

But who is talking about the long term? We're talking about right now and the persistent rumor that an APS-C 'R7' is on the horizon with high degrees of credibility that we never got regarding rumors of an impending 7D Mark III. The Canon rumor mill has been a wall of total silence regarding a 7D Mark III from somewhere about midway through 2016, when the last word on the grapevine about a possible 7D Mark III was that "it ain't happening", until now.

And who is talking about what Canon will ultimately decide down the road? I don't think anyone here is saying APS-C cameras are positively in Canon's long term plans for the R mount. Only those making the decisions for Canon could possibly know that at this time. Except, of course, Canon could later change its mind as market conditions dictate, so even Canon probably doesn't know for sure what you're so confident has to be the only possibility due to the cost of storage and the capacity of computer processors.

We're simply saying we would prefer that higher end APS-C R mount bodies would be offered and explaining why we would prefer such a choice. That isn't the same thing as saying Canon will offer such bodies.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,180
None of this contradicts what I said. You may be getting great shots with an APS-C camera. But that doesn't mean your hitrate couldn't improve if the sensor is larger and able to predict/track movement better because of it.

The only advantage of a FF body over an APS-C body in terms of AF performance is the more precise measurement enabled by the wider mirror of a FF DSLR vs. an APS-C DSLR which allows a wider semi-translucent area for the main mirror and a wider secondary mirror behind the main mirror that allows the resultant wider baseline available to the dedicated PDAF sensor array. It has nothing to do with a larger sensor being able to predict/track movement better because a larger sensor has no ability to predict/track movement better. Even if it did, it wouldn't make a difference if the subject is always within the center 42% of the frame that is the same size as an APS-C sensor.

With MILCs, that advantage totally disappears along with the mirrors and the dedicated PDAF sensor array.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,180
if you're getting 90% with an APS-C sensor and 95% with a FF because of the better tracking capabilities, that might not be worth the investment to you. But that one missed shot that you might have got otherwise...

Again, you're projecting your own cost/benefit analysis method onto others.

If a 90% hit rate is enough to get twice as many images good enough to be considered "saleable" as I can post and reasonably expect potential buyers to browse through them all looking for their kid without giving up one-third of the way through when they see there are still 876 more images to look at for that game, a 95% hit rate does nothing for potentially increasing sales. It just gives me more usable shots to need to decide not to publish.

Besides, no matter how good my AF hit rate is, that ONE shot is always ruined by the ref that puts his backside right in between my camera and the player exactly at the peak moment of action. Always.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pape2

MarinnaCole

I'm New Here
May 9, 2016
16
22
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.
By "poor marketing" you meant the EOS-M lag in every major metrics? EOS-M got high visibility when they launched but the camera failed to perform, disappointed in many reviews. It is very funny to call that "poor marketing"
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,421
928
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
It has nothing to do with a larger sensor being able to predict/track movement better because a larger sensor has no ability to predict/track movement better. Even if it did, it wouldn't make a difference if the subject is always within the center 42% of the frame that is the same size as an APS-C sensor.
If you always keep your subject in the center of the frame then you're right, there's no difference. But real world, that doesn't happen as often as we'd we like especially with long lenses. When something is moving into your APS-C area from outside of it, of course you're going to get better AF if the camera is already tracking it because it's in the FF area.
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,421
928
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
Again, you're projecting your own cost/benefit analysis method onto others.
That's probably true. And as none of us have any control over what Canon do, there's little point in discussing these things except to try to enjoy ourselves. If anything I say makes you or others annoyed then I apologise. I know as little about Canon's plans as anyone else here. My speculation is based on my own experiences, and they're of course not the same as anyone else.

One other point though while I'm here about the APS-C vs FF thing, is that the other cost issue is that most photographers don't ONLY do one type of photography. Previously we were limited by technology. The 5D III was't the best camera for wildlife photography, and the 7D II wasn't ideal for landscape (although both were far from terrible at the other.)

What we're seeing with the R5 and beyond is the start of the 'one camera that can do everything very well'. Although An R7 will absolutely be cheaper than the R5S or whatever it's called, will the R5S be cheaper than buying an R7 AND an R5? Probably.

I'm excited about 100mpx cameras even though I probably can't afford one yet - and I'd still probably spend my money on new RF lenses before a new body because even my EOS R is still good enough for almost anything I want to do right now.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,180
That's probably true. And as none of us have any control over what Canon do, there's little point in discussing these things except to try to enjoy ourselves. If anything I say makes you or others annoyed then I apologise. I know as little about Canon's plans as anyone else here. My speculation is based on my own experiences, and they're of course not the same as anyone else.

One other point though while I'm here about the APS-C vs FF thing, is that the other cost issue is that most photographers don't ONLY do one type of photography. Previously we were limited by technology. The 5D III was't the best camera for wildlife photography, and the 7D II wasn't ideal for landscape (although both were far from terrible at the other.)

What we're seeing with the R5 and beyond is the start of the 'one camera that can do everything very well'. Although An R7 will absolutely be cheaper than the R5S or whatever it's called, will the R5S be cheaper than buying an R7 AND an R5? Probably.

I'm excited about 100mpx cameras even though I probably can't afford one yet - and I'd still probably spend my money on new RF lenses before a new body because even my EOS R is still good enough for almost anything I want to do right now.

The biggest problem with replacing an R5 and R7 with an R5s is when you need to hang two different lenses on each one at the same time...

A 70-200/2.8 on the R7 and a 24-70/2.8 on an R5 at the same time is a lot quicker handling than an R5s with only one lens mounted at any given time.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,180
By "poor marketing" you meant the EOS-M lag in every major metrics? EOS-M got high visibility when they launched but the camera failed to perform, disappointed in many reviews. It is very funny to call that "poor marketing"

I guess it all depends upon whether you consider a particular camera a success or not based on what kinds of YouTube reviews it gets rather than how many units it sells and how much profit it makes worldwide. The YouTubers do what they do to get the most views and thus generate the most income they can from their videos. If that means stirring the pot and criticizing anything the worlds largest seller of cameras offers for sale, that's what they'll do.

I'm not so sure Canon's poor marketing of the initial pieces of the M-series in North America and Western Europe wasn't intentional because they had higher profit margins on lower end DSLRs in the Rebel/xx0D and xx00D lines. It was in Asia where smaller/lighter/cheaper was really catching on with dedicated cameras for "non-photographers" that the M first made its mark - and in so doing made a ton of cash for Canon. The YouTubers still don't get that the M-system is not created nor marketed for anyone interested enough to watch a bunch of talking heads on Youtube trash every camera except the brand that they're a fanboy of.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,413
2,277
I guess it all depends upon whether you consider a particular camera a success or not based on what kinds of YouTube reviews it gets rather than how many units it sells and how much profit it makes worldwide. The YouTubers do what they do to get the most views and thus generate the most income they can from their videos. If that means stirring the pot and criticizing anything the worlds largest seller of cameras offers for sale, that's what they'll do.

I'm not so sure Canon's poor marketing of the initial pieces of the M-series in North America and Western Europe wasn't intentional because they had higher profit margins on lower end DSLRs in the Rebel/xx0D and xx00D lines. It was in Asia where smaller/lighter/cheaper was really catching on with dedicated cameras for "non-photographers" that the M first made its mark - and in so doing made a ton of cash for Canon. The YouTubers still don't get that the M-system is not created nor marketed for anyone interested enough to watch a bunch of talking heads on Youtube trash every camera except the brand that they're a fanboy of.

And many here don't get that either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,742
1,305
You're applying what Bob said for one situation to what Fisher is saying for another scenario. When you crop, it's exactly the same thing as reducing the sensor size without changing your shooting distance.

This is the relevant text from the post which started the discussion, by jvillian:

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.

He is correct. Slap a 100mm macro on FF and fill the viewfinder with a big bug. Now slap that 100mm on a crop camera. The bug will be larger than the viewfinder. If you back up to get the same exact framing as with the FF, you will have more DoF. That is exactly what Bob Atkins was describing.

If you backed up without changing the focal length you gained DoF at the expense of magnification.

Technically yes, but the whole point is that you do not need as much magnification for a subject that fills the FF sensor when you're working with an APS-C crop. You can back up a bit, get more DoF, and still have good detail if you're working with higher pixel densities. That's true whether you're using an actual crop camera, or cropping a high resolution FF file.

Try Cambridge in Color's Flexible DoF calculator that allows you to press the 'show advanced' button and then enter all of the variables yourself instead of letting DOF Master assume them (often incorrectly) for you.

It doesn't change anything. The "advanced options" only allow you to ask will this be acceptable at X arbitrary print size? The relationship between the two (1.6x more DoF at 1.6x the distance) remains the same. Note: their calculator has a rounding error somewhere. You can get it to report 2x the DoF or 1x with extreme print sizes. You can also create situations where the reported Total Depth of Field value does not match the difference in the reported near/far values.

Be sure to use macro shooting distances where the reproduction ratio will approach 1:1.

Again, this doesn't change anything. A subject that fills the FF sensor at 1:1 spills over an APS-C crop at 1:1. If what you want is to capture the entire subject then you have to back up with an APS-C crop. At which point you have less than 1:1 magnification, but more DoF.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,819
2,180
This is the relevant text from the post which started the discussion, by jvillian:

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.

He is correct. Slap a 100mm macro on FF and fill the viewfinder with a big bug. Now slap that 100mm on a crop camera. The bug will be larger than the viewfinder. If you back up to get the same exact framing as with the FF, you will have more DoF. That is exactly what Bob Atkins was describing.



Technically yes, but the whole point is that you do not need as much magnification for a subject that fills the FF sensor when you're working with an APS-C crop. You can back up a bit, get more DoF, and still have good detail if you're working with higher pixel densities. That's true whether you're using an actual crop camera, or cropping a high resolution FF file.



It doesn't change anything. The "advanced options" only allow you to ask will this be acceptable at X arbitrary print size? The relationship between the two (1.6x more DoF at 1.6x the distance) remains the same. Note: their calculator has a rounding error somewhere. You can get it to report 2x the DoF or 1x with extreme print sizes. You can also create situations where the reported Total Depth of Field value does not match the difference in the reported near/far values.



Again, this doesn't change anything. A subject that fills the FF sensor at 1:1 spills over an APS-C crop at 1:1. If what you want is to capture the entire subject then you have to back up with an APS-C crop. At which point you have less than 1:1 magnification, but more DoF.

From further into the same Bob Atkins article you cited:

"Again, this simple analysis only applies at "intermediate" distances, but we have to have that limitation if we want a "simple" formula. It only really breaks down when the lens is focused further than about halfway to the hyperfocal distance or when we get to magnifications near 1:1"
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
It means you are a masochist's masochist.
:giggle: Yes well there's some truth in that.

However it raises an interesting question. The 5 series was always the GP camera model that was good for most applications, and an awful lot are used to photograph weddings, the FF giving such an advantage in dimly lit churches. If the R5 really is the 5DIV's replacement then it's jumped to 45mp, and the difference between 45 and 50mp is basically nothing in both terms of resolution, output size and processing speed ! So 5 series users, often shooting hundreds of images at a time, are now 'lumbered' with 45mp data to deal with. Maybe CRAW is coming to the rescue here ? The problem with the previous MRAW & SRAW was that only DPP seemed to be able to convert them properly and even then there are issues so it wasn't really a viable option for many, myself included.

So it looks to me as if 5 series photographers are going to be forced into becoming data masochists in the future ! ;)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: privatebydesign

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,421
928
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
:giggle: Yes well there's some truth in that.

However it raises an interesting question. The 5 series was always the GP camera model that was good for most applications, and an awful lot are used to photographing weddings, the FF giving such an advantage in dimly lit churches. If the R5 really is the 5DIV's replacement then it's jumped to 45mp, and the difference between 45 and 50mp is basically nothing in both terms of resolution, output size and processing speed ! So 5 series users, often shooting hundreds of images at a time, are now 'lumbered' with 45mp data to deal with. Maybe CRAW is coming to the rescue here ? The problem with the previous MRAW & SRAW was that only DPP seemed to be able to convert them properly and even then there are issues so it wasn't really a viable option for many, myself included.

So it looks to me as if 5 series photographers are going to be forced into becoming data masochists in the future ! ;)
Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,438
5,657
Western Digital 14TB external drives are now under $300. While there's still a good argument for the performance issues dealing with larger files especially on older computers or with older software, the cost of storage really isn't a big deal these days.
People almost always look at these things from their own perspectives and don't fully embrace other peoples perspectives.

The cost of storage for many is comparatively modest, but for high volume shooters it can very quickly get out of hand. I know of a guy who shoots with 1 series cameras and sells big prints amongst a lot of regular print and digital output. His lowest shutter count body, of three, is over 300,000 in three years, his highest was well over 400,000. So he is at 1,000,000 RAW files in three years just off his main bodies, he often uses remotes and second and third shooters. I know of one event where he had 15 cameras shooting over three days.

I worked for an event shooting company a couple of times and they used ten to fifteen photographers in different sets and expected groups to be staged and shot within five minutes. They would be processing at least 3,000 shots an evening, over a three day event they might be processing 20,000 images.

But those are a couple of pro situations, now the R5 can shoot 45mp at 20fps even amateur wildlife and sports shooters can rack up thousands of images in a day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark