I wonder what video resolution it will actually get. 8k? 12k? A little bit over 12k? Personally, I don’t care for that resolution, I don’t want it and want it.I know you're joking, but 16k video would require at minimum 132.7 MP
I'm doing it now with the GFX100....it makes for really great images and well...Hard Drive space is relatively cheap these days...but you don't spray and pray that often.Would be pure pleasure to do panorama pictures of landscapes with this body and a supertele. Insane... Also wonder how many HDD would need to store this picture
Now, really, I wish to see more news about this camera
5DS/R DR was a big step up from the 5DIII - on par with the later 5DIV at or above ISO 400. Not SONY territory for sure, but also not bad if you ask me. We can hope that once again the high MPIX Canon has better DR than the preceding R5. We will see.I am actually more interested to know how they can push dynamic range with 100MP sensor all on a small FF form factor. Pixel count only matters when dynamic range is good. I used to say Canon sensor is bad but they surprised me big time with R5. So perhaps they have more magic to show us.
I am speaking this as a 5DS R user for the past 6 years. 5DS R is a package with tons of pixels but no sensor performance. I am very tempted to buy R5 but I plan to wait for another year or so to see if they can show us something truly amazing.
and last but not least, 45MP and 100MP doesn't have a meaningful difference unless you are a specific kind of photographers.
Certainly still room for AF improvement. All Canon's mirrorless cameras suffer from not "falling back" if the AF looks "past" the intended focus point. It sort of sticks to the background it aquires. And you really struggle to get it "back" on track again. This would probably be the biggest upgrade for now.mostly agree, but AF and tracking still could be improved.. I have R5 and it is very good and happy with the purchase, but there are certain situations where AF hunts, thankfully not many. The other big improvement if they can get it is global shutter, but highly unlikely in a higher megapixel camera. I'm stoked and love my R5 to bits, but Canon is really dropping the Mic lately (as in showing off it means business) and it's nice to see. I was pretty close to changing vendors before the R5/R6 came out
I'd be even bolder, and suggest somewhat north of $5k!I will take a 100mp with a good amount of salt but If Canon does introduce a camera with 100 or more MP it will closer to $5k mark is my guess
If it's aimed at landscapers, then a tripod would almost certainly be used, and quite possibly primes too. (Of course, everyone has their own ways of doing things).Okay, I'll bite.
I don't need it and won't be buying it, but if true, I applaud Canon for going all the way to 100 rather than compromise at 80MP or similar. The resolution pretty much must be (at least) doubled to provide a perceptible benefit. 80MP is simply not a sufficiently large increase to provide significant benefits. 80MP would have duplicated the mistake Sony did with their 60MP camera. Without extreme pixel peeping I struggle--no--I don't see an improvement over images from their 42MP cameras. Thus, if Canon is going to ratchet up the pixel count, by all means break the 100MP barrier.
Of course, what lenses can resolve that resolution, who has the technique to take handheld shots at that resolution, and defraction sets in at f/2.8, and...
Forgive my tech ignorance, but does RF mount mean it absolutely has to be a 35mm full frame sensor (rather than being just a little larger)? Just wondering if they can squeeze any more sensor real estate in there (not a lot, just a bit) to help with mp count?
I'm doing it now with the GFX100....it makes for really great images and well...Hard Drive space is relatively cheap these days...but you don't spray and pray that often.
You think that's bad..wait till you use pixel shift (I"m sure the canon will have it too)...and you start dealing with files that are about 1.5GB each.