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

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
617
551
Heaven for the pixel peeper brigade.
I know it's in jest, but I do crop heavily post with wildlife (skittish).. even after using sigma 150-600 + 1.4x TC. the freedom to work with that data is helpful. I've learned to tune out the pixel peeping some, but it does let you tell the difference between ok focus and sharp focus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,243
671
Eastern Shore
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.

fun stuff!!

cayenne
Quad pixel?
 

cayenne

EOS R6
CR Pro
Mar 28, 2012
2,715
655
I'd be even bolder, and suggest somewhat north of $5k!

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).
I"m guessing they'll slap IBIS in there too for handheld.....they did this quite well with the GFX100 and 100S...works great.
I have to imagine Canon will do this too in a very successful fashion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

Mt Spokane Photography

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,774
1,742
100+ MP is definitely doable and has been. Its the processing and autofocus that are the difficult factors. Dual pixel really requires 200 pixels, and if its quad pixel, 400. I doubt if a 120 MP sensor would have quad pixel, but it will happen. Does anyone remember when people argued that anything over 2 or 3 MP was impossible?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Pixel

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 6, 2011
253
157
Probably the only way I’d be interested is if it was a MF sensor. It may have the resolution but you can’t get the “MF look” out of full frame no matter how many pixels it has.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,272
2,152
Kentucky, USA
If the future is a choice of a new R... body(with a smaller MP sensor and QP) vs R5s(with a higher MP sensor with DP), then I would favor buying the smaller MP sensor with QP as it will always focus faster, more accurately, and more reliably. I've been quite happy with 45MP in the R5 and really want QP in my next sensor. If it happens to have both QP and even higher MPs then that'd be truly great!

Also, even though I don't know the real specs of the R5s, I'm going to guess it will be $4899 USD !
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
617
551
100+ MP is definitely doable and has been. Its the processing and autofocus that are the difficult factors. Dual pixel really requires 200 pixels, and if its quad pixel, 400. I doubt if a 120 MP sensor would have quad pixel, but it will happen. Does anyone remember when people argued that anything over 2 or 3 MP was impossible?
I've followed digital cameras since inception and still amuses me people resist the new capabilities/features etc. There are plenty of used cameras if the new stuff doesn't grab you :)

besides I want petapixel cameras so I can see the model's cellular structure in detail! ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Nov 11, 2012
4,382
1,073
Yorkshire, England
Probably the only way I’d be interested is if it was a MF sensor. It may have the resolution but you can’t get the “MF look” out of full frame no matter how many pixels it has.
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,751
4,706
68
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
...Dual pixel really requires 200 pixels, and if its quad pixel, 400...
Are you sure about that? This is what Canon's Rudy Winston says about dual pixel autofocus:

Each pixel on the CMOS imaging sensor has two separate, light-sensitive photodiodes, which convert light into an electronic signal. Independently, each half of a pixel detects light through separate micro lenses, atop each pixel. During AF detection, the two halves of each pixel -- the two photodiodes -- send separate signals, which are analyzed for focus information. Then, an instant later when an actual image or video frame is recorded, the two separate signals from each pixel are combined into one single one, for image capturing purposes.

That doesn't sound like double the number of pixels to me.
 

dwarven

EOS RP
Dec 12, 2019
297
467
California, US
I know it's in jest, but I do crop heavily post with wildlife (skittish).. even after using sigma 150-600 + 1.4x TC. the freedom to work with that data is helpful. I've learned to tune out the pixel peeping some, but it does let you tell the difference between ok focus and sharp focus.

The only thing is that lens is going to bottleneck the sensor. You'll need the sharpest, most high quality lenses to get the most out of it. I'm not saying the lens is bad. I have it and it produces great shots on the R6. I just think you'll be disappointed using it on a 100MP sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

cgc

I'm New Here
Feb 9, 2016
21
34
Hopefully no more AA filter for such a camera.
With increasing resolution there is even more justification for using an AA filter.
The filter can be weaker so detail isn't actually lost at small enough apertures (anyway diffraction limited).
A 100MP sensor is free from aliasing from F11 (just as free as a 50MP one at F16).
And you have more pixels to start with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users

dwarven

EOS RP
Dec 12, 2019
297
467
California, US
The image circles of many RF primes are reportedly quite large, which is why and how they can achieve so many stops of IBIS stabilization on the R5 and R6.

And yet, my EM-5 Mark III has far better IBIS than my R6. The image circles on those 4/3 lenses are tiny!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

snappy604

EOS RP
CR Pro
Jan 25, 2017
617
551
The only thing is that lens is going to bottleneck the sensor. You'll need the sharpest, most high quality lenses to get the most out of it. I'm not saying the lens is bad. I have it and it produces great shots on the R6. I just think you'll be disappointed using it on a 100MP sensor.
agree. its a good lens, bang for buck... but yes these new generation cameras need better glass to really take advantage
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
757
910
And yet, my EM-5 Mark III has far better IBIS than my R6. The image circles on those 4/3 lenses are tiny!

I mean, it's more about the ratio of image circle to sensor size, not the absolute size of the circle. Anyway, this is all anecdotal and I may very well be wrong.
 

dwarven

EOS RP
Dec 12, 2019
297
467
California, US
I mean, it's more about the ratio of image circle to sensor size, not the absolute size of the circle. Anyway, this is all anecdotal and I may very well be wrong.

Yeah, sorry. I just wanted to brag about Olympus for a minute because it doesn't get enough love lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users