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

[Sporgon]

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.

This is a rather disingenuous statement to say the least !! As with the other Canon off sensor ADC cameras if you want the maximum quality that the sensor can bring it's important to nail the exposure, and if you do this then the 5DS/r has excellent shadow recovery and remarkable highlight recovery, certainly more than you can ever fit into the DR of a print or even high quality screen without looking ridiculous. I know some people have associated the shot noise (photon noise) of the 5DS as "poor quality" but this is just normal physics and you see the same in any very high mp / small pixel / large output sensor.

The meter on the 5DS is very good but even then I still use an incident light meter when practical.

 

[jd7]

No service needed. I'm speaking about the specific condition of bright daytime backlight. In the shade/overcast, or when the sun is low, no problem. Purple everywhere, otherwise. While fringing may be a problem for a lot of fast lenses, it is not true of all. Specifically the lenses with Canon's BR element: EF 35mm f/1.4L II, and the RF 85mm f/1.2L.

I tried a Tamron 45 f/1.8 VC and Sigma 50 Art when I was looking for a 50mm-ish prime. I thought the Tamron was OK but I found it an easy decision to go for the Sigma. The Tamron is smaller, lighter, has VC/IS and closer MFD, and it's not bad optically, so the Tamron does have its strengths. However, I thought the Sigma clearly had the better IQ. And at least when I was looking (some years ago now!), the Sigma didn't cost that much more than the Tamron either. As for colour fringing specifically, the Sigma does have some so I wouldn't expect it to be as good in that regard as one of the BR element lenses, but in my experience it had significantly less than the Tamron 45mm. Anyway, if you're not looking to spend money on RF lenses at the moment, might be worth testing a 50mm Art if there is any chance you can get your hands on one to give it a go.

 

[sanj]

Let's hope they are showing us same magic they delivered in R5. I would totally buy it if they can even just retain DR at the same level of R5 even with slower AF performance. I only do landscape and wildlife so no need for these super fast AF.

I do not see the relation between MPX and auto focus speed. Read/write (fps) yes, but not focus speed.

 

[usern4cr]

How is the sigma 150-600 lens and 1.4x TC? What body are you using it on? I'm working on figuring out what telephoto lense to get for the R5. I want the RF100-500 but looking to see what alternatives would work with the R5 and what success/failures others have had with these types of lenses.

If I were you, and could afford it, I'd get the RF 100-500 - you'll love the results. I have it and it's my favorite lens among those I have for the R5. If money is tight, I would pass on the RF 1.4 TC and rely on cropping and optional upsizing from raw in post if you want further tele reach or higher MP files for printing. That way you'd always have the 100-300 range intact instead of losing it with the TC on.

 

[usern4cr]

If anything, I'd say this camera may be just single pixel, that is not even dual pixel. If it's not video oriented it doesn't need a super fast AF.

Single pixel? I'd seriously doubt that Canon would do this after the excellent reviews / user experience / sales of the R cameras with DP. In fact I think it would torpedo the sales of it if it wasn't at least DP. What would they replace the AF with? Contrast detection? A handful of individual sensor regions reassigned for phase detection like in older sensors? It will have DP. I'm guessing they'll save the QP for more reasonable MP sensors in the short term. But if they get their QP tech down good enough they may transition all future sensors to it sooner than later.

 

[Fischer]

So true. Adobe did the same thing with the same version of the M3 raws.

It's worth noting that DPReview still have the 5DS/r raw images from the original, ridiculous Adobe profile on their camera comparison tool. If you want to use that tool to assess the 5DS against other cameras it is important to download the raws and convert them yourself.

Yes. They also still use their original faulty processed shots to support the review. History now, but a low point for dpreview imho.

 

[John Wilde]

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.

Active Cooling = Fatter Camera. That's appropriate for a C series cinema camera, but I doubt that many still photographers want that.

 

[usern4cr]

This comes from the confusion of what one would call a 'pixel'. Rudy counts 1 microlens as a pixel, regardless of how many diodes are underneath it. With DPAF you get 2 diodes per microlens, the DIGIC reads both of them to do AF. If you enable DP-RAW, it will store both values as well. So for every shot the camera needs to process all diodes. So on a 100MP DPAF sensor, that would be 200M diodes, a QPAF sensor would have 400M diodes. It does't really matter what you'd call them, diodes or pixels, the DIGIC still has to read and process all of them.
I suspect Canon doesn't call them pixels because they don't add resolution to the resulting image since they share the same microlens.

There's another thing to remember about DP or QP that is not talked about: The very nature of their design is for each "diode" to produce the same value when the image at that point is in focus, and to produce differing +/- values when it is out of focus - that's how they can tell you how much & in what direction it is out of focus at that spot. Regarding increasing MP claims by calling 2 diodes "2 pixels" via extra interpolation: if you're out of focus (eg. for big background blur) then it doesn't matter how many diodes you have at that spot since it's a blur, and if you're in focus at that spot then it doesn't matter either since they produce the same signal. So the DP or QP doesn't really provide for useful higher(2x or 4x) MP claims, but it does provide for excellent phase detection AF which is what it was designed for.

 

[John Wilde]

In 2015, Canon made a development announcement for a 120MP DSLR, so they have had plenty of time to work on high resolution cameras.

 

[koenkooi]

In 2015, Canon made a development announcement for a 120MP DSLR, so they have had plenty of time to work on high resolution cameras.

And that 120MP was APS-H, so 200-ish MP for FF. But that wasn't a DPAF sensor

 

[macrunning]

We are seeing another leap in processing power and storage speed right now - as reflected in the price of my AMD shares over the last year. 1.600$ home build and you are flying. No problem.

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.

 

[cayenne]

Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.

Well, you *are* talking about a 4 year old computer...laptop at that, that these days, can no longer be upgraded by user easily (if at all).

While it appears that the new Apple chips (M1?) is very capable, these days I'm of the mindset that while a laptop is VERY useful while out on the road, if you are doing any serious photography and video work, it may not be the smartest investment for doing hard work at home/office doubling as your main computer.

I used to use my MBP mostly as a desktop...it was always on a rack, plugged in and hooked to large external monitors, keyboards (I love the old IBM style buckling "clicky" ones)....wacom tablet and external working drives (for image files and one SSD dedicated for cache for various apps).

But with image capture tech changing so fast, and higher and higher fidelity files coming in with accompanying size increases, I'm not so sure the laptop for everything paradigm is as valid as it used to be.

I did spring last year for a Mac Pro.....for it to be upgradeable. However, I may get zonked with this myself, since Apple has switched away from Intel....I'm actually hoping at some point, there will be a chip/motherboard upgrade at some point offered so I could keep the MP up to date as long as possible.

I mean for now, I"m not worried, but I would prefer this large of an investment to last 8-10 years if possible with upgrades.

But anyway...this has been something that has been simmering in the back of my brain for awhile. It is time again when purchasing computer equipment for our media needs...to try to plan for ever taxing needs on both storage and processing (CPU and especially GPU) power.

Disk space, is the relatively easy one....

I"m currently working with 100MP images, about to experiment with pixel shifting to a 400MP one where the resultant image is about 1.25GB each....
I had to really spend a few weeks cleaning off my existing external work drive....I'm currently looking into maybe seeing what type NAS multi-drive system I can replace my single large external working drive with...that would prove expandable over time by adding larger and larger individual drives.
I see the future...and it takes up a LOT of space.

Sure, no one is throwing out masterpiece images of the not too distant past taken and printed form 8-10MP sensors.

But, that's not where things are going....so, it is something to keep in mind while planning, since photography/videography doesn't stop with the camera shutter activation.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne

 

[macrunning]

Well, you *are* talking about a 4 year old computer...laptop at that, that these days, can no longer be upgraded by user easily (if at all).

While it appears that the new Apple chips (M1?) is very capable, these days I'm of the mindset that while a laptop is VERY useful while out on the road, if you are doing any serious photography and video work, it may not be the smartest investment for doing hard work at home/office doubling as your main computer.

I used to use my MBP mostly as a desktop...it was always on a rack, plugged in and hooked to large external monitors, keyboards (I love the old IBM style buckling "clicky" ones)....wacom tablet and external working drives (for image files and one SSD dedicated for cache for various apps).

But with image capture tech changing so fast, and higher and higher fidelity files coming in with accompanying size increases, I'm not so sure the laptop for everything paradigm is as valid as it used to be.

I did spring last year for a Mac Pro.....for it to be upgradeable. However, I may get zonked with this myself, since Apple has switched away from Intel....I'm actually hoping at some point, there will be a chip/motherboard upgrade at some point offered so I could keep the MP up to date as long as possible.

I mean for now, I"m not worried, but I would prefer this large of an investment to last 8-10 years if possible with upgrades.

But anyway...this has been something that has been simmering in the back of my brain for awhile. It is time again when purchasing computer equipment for our media needs...to try to plan for ever taxing needs on both storage and processing (CPU and especially GPU) power.

Disk space, is the relatively easy one....

I"m currently working with 100MP images, about to experiment with pixel shifting to a 400MP one where the resultant image is about 1.25GB each....
I had to really spend a few weeks cleaning off my existing external work drive....I'm currently looking into maybe seeing what type NAS multi-drive system I can replace my single large external working drive with...that would prove expandable over time by adding larger and larger individual drives.
I see the future...and it takes up a LOT of space.

Sure, no one is throwing out masterpiece images of the not too distant past taken and printed form 8-10MP sensors.

But, that's not where things are going....so, it is something to keep in mind while planning, since photography/videography doesn't stop with the camera shutter activation.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne

I feel your pain with the chip switch. I had the G4 and multiple G5 machines back in the day. Then apple switched to the Intel chipset. Looks like now they are back to their own chipset. I wouldn't count on anything in your computer being upgradable other than what your choices are in the box as you bought it. My G5s are all in the heap pile now. I switched to using MBPs because of the ability to travel with them. Mobility is just more important and yes when I'm at home it's connected up to 2 large monitors, wireless keyboard, external hard drives and the like. It does a fine job. My only point is the slow down I've experienced using larger R5 files vs the R files. So personally I couldn't imagine wanting to or needing to use 100mp photos. This is not only due to the limitations of the computer itself but also the transfer speeds of usb cables. While my MBP has 4 USC-C outlets, There are limitations with this technology currently (like not being able to have an external multi usb-c hub because usb-c can't be daisy chained) but no matter what folks are using for a computer there is a bottle neck at the transfer rate of files. In the end everyone has their own use cases and will justify what they need/want. For me 45mp images are large enough and with AI technology from companies like Topaz I would just find 100mp to be more of a burden. The R5 gets amazing detail out of the box and if I should ever find myself needing to go bigger, AI has arrived.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well, you *are* talking about a 4 year old computer...laptop at that, that these days, can no longer be upgraded by user easily (if at all).

While it appears that the new Apple chips (M1?) is very capable, these days I'm of the mindset that while a laptop is VERY useful while out on the road, if you are doing any serious photography and video work, it may not be the smartest investment for doing hard work at home/office doubling as your main computer.

I used to use my MBP mostly as a desktop...it was always on a rack, plugged in and hooked to large external monitors, keyboards (I love the old IBM style buckling "clicky" ones)....wacom tablet and external working drives (for image files and one SSD dedicated for cache for various apps).

But with image capture tech changing so fast, and higher and higher fidelity files coming in with accompanying size increases, I'm not so sure the laptop for everything paradigm is as valid as it used to be.

I did spring last year for a Mac Pro.....for it to be upgradeable. However, I may get zonked with this myself, since Apple has switched away from Intel....I'm actually hoping at some point, there will be a chip/motherboard upgrade at some point offered so I could keep the MP up to date as long as possible.

I mean for now, I"m not worried, but I would prefer this large of an investment to last 8-10 years if possible with upgrades.

But anyway...this has been something that has been simmering in the back of my brain for awhile. It is time again when purchasing computer equipment for our media needs...to try to plan for ever taxing needs on both storage and processing (CPU and especially GPU) power.

Disk space, is the relatively easy one....

I"m currently working with 100MP images, about to experiment with pixel shifting to a 400MP one where the resultant image is about 1.25GB each....
I had to really spend a few weeks cleaning off my existing external work drive....I'm currently looking into maybe seeing what type NAS multi-drive system I can replace my single large external working drive with...that would prove expandable over time by adding larger and larger individual drives.
I see the future...and it takes up a LOT of space.

Sure, no one is throwing out masterpiece images of the not too distant past taken and printed form 8-10MP sensors.

But, that's not where things are going....so, it is something to keep in mind while planning, since photography/videography doesn't stop with the camera shutter activation.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne

Whilst I see the direction and demand for higher resolution within the photographic community I have not seen any demand or need from my customers for higher resolution deliveries.

Who are these end users demanding 80, 100, 400 mp images?

 

[usern4cr]

I feel your pain with the chip switch. I had the G4 and multiple G5 machines back in the day. Then apple switched to the Intel chipset. Looks like now they are back to their own chipset. I wouldn't count on anything in your computer being upgradable other than what your choices are in the box as you bought it. My G5s are all in the heap pile now. I switched to using MBPs because of the ability to travel with them. Mobility is just more important and yes when I'm at home it's connected up to 2 large monitors, wireless keyboard, external hard drives and the like. It does a fine job. My only point is the slow down I've experienced using larger R5 files vs the R files. So personally I couldn't imagine wanting to or needing to use 100mp photos. This is not only due to the limitations of the computer itself but also the transfer speeds of usb cables. While my MBP has 4 USC-C outlets, There are limitations with this technology currently (like not being able to have an external multi usb-c hub because usb-c can't be daisy chained) but no matter what folks are using for a computer there is a bottle neck at the transfer rate of files. In the end everyone has their own use cases and will justify what they need/want. For me 45mp images are large enough and with AI technology from companies like Topaz I would just find 100mp to be more of a burden. The R5 gets amazing detail out of the box and if I should ever find myself needing to go bigger, AI has arrived.

"usb-c can't be daisy chained?"

In the new MacBook 13" with M1 chips there are only 2 USB-C slots. Are you saying that there is no other way (eg. hub, or Apple monitor with more USB slots) to get 3 or more things actively plugged into this new 13" M1 Macbook at the same time?

 

[privatebydesign]

"usb-c can't be daisy chained?"

In the new MacBook 13" with M1 chips there are only 2 USB-C slots. Are you saying that there is no other way (eg. hub, or Apple monitor with more USB slots) to get 3 or more things actively plugged into this new 13" M1 Macbook at the same time?

The MacBook is thunderbolt and they can be daisy chained. You can plug at least 6 devices per port, there are now TB hubs and most TB devices have two ports so can act as pass through.

 

[jvillain]

OK just thinking out loud, but with Adobe's new Super Resolution I get 122 MP (effectively) out of my 30.4 MP R. It really looks pretty wonderful, but I only see it when I zoom way in, like 200%. If I had to make a print 48" wide and stand with my nose right on top of it, sure I'll see that resolution, but who does that?

And when I look at the size-matched comparisons in DxO Mark of the 5Ds vs the 5D IV, there doesn't appear to be much gain, if any, in image quality by shooting big and scaling down.

So yeah, I'll be the first to ask if it's really useful. But please give me credit for not being a mindless knee-jerker. What is the actual practical benifit? I'm not assuming there isn't a gain, I'm seriously asking what that gain is. And if that gain is worth the giant files and possible hit to SNR.

I am aware that there is an equal and opposite knee-jerk tendency to accept that more is always better.

Whilst I see the direction and demand for higher resolution within the photographic community I have not seen any demand or need from my customers for higher resolution deliveries.

Who are these end users demanding 80, 100, 400 mp images?

No discussion about how many pixels you need makes sense with out taking into account what you are viewing it on and how close to it you are. Take three extremes. If you are looking at a cell phone from 20 feet away you may be good with one pixel. If you are looking at a pano that stretches the width of a wall from just a couple of feet back you are going to be stitching your 100MP+ files together. Video screens that cover entire walls are a thing now, not a common thing but tech doesn't stand still. How close you are to it will determine how many pixels you need.

Beyond that customers often ask for multiple crops from the same image. A 1x2 for cell phones there goes 70% of your pixels, a landscape for computer/TV screens etc, point of sales signage can be all kinds of crazy shapes and sizes.. Then they can ask for a hero shot but then be able to pick detail crops out of that picture. Big pro companies understand the nature of the tech but you would be shocked at the crazy ahem "stuff" that that the not so pro companies will ask for. The amateurs always know more than the pros, just ask them.

Lol. So many people say they want this 100mp camera but haven't thought about the computer side of this. My 2017 MacBook Pro already shows a significant slow down using 45mp R5 raw files vs my 30mp R raw files. I wouldn't want to have to push 100mp images through this. I guess if you were just working on a suped up Mac Pro (starting at $6000) you probably wouldn't flinch.

People edit 4K video on the new $800 M1 with 8G of memory with no problems and video is orders of magnitude more demanding than stills. If you can afford this camera and the lenses you can afford enough computer to edit it.

Sounds like a good camera to use with TS-E lenses for landscapes, shifting the lens in all directions and stitching 17 or so pictures together.

I started out thinking the opposite. Maybe there would be less need to stitch photos together. But then I remembered a pano that took up the width of a wall in a conference room I used to visit and it may have looked good on the computer but it looked like arse on on the wall because it didn't have any where near the required resolution so ya, your probably right.

 

[Richard CR]

This comes from the confusion of what one would call a 'pixel'. Rudy counts 1 microlens as a pixel, regardless of how many diodes are underneath it. With DPAF you get 2 diodes per microlens, the DIGIC reads both of them to do AF. If you enable DP-RAW, it will store both values as well. So for every shot the camera needs to process all diodes. So on a 100MP DPAF sensor, that would be 200M diodes, a QPAF sensor would have 400M diodes. It does't really matter what you'd call them, diodes or pixels, the DIGIC still has to read and process all of them.
I suspect Canon doesn't call them pixels because they don't add resolution to the resulting image since they share the same microlens.

DIGIC doesn't necessarily process all of them. they are summed on the sensor, and I suspect Canon is using ROI (region of interest) for DPAF these days, they were talking about it a while ago.

there's also no confusion. a pixel is the value based upon the output from the camera. it doesn't matter if it's made up of 2, 4, 8, 16 diode values, that's all internal to the camera. Even dual pixel RAW, you get two images, one with A side, the other with A+B. both have the same amount of "pixels".

100MP isn't that far of a each. the 32.5MP APS-C sensors are 82MP full frame equivalent. Canon was doing a 120MP DSLR sensor in the past, so 100MP? not so hard.

it's funny but I talked a week ago, about the fact that I believe Canon will go north of 100MP and here we are.

 

[Richard CR]

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.

the 32.5MP APS-C sensors scale to 82MP.. and they are just fine. the 5Ds and 5DsR use entirely different sensor technology, and are at least 2 generations old in terms of Canon sensor technology from where we are now.

 

[macrunning]

"usb-c can't be daisy chained?"

In the new MacBook 13" with M1 chips there are only 2 USB-C slots. Are you saying that there is no other way (eg. hub, or Apple monitor with more USB slots) to get 3 or more things actively plugged into this new 13" M1 Macbook at the same time?

You can't daisy chain more USB-C devices onto it. You can daisy chain older USB devices through a hub. I've been trying to find (for the better parts of a year now) to find a multi USB-C port. It doesn't exist. So you can only use 2 USB-C devices. If you were to get more USB-C devices you are SOL right now. One other thing to note is that you need one of those USB-C ports to power up/recharge your MBP!