The 1DX Mk III is going for $6499 and I bought my Mk II for $5699. $8500 is not near those prices. Hell, you could buy any 1D X and a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for less and still get tack sharp images. It will have to be a banger of a camera before I would even think about it, and even then I would want to wait for at least 6 months to see how it goes. Think I will just buy a Mk III. I already have an R5 for high res shots.
Definitely. Soon after writing the above, I remembered those lenses, but didn't go back and edit because the point was the same. If you like, just replace Nikon with Canon. Either way, the A7RIV took the crown and still holds it. But other than bragging rights, neither the A7RIV nor the Canon 5Ds twins particularly impress. Neither camera really delivered on the promise that their higher resolution sensor suggested. Yes, you can detect some resolution improvements, but you really have to work at it. I think that we'll need a 90MP (or greater) sensor before we actually see a perceptible improvement in resolution.Aren't you forgetting the 50MP 5Ds/5Ds R?
At first, this whole 21mp and 85mp makes no sense, but when you start thinking, it kind of does.
Let me explain.
On a normal 20 mp sensor, you have 20 million diodes. each pixel is covered with the bayer pattern which identifies every single pixel as either green, blue or red.
Since canon introduced dual pixel technology, we effectively had 40 million diodes on a "20mp" bayer sensor. That is 2 diodes hiding behind each green, blue or red screen. The 2 diodes have made the dual pixel focusing possible calculating the micro-contrast between each set of 2 diodes for a global "phase difference". Hence the name "dual pixel" because indeed it's 2 pixels effectively behind each bayer piece.
Now, since those dual pixels (diodes) were arranged in such a way that they were twice as tall as they are large, it didn't make sense to read them as separate pixels for purposes of resolving the image. Pixels would have been twice as high as they are large.
View attachment 196136
This would have caused visible "stepping" or aliasing problem. Their only purpose was for focusing. So a 40 million diode sensor was still 20mp since each bayer piece was counted as 1 pixel. In other words, the input information of the 2 diodes were combined into 1 output pixel to keep everything square and proper.
But now, with introduction of quad pixel technology which further improves focusing, we solve the problem we had bafore with only 2 diodes behind each bayer screen. You effectively have 4 diodes (pixels) behind each green, blue or red bayer screen. This is a 2 by 2 square. Each diode being the same size. This means that you have 2 options of how you can read the information. You have a total of 80 million diodes. Either you read them as a 20mp sensor - 4 diodes behind each red, green, blue screen constitute one pixel - or your read each diode (so 80 million of them) as an indivudual pixel and simply modify your debayering algorithms.
Now, these debayering calculations would be way more complex and more taxing on the processor (I think up to 16 times) if you decided to use all 80 million diodes as pixels instead of using only the 20mp resolution, but it's possible. Hence, shooting 20 mp at 30 frames seems reasonable, but 20 frames at 80 mp seems a little sketchy. I think 10 fps at 80pm would be quite the achievement with the processing power involved. Unless they throw 2 current X processors into the R1, who knows how much processing power that actually is... maybe enough for 20 fps at 80mp despite the heavy processing needed.
Why would Canon call a 90 million photodiode sensor a 45 million pixel sensor if that was how they were looking at it?
A 21mp quad sensor would have 84 million photodiodes but according to Canon themselves, in it's current format/definition, would still only be a 21mp sensor.
Like I have said across threads now it isn't me that is splitting hairs on the terminology but we are going to have a whole load more threads on this if that is what they are doing.
Personally I never fully appreciated the distinction Canon have made, but they have, so now we might be looking at an interesting time of backpedaling and re-education on the finer points and definitions of pixels vs photodiodes.
I 100% agree with you, and I think this is what makes the most sense for Canon in this "new" 8k pro market. At the very least, whatever pro camera Canon releases will have to have a 20-ish megapixel mode for the pro photographers who simply don't need the resolution. I would definitely shoot most of my general assignment R5 images at 20 megapixels if there was an option for a raw, 20 megapixel output.
At the same time, if the R1 also was able to do 80 megapixels, that's a huge added value for portrait and landscape work when 80 megapixels is a bonus. Add to that, it would be totally possible to switch between a full sensor 20 megapixel low light mode and a 30 megapixel 1.6x crop mode, which also would help make the R1 into an absolutely excellent camera for wildlife/birding photographers, on top of news and sports photographers. It would truly be a no-compromise pro model across the board, and I think a ~$7500+ price tag would be survivable for the people who could replace multiple cameras with one.
Just had a talk with a "Canon Explorer". Don't expect the R1 to compete with the Sony A1, Nikon Z or even the Canon R5 from a resolution perspective.
Hi, I don't think that's the ONLY thing we're looking at, but not a blind eye. With the advancements in the market today from sony, nikon, fuji I don't think many will tollerate dumbed down resolution any longer. Not somone who would have to spend $50K+ to transition over.I wouldn't; the 1 series has historically been firmly wedded to lower-than-possible resolutions. If someone were to look ONLY at that (as the typical consumer has been invited to do), they'd wonder what the heck Canon is thinking calling it a flagship camera and charging that much for it.
Hi, I don't think that's the ONLY thing we're looking at, but not a blind eye. With the advancements in the market today from sony, nikon, fuji I don't think many will tollerate dumbed down resolution any longer. Not somone who would have to spend $50K+ to transition over.