Here are some crazy Canon EOS R1 specifications [CR0]

[neuroanatomist]

Holy smokes this got extremely off topic.

I disagree. The thread title has the word ‘crazy’ in it, I think that means all bets are off.

 

[kaihp]

I was trying to support what you said. If that was unclear I apologize.

Sorry, I definitely missed that. My bad. I should take more care to read and understand, before replying.

 

[AEWest]

Holy smokes this got extremely off topic.

Welcome to Canon Rumors forum.

 

[Antono Refa]

The EOS1 series tipically not high resolution cameras. I don't think 85Mpix is real. Global shutter is.

Could be 85M photo sites, or 21.2MP.

 

[usern4cr]

Could be 85M photo sites, or 21.2MP.

Well, 85M photo sites would still be a claimed "85M pixels" since Canon (& most everyone) use a Bayer filter and extrapolate colors so each site now has full color reported as their "85 MPixel sensor resolution". The R5 has 45M photo sites, and they extrapolate it to 45MPixels, so they won't be changing that.

However, some of Canon's photo sites are called "dual-pixel" and in the future might be called "quad pixel" , for AF purposes. I don't know if this applies to every photo-site across the entire sensor or just for the much smaller number of declared AF points on it. If it was "quad-pixel AF" on each photo site of the entire sensor, then I could see them calling each of the 4 sites (of the quad-pixel) as a published number as a way to increase their claimed marketing numbers 4 fold to increase bragging rights, since they could just claim "85M" when they actually boil it down to 21.2 MPixels.

 

[usern4cr]

I'm not ready to call CR3 on a global shutter, but good sources have said that it's in play.

After Nikon announced that their next flagship camera sensor will have fast enough sensor readout speeds so that they no longer need a shutter (mechanical or electrical), it implies that they no longer need a global shutter. I'm guessing that Canon and others will do the same in the future. (If it's fast enough, their marketing department might call it a "global shutter" to boost sales.) If Canon ever does drop the mechanical shutter, I hope that they have a slide-down neutral density filter instead of a "protective curtain" used when the lens is removed. That would allow ND photography in addition to protecting the sensor during lens changes.

 

[LSXPhotog]

After Nikon announced that their next flagship camera sensor will have fast enough sensor readout speeds so that they no longer need a shutter (mechanical or electrical), it implies that they no longer need a global shutter. I'm guessing that Canon and others will do the same in the future. (If it's fast enough, their marketing department might call it a "global shutter" to boost sales.) If Canon ever does drop the mechanical shutter, I hope that they have a slide-down neutral density filter instead of a "protective curtain" used when the lens is removed. That would allow ND photography in addition to protecting the sensor during lens changes.

That's a very clever idea, nice.

 

[usern4cr]

That's a very clever idea, nice.

Thanks, LSXPhotog. But I'm sure it's one that many have thought of before, including Nikon. I assume that a protective curtain was something they already had and it was very cheap (it looks like a mechanical shutter only used for protective purposes and not for photography, so it's kind of "funny" to say they no longer have a mechanical shutter). A full frame high quality ND filter that had to travel in place and out-of-the-way would take up a lot of space, engineering & cost that they probably didn't want to deal with. Canon might feel the same.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Or to put that another way, if your exposure has blown highlights, dividing by 1000 as skyscraperfan suggests, would simply lead to uniform dark gray areas where the blown highlights were before.

It also uses up ten stops of dynamic range.

Not necessarily.
It depends on where the dynamic range of the camera lies.
Whatever would have gotten blown out was not in the dynamic range of the camera.
Using the correct ND filter would theoretically result in the loss of no dynamic range.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

After Nikon announced that their next flagship camera sensor will have fast enough sensor readout speeds so that they no longer need a shutter (mechanical or electrical), it implies that they no longer need a global shutter. I'm guessing that Canon and others will do the same in the future. (If it's fast enough, their marketing department might call it a "global shutter" to boost sales.) If Canon ever does drop the mechanical shutter, I hope that they have a slide-down neutral density filter instead of a "protective curtain" used when the lens is removed. That would allow ND photography in addition to protecting the sensor during lens changes.

Global shutters are coming.
It is just a matter of time.
Lok could not detect any noticeable rolling shutter effects during still photos but they were clearly noticeable during video.
Lok only had a Z 9 for a short period of time so it remains to be seen whether or not there will be any real-world situations where still photos show rolling shutter effects.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Using the correct ND filter would theoretically result in the loss of no dynamic range.

Exactly. They don’t reduce the dynamic range they simply shift the portion of the scene DR that the camera DR captures. For example, when shooting outdoor portraits at f/1.2-f/2, I usually use a 3-stop ND, because a 1/8000 s shutter speed still gives blown highlights (although the 1/64000 e-shutter of the R3 will give me that 3 stops without the filter).

A 10-stop ND is often used at metered exposure, i.e., determine the exposure without the filter the filter and use it shutter speed that’s 10 stops. In that case, there is no difference in the DR. I typically use a 10-stop ND for shooting architecture in populated settings so the long exposure blurs out people who walk through the frame.

 

[usern4cr]

Exactly. They don’t reduce the dynamic range they simply shift the portion of the scene DR that the camera DR captures. For example, when shooting outdoor portraits at f/1.2-f/2, I usually use a 3-stop ND, because a 1/8000 s shutter speed still gives blown highlights (although the 1/64000 e-shutter of the R3 will give me that 3 stops without the filter).

A 10-stop ND is often used at metered exposure, i.e., determine the exposure without the filter the filter and use it shutter speed that’s 10 stops. In that case, there is no difference in the DR. I typically use a 10-stop ND for shooting architecture in populated settings so the long exposure blurs out people who walk through the frame.

I'm just curious - do you find that most of your ND use is 3-stop or 10-stop (or some other)? Which would you suggest for landscapes with waterfalls where you want the smooth blurred water effects often seen in calendar pictures?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm just curious - do you find that most of your ND use is 3-stop or 10-stop (or some other)? Which would you suggest for landscapes with waterfalls where you want the smooth blurred water effects often seen in calendar pictures?

As a general rule for me:

• Outdoor portraits with an f/2 or faster lens, 3-stop ND
• Waterfalls, 6-stop ND (or a 3-stop ND stacked with a CPL, which gives a total of ~4.75 stops)
• Blurring out moving subjects in a static scene, 10-stop ND

I have shot waterfalls with a 10-stop ND, but had to raise the ISO to ~800 and sometimes open up the aperture a bit to get exposures in the 4-6 second range that I usually use for that subject.

 

[usern4cr]

As a general rule for me:

• Outdoor portraits with an f/2 or faster lens, 3-stop ND
• Waterfalls, 6-stop ND (or a 3-stop ND stacked with a CPL, which gives a total of ~4.75 stops)
• Blurring out moving subjects in a static scene, 10-stop ND

I have shot waterfalls with a 10-stop ND, but had to raise the ISO to ~800 and sometimes open up the aperture a bit to get exposures in the 4-6 second range that I usually use for that subject.

Thanks, neuroanatomist!

 

[SteveC]

Not necessarily.
It depends on where the dynamic range of the camera lies.
Whatever would have gotten blown out was not in the dynamic range of the camera.
Using the correct ND filter would theoretically result in the loss of no dynamic range.

I was arguing FOR the use of ND filters, and against post-processing divide by 1000. You seem to agree with me. Or did I misunderstand your point?