High megapixel EOS R series camera in testing [CR2]

HarryFilm

EOS RP
Jun 6, 2016
705
166
1) No. You have not seen that. 2) No. It is not confirmed by anyone - because its not true.

But yes, it is a widespread internet myth about large MPIX cameras.


Actually WE have confirmed that high megapixel cameras ARE problematic when it comes to shake. The issue has more to do with photosite size since a higher megapixel count is being put into the same small Full Frame sensor (i.e. Canon 5Dsr). You simply need to use a higher shutter speed to counteract the less light input to saturate each pixel, motion blur due to sensor readout time increase and the higher inherent noise of Canon's high megapixel count sensors.

The direct comparison of a Fuji GFX-100 vs Canon 5Dsr is striking because of the larger sensor size and the larger individual photosites. The GFX-100 is an OUTSTANDING CAMERA that makes much better images than ANY current Canon camera! ....BUT.... I still like the 5Dsr more than the Fuji because of it's more comfortable grip and intuitive ergonomic feel in my hand. I would LOOOOVE to have a larger Canon 1Dx body with a Fuji GFX-100 sensor in it.

And right now, only one company will be coming out with such a beast and it ain't Canon OR Sony OR Fuji!

..
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
272
189
You need to prove something exits - not that something does not exist. Regardless, any major site - including Canonrumours - today acknowledes the fact after some initial confusion by uninformed reviewers. Just look it up.
 

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
272
189
Actually WE have confirmed that high megapixel cameras ARE problematic when it comes to shake. The issue has more to do with photosite size since a higher megapixel count is being put into the same small Full Frame sensor (i.e. Canon 5Dsr).
I welcome your proof of this claim. Otherwise I have to read "WE" as "I" and disregard the comment as it runs counter to the optical laws that normally determine the amount of camera shake in a resulting picture.
 
Last edited:

HarryFilm

EOS RP
Jun 6, 2016
705
166
I welcome your proof of this claim. Otherwise I have to read "WE" as "I" and disregard the comment as it runs counter to the optical laws that normally determine the amount of camera shake in a resulting picture.


--

I should clarify WE as a corporate entity that has a LOT of cameras! (i.e. more than 300 still and video cameras!)

The issues specifically we have for the 5Dsr series is endemic to this type of high megapixel FF camera due to the small photosite size and typical shutterspeed issues at high ISO at or above ISO 3200 ... it's a colour fringing on object edges especially on Red and Blue items. It really has more to do with the DSP on the DIGIC processors and low readout speed than physical camera shake.

The 5Dsr simply does not have enough CPU horsepower to do advanced colour rendering and smoothing like the 1Dx3 can do!
You WILL get very slightly soft edges on things like blue or red shirts or fine checkerboard patterns. I just do an UnSharp Mask to mitigate the problem after I do my colour correcting during post production.

I really do think the OP is using TOO LOW of a shutter speed (i.e. less than 1/200th) on high action subjects which will give you DIRECTIONAL MOTION BLUR rather than overall image "softness". Just up your shutter speed to 1/500th and ISO 1600 to get what you need without too much noise. Brighten your overall image in post production by 5-10% to your taste and then boost your shadows by 10 to 20% to recover dark areas of the photo. Any slight softness can be mitigated by an UnSharp Mask.

--
 
Last edited:

st jack photography

..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
I worked with the 50mp 5dsr, and a 45mp Sony. I liked them for commercial product photos, but anything moving or anything with shadows? Bad. Want an action burst? Sorry. Need good shadow detail recovery? Forget it. The pixel density on a 50mp sensor requires major buffer speed, comes with bad ISO performance, and a host of other problems. After using the 5DSr, today I would do this: if they had a r5 and a r5R with twice the MP, I would buy the r5. If I could afford two cameras, one for studio, one for hobby, then yes, sure I would buy the high MP camera, but I cannot afford two prosumer bodies.
One thing I noticed about the 5DSr: the pixel density on the 5DSr made shutter speeds of 1/250, for example, look like 1/60. It was much harder to get good shots.
I don't think people understand how many problems pop up when you add MP, given the current technology. The problems may be less with a stacked sensor. I haven't studied them much yet.
There is something to be said for the Fuji Medium Format-lite. I wish Canon would do something similar.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cayenne

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,428
2,010
One thing I noticed about the 5DSr: the pixel density on the 5DSr made shutter speeds of 1/250, for example, look like 1/60. It was much harder to get good shots.

Let's see:

The 5Ds R has a pixel pitch of 4.14µm for a total area of 17.14µm².
The 1D X Mark II has a pixel pitch of 6.58µm for a total area of 43.3µm².

If you pixel peep both at 100% on a monitor with a pixel pitch of 96ppi you're enlarging the 5Ds R image to the equivalent of 90x60 inches!

If you pixel peep both at 100% on a monitor with a pixel pitch of 96ppi you're enlarging the 1D X Mark II image to the equivalent of 57x38 inches.

Of course you will be able to see, for the same amount of camera motion with the same focal length and Tv, more blur with the 58% larger enlargement!

In terms of total area, you're enlarging the 50MP image by a factor of 2.53X compared to the 20MP image. Of course you will see the same amount of angular blur more easily.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fischer

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
In terms of total area, you're enlarging the 50MP image by a factor of 2.53X compared to the 20MP image. Of course you will see the same amount of angular blur more easily.
I've seen the same effect when scanning fine grained 35mm film at higher and higher resolution. In fact as someone who was a film photographer back in the day it has really surprised me just how critical technique with 35mm film is if you are going to view it at sizes that are commonplace now but would never have been dreamt of in the analogue days. Obviously when scanned at say 50mp the image is very soft compered to what we are now used to with digital, but even so the slightest motion degrades the image at this output size compered with say 20 mp output. Shutter speed equal to focal length for hand held shake free images on film ? Forget it at a 50mp output size ! I would have to be at least 1/250, better 1/500th with a 50mm lens.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,428
2,010
I've seen the same effect when scanning fine grained 35mm film at higher and higher resolution. In fact as someone who was a film photographer back in the day it has really surprised me just how critical technique with 35mm film is if you are going to view it at sizes that are commonplace now but would never have been dreamt of in the analogue days. Obviously when scanned at say 50mp the image is very soft compered to what we are now used to with digital, but even so the slightest motion degrades the image at this output size compered with say 20 mp output. Shutter speed equal to focal length for hand held shake free images on film ? Forget it at a 50mp output size ! I would have to be at least 1/250, better 1/500th with a 50mm lens.

Only if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications. And if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications, it's just as true for lower resolution sensors.

If you view both a 20MP shot and a 50MP shot using the same focal length, Tv, and same amount of camera movement at the same 8x10 display size, the size of the blur will be identical for both cameras.

If you view both a 20MP shot and a 50MP shot using the same focal length, Tv, and same amount of camera movement at the same 24x30 display size, the size of the blur will be identical for both cameras.

Only when you view the 20MP shot at 8X10 and the 50MP shot at 24x30 will you see more blur with the 50MP shot. And that's what you are doing when you view both at 100% on your computer. You're enlarging the smaller pixels of the 50MP sensor by a greater factor to make them the same size as a screen pixel as you are magnifying the larger pixels of the 20MP sensor to make them the same size as a screen pixel.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,428
2,010
I've seen the same effect when scanning fine grained 35mm film at higher and higher resolution. In fact as someone who was a film photographer back in the day it has really surprised me just how critical technique with 35mm film is if you are going to view it at sizes that are commonplace now but would never have been dreamt of in the analogue days. Obviously when scanned at say 50mp the image is very soft compered to what we are now used to with digital, but even so the slightest motion degrades the image at this output size compered with say 20 mp output. Shutter speed equal to focal length for hand held shake free images on film ? Forget it at a 50mp output size ! I would have to be at least 1/250, better 1/500th with a 50mm lens.

The 1/focal length "rule of thumb" has only ever been valid if you were printing no larger than 8x10. If you planned to print at 16x20, you knew to shoot at 1/2*FL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,810
4,423
The 1/focal length "rule of thumb" has only ever been valid if you were printing no larger than 8x10. If you planned to print at 16x20, you knew to shoot at 1/2*FL.
It's not so much the print size as the print viewing distance.

The 'standard' for the longest time was 8" x 10" viewed at 12" or so, but that was because 8" x 10" was very much a 'standard' size because most of them were contact prints. More recently the idea of 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal is considered 'reasonable'. So any image printed to 8X10 and viewed at 18" could be printed to 20" x 30" and viewed at 5' and look exactly the same because it covers the same field of view.

Trouble is you can't keep people 5' from a 20" x 30" print!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
Only if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications. And if you are viewing it at increasingly larger magnifications, it's just as true for lower resolution sensors.
I thought that's what I said ;) When I wrote about scanning at 50mp I thought I'd made it clear that this was to achieve a large output size. In terms of resolution / recorded detail there is no difference between scanning fine 35mm at film at 50 or 20mp. Only the output size is different.
 

privatebydesign

EOS-1D X Mark III
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,810
4,423
I thought that's what I said ;) When I wrote about scanning at 50mp I thought I'd made it clear that this was to achieve a large output size. In terms of resolution / recorded detail there is no difference between scanning fine 35mm at film at 50 or 20mp. Only the output size is different.
I remember a few years ago being pretty addicted to some of the content at theonlinephotographer where they were illustrating the differences in scan resolutions and film grain.

There becomes a point at which you are just resolving the actual grain structure of the chemicals in the film, which does have some merit in and of itself for some archival purposes, but for the vast majority of people who are just aiming to get the ‘best detail they can from the original film’ is complete and unnecessary overkill. Even the best resolving commonly used slide films actually correlated to surprisingly modest MP counts. The theoretical/spec sheet listings for resolution were also a bit of a joke as no real world use images came close to achieving those theoretical figures.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sporgon

Fischer

EOS RP
Mar 17, 2020
272
189
--

I should clarify WE as a corporate entity that has a LOT of cameras! (i.e. more than 300 still and video cameras!)

The issues specifically we have for the 5Dsr series is endemic to this type of high megapixel FF camera due to the small photosite size and typical shutterspeed issues at high ISO at or above ISO 3200 ... it's a colour fringing on object edges especially on Red and Blue items. It really has more to do with the DSP on the DIGIC processors and low readout speed than physical camera shake.

The 5Dsr simply does not have enough CPU horsepower to do advanced colour rendering and smoothing like the 1Dx3 can do!
You WILL get very slightly soft edges on things like blue or red shirts or fine checkerboard patterns. I just do an UnSharp Mask to mitigate the problem after I do my colour correcting during post production.

I really do think the OP is using TOO LOW of a shutter speed (i.e. less than 1/200th) on high action subjects which will give you DIRECTIONAL MOTION BLUR rather than overall image "softness". Just up your shutter speed to 1/500th and ISO 1600 to get what you need without too much noise. Brighten your overall image in post production by 5-10% to your taste and then boost your shadows by 10 to 20% to recover dark areas of the photo. Any slight softness can be mitigated by an UnSharp Mask.

--
The numbers of cameras you have do not prove anything. Dpreview tested cameras for a living for a decade and still made flat out false claims about camera blur in high MPIX bodies. Which they at least have since admitted. Many seasoned reviewers made the same mistake.

You just repeat the same spurious claim - which btw does not make any sense.

That the 5DS/R may not have as good as the sensor as another camera does not increase the amount of camera shake induced blur one single iota. It is entirely irrelevant to the angle of movement added to the light passing to the sensor. Maybe the sensor is worse - it will be so regardless of whatever shot you take (if its the case).

Sorry, you do not get to make a claim that runs counter to the - easily demonstrated - optical properties of camera shake induced blur and believe it will convince anyone, anywhere unless you have some hard facts to point to instead of technical gibberish that does not even match your claim.
 

slclick

If Only Campagnolo Made Cameras
Dec 17, 2013
4,416
2,563
The numbers of cameras you have do not prove anything. Dpreview tested cameras for a living for a decade and still made flat out false claims about camera blur in high MPIX bodies. Which they at least have since admitted. Many seasoned reviewers made the same mistake.

You just repeat the same spurious claim - which btw does not make any sense.

That the 5DS/R may not have as good as the sensor as another camera does not increase the amount of camera shake induced blur one single iota. It is entirely irrelevant to the angle of movement added to the light passing to the sensor. Maybe the sensor is worse - it will be so regardless of whatever shot you take (if its the case).

Sorry, you do not get to make a claim that runs counter to the - easily demonstrated - optical properties of camera shake induced blur and believe it will convince anyone, anywhere unless you have some hard facts to point to instead of technical gibberish that does not even match your claim.
It's not worth it...just read, chomp the popcorn and chuckle.
 
<-- start Taboola -->