High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?

[neuroanatomist]

Canon developing next-generation imaging devices to expand the possibilities of visual expression​

"TOKYO, September 8, 2015—Canon Inc. announced today that it is developing a Cinema EOS System 8K camera and professional-use 8K reference display that will support the production of next-generation 8K video content, along with a still-image single-lens reflex camera equipped with a CMOS sensor featuring approximately 120 million effective pixels."

"Out of the 96 lenses that make up the EF lens lineup, 60 models will be compatible with the SLR camera under development."

Canon developing next-generation imaging devices to expand the possibilities of visual expression | Canon Global

Canon developing next-generation imaging devices to expand the possibilities of visual expression

global.canon

The press release includes a photo of a DSLR labeled "120-megapixel SLR camera"

Thanks for the correction! That’s a lonnnnnggggg development cycle.

 

[mpmark]

One of the metrics that kept me away from the Canon mirrorless system for so long was the resolution of the new R series cameras was lower than the previous DSLR cameras. I rocked a pair of 5Diii's for a long time. I didn't see the mk4 as somehting was going to improve my work much. However, the 5Div compared to the (then new) R looked like the mk 4 was the better camera. When the R5 came a long, 45mp was a bit behind the 5Ds...although the rest of the camera was a massive improvement. The R6 was only 20mp and against the 22mp of my 5Diii...it felt like a step backwards. Which is why the R8 and R6ii were the cameras for me to upgrade to.
We don't know what resoution the new R5ii will be, some say it'll be the same or there abouts (45mp). Which is fine. But those who need to push the limits of sensor resolution...45mp might not be enough. So I understand the drive for a nuvo high MP, low fps camera. It's the last bastion of the DSLR days that's left, the 5Ds still slightly outresolves the R5.

The 5Ds is a piece of junk of a camera in every way except it has 5mp more noisier pixels to the R5. How can you even compare the two? the AF is not even in the same league. The fps, let's not even go there.

 

[Fischer]

One of the metrics that kept me away from the Canon mirrorless system for so long was the resolution of the new R series cameras was lower than the previous DSLR cameras. I rocked a pair of 5Diii's for a long time. I didn't see the mk4 as somehting was going to improve my work much. However, the 5Div compared to the (then new) R looked like the mk 4 was the better camera. When the R5 came a long, 45mp was a bit behind the 5Ds...although the rest of the camera was a massive improvement. The R6 was only 20mp and against the 22mp of my 5Diii...it felt like a step backwards. Which is why the R8 and R6ii were the cameras for me to upgrade to.
We don't know what resoution the new R5ii will be, some say it'll be the same or there abouts (45mp). Which is fine. But those who need to push the limits of sensor resolution...45mp might not be enough. So I understand the drive for a nuvo high MP, low fps camera. It's the last bastion of the DSLR days that's left, the 5Ds still slightly outresolves the R5.

5DsR was an amazing camera. Not least compared to other cameras and camera sensors at the time. Really underlined the advantages of high MPIX count.

 

[Fischer]

These are reasonable concerns, but it wasn't too long ago that I thought 45mp could never be "clean" enough in low-light to be worthwhile.

And more mp does demand more processing power. I built a very fast system, choosing to go with air cooling rather than liquid. This meant using fans that get loud when loads are heavy (Noctua NF-A14 iPPC-3000 PWM). I have an R5 and an R6. Even when my kids are in other rooms pretty far from my office, they know when I'm processing R5 photos!

Still, if Canon can produce a 60mp+ sensor with IQ closely rivaling the one in the R5, more cropping options would be a huge temptation.

The 5DsR was much better in low light than the 5Diii which had almost half as many pixels and almost as good in low light as the 5Div years later - except at lower iso settings (which you typically do not use when light is missing). We should expect a high MPIX Canon R would be better and certainly no worse at managing noise than the R5. However, for now it remains vaporware.

 

[Fischer]

The 5Ds is a piece of junk of a camera in every way except it has 5mp more noisier pixels to the R5. How can you even compare the two? the AF is not even in the same league. The fps, let's not even go there.

What do you expect when you compare today's cameras to cameras almost a decade old? Would never call the 5Ds junk myself - it still takes absolutely amazing pictures - will the R5 be "junk" in a few years?

 

[Fischer]

The same was said about the 5Dsr when it was released, and I think I remember Canon even had a list of lenses which were considered as having optimal sharpness to support the sensor. The bottom line is while there can be diminishing returns on increasing resolution due to plenty of factors, there is still a measurable increase in detail, and for some, those trade offs make sense.

I don’t think a higher resolution camera is targeted at the “common” person - it’s a niche product, and I don’t see that kind of resolution becoming mainstream. The point of creating a product like that is to make money on the hand full of people who need/want an uncommon feature and aren’t going to buy what’s currently on offer instead, if there’s enough of those people for it to make financial sense to design/build the camera. Obviously Canon hasn’t felt the need to try and service the very high resolution market for a long time, which gives a bit of indication as to what they think demand for it would be. With that said, I really don’t think a lot of “common” people are spending upwards of $4k on cameras.

Problem is that the market has been dropping steadily for a decade and is only now stabilizing at around 1/3 of what it used to be. The relative interest amongst photographers is probably the same, but there are a lot less potential buyers. I sometimes feel like a stamp collector. A slowly dying hobby for old people.

 

[amorse]

Problem is that the market has been dropping steadily for a decade and is only now stabilizing at around 1/3 of what it used to be. The relative interest amongst photographers is probably the same, but there are a lot less potential buyers. I sometimes feel like a stamp collector. A slowly dying hobby for old people.

True, but there does seem to be some demand for high-resolution bodies, at least in other brands. Fuji has bet on it with their medium format offerings and trying to drive the price down to near full frame levels. The real benefit with a full frame body in the same niche is lens size - I just don't see fuji making the equivalent to a 100-400 that doesn't need a wheelbarrow any time soon! Definitely agreed that the population who want (and is willing to pay for) this isn't exactly dominant in the market though.

And speak for yourself on age - I'm only part way into my mid-life crisis!

 

[H. Jones]

Honestly, for my uses, C-RAW has actually been pretty life changing. My R3's 30 fps doesn't fill my entire storage system, and neither does 45mp on the R5. I actually like shooting both cameras a lot more since I've made the switch to C-RAW, because I no longer feel overwhelmed by the 200+ gigs I'd be making on an almost daily basis while shooting assignments for the paper.

So with that in mind, as someone who previously felt overwhelmed by the volume of data that 45mp at 12 fps produced, I could probably see myself being fine at like, 60 or so MP for the next R5 if they went higher. But 45 doesn't leave me wanting much more, to be honest.

I've said it a lot on here, but honestly I would love a 84mp sensor that could shoot 21 mp raw, so that I could have that huge resolution when I actually need it for prints or wildlife cropping, and leave it on 21mp for the majority of everything else.

 

[Bahrd]

And speak for yourself on age - I'm only part way into my mid-life crisis!

Have you considered a pick-up truck? A great & versatile toy in itself - and, when used properly (I mean well outside a metropolitan perimeter), it will need a serious photo hardware anyway...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Problem is that the market has been dropping steadily for a decade and is only now stabilizing at around 1/3 of what it used to be. The relative interest amongst photographers is probably the same, but there are a lot less potential buyers. I sometimes feel like a stamp collector. A slowly dying hobby for old people.

Canon have raised profit and revenue by dialling out expensive DSLR components like the mirror, prism, metering off the view finder and separate AF sensors. Distilling them down into sensor / software based elements in their mirrorless cameras.
For Canon cameras, they are building cheaper than ever, but selling higher than ever. The R5 is way cheaper to build than the 5Div ever was and yet it sells for a higher premium. Same with their RF lenses, generally cheaper construction (no mechanical AF distance window) but much higher RRP numbers.

Go Canon. It keeps the great new (expensive) kit rolling.

As for me, I’m 53 next month…that means I’m post mid life crisis. This year has been my highest gear re-investment in over 10 years.

 

[photo212]

are the lenses capable of resolving light into the proper pixels with such densities? i recall Canon having to provide a list of lenses that would perform well with their 50MP sensor. The list of compatible lenses for a 100MP would likely be very short.

I've found the 20-24 M range my personal sweet spot. I'm not about to chase higher resolutions

I'm still waiting for Canon the build a top end camera body without all the video gimmicks - something I've never used on my 1DX MkII bodies, ever. I get some people do shoot a mix of stills and videos, but it seems rare in my experience.

 

[Walrus]

Honestly, for my uses, C-RAW has actually been pretty life changing.

I use C-RAW even with the relatively smallish base files of my R6; I saw no difference with standard compression even when used in theatre recitals at super high iso in very bad lighted places, so for me C-RAW is the set and forget way to go, it's the new std compression. If I can save space with no (visible and impacting) difference, there's no motivation in not doing it.

 

[Walrus]

are the lenses capable of resolving light into the proper pixels with such densities? i recall Canon having to provide a list of lenses that would perform well with their 50MP sensor. The list of compatible lenses for a 100MP would likely be very short.

I've found the 20-24 M range my personal sweet spot. I'm not about to chase higher resolutions

I'm still waiting for Canon the build a top end camera body without all the video gimmicks - something I've never used on my 1DX MkII bodies, ever. I get some people do shoot a mix of stills and videos, but it seems rare in my experience.

Agreed on the 20-24mpx range to be optimal; I would actually say 24 to 30 would be best for me, but 24 as a ceiling would already be good enough for what I do.

For the non video gimmicks camera, now with ML tech the "video" is already part of the camera, as you're actually seeing a video (in EVF and/or rear display) even when when you're taking pictures, so really there's no possibility to see a future camera without video implemented.

If you don't use it, just don't let it sits there silently; as the video functionality is the working base of a ML, even if it was somewhat "removable" (which is not), you wouldn't see any save in price, size, wight, etc.
You could do such an argument on DSLR's, but on ML is simply impossible, and would saves you nothing anyway.

 

[sanj]

Pixel count is good. But I have to yet understand why people say that they prefer high mpeg for landscape photos. I just do not understand that...

 

[sanj]

I could see a 60 MP sensor for FF camera, but beyond that resolution I do not see a huge market. Just my opinion and Canon likely knows more than I!

Not much difference between 45mp and 60mp. If they will launch a 'hight mp' camera it will have to be around 100

 

[Bahrd]

I’m 53 next month…that means I’m post mid-life crisis.

All the best, but... don't call it a day before a sunset!

 

[Bahrd]

Pixel count is good. But I have to yet understand why people say that they prefer high mpeg for landscape photos. I just do not understand that...

I think it is a kind of icing on the cake thing. If a "big picture" is already great geometric- and color-wise, you might want to have something extra - for instance a "layer" of perfect details.

 

[SnowMiku]

If it were a great sensor with reasonable noise to deal with, would 100mp impact lens sales? If I can photograph a soccer game, say, with an RF 70-200mm and a 100mp sensor vs 45mp, would I be able to crop so tightly I could leave my 100-500mm at home?

The 45mp of the R5 is great for amateur sports. I can only imagine going with more mp.

Depends if you have the f/2.8 or f/4 version of the RF 70-200mm, you would get a lower ISO with those lenses and you should be able to crop tightly with a 100mp sensor. But if you are at a far distance from the game the 100-500mm might be better.

If I had both of those lenses I would personally use both but bring them to different games and see which one gives better results.

 

[sanj]

I think it is a kind of icing on the cake thing. If a "big picture" is already great geometric- and color-wise, you might want to have something extra - for instance a "layer" of perfect details.

If this logic is correct, it should apply to all photos. I keep hearing high MP is for landscapes. And I cant see that logic at all.

 

[AlanF]

The 5Ds is a piece of junk of a camera in every way except it has 5mp more noisier pixels to the R5. How can you even compare the two? the AF is not even in the same league. The fps, let's not even go there.

Writing off a really good camera by such comments usually reflects more on the capability of the photographer than the camera. The AF is good for a DSLR and I was able to use it regularly for BIF. As for fps, I spend far too much time and space selecting from a long sequence nowadays and did well enough with the 5DSR by getting the timing right.