Is a 150mp Canon EOS R camera on the way? [CR1]

[Quarkcharmed]

Is that compared to what we have or an empirical statement?
If you were given an image from a DSLR 10 years ago, would you say the same (especially when whose images were selling in the millions and lauded as 'superb')?

Compared what?..
If you compare raw files from phones to a 10-yo DSLR, DSLR still wins, especially if it's a 14 bit sensor.

 

[Cryve]

This may sound wired to some here, but in my experience the pixelcount has almost no effect on luminance noise.
You have to understand that zooming in 1:1 means that each pixel on your monitor represents 1 pixel of your picture.
This means that you zoom in farther into a given picture when using a hd monitor, compared to a 4k monitor.
This also means that, when viewing 1:1, you zoom in way way more into a 61mp picture than a 24mp picture.

Of couse there is more noise if you zoom in farther, thats just basic logic. That doesnt mean that the pictures of the camera are more noisy though. it just means that the 1:1 preview is more noisy and this is an important distinction.

The only real difference i could find, regarding noise, between high mp cameras and low mp cameras is that colour noise is a little bit better on low mp cameras.

Btw this is an 10.000 iso image of the sony a7r iv. looks absolutely fine and processed it looks even better.

In summary:
there is almost no perceivable noise performance difference between high and low megapixel cameras. Of course you can see more noise when zooming in 1:1 because you are zoomed in more. if you upscale a 24mp pic to 61mp in photoshop and then zoom 1:1 into that upscaled pic, you would see the same noise.
also: low mp has a little bit better colours at high isos -> images of low mp cameras will look a bit more colourful, while high mp low ligh pictures will look a bit more muddy (regarding the colours only). only a very slight difference though.

 

[melgross]

Google the Canon 250 mp sensor and photo of an airplane at 11 miles away. PS an L lens was used.

You know that doesn’t tell us much. The plane was close to the center, where it’s always sharpest. Show us a full frame with detail out to the edges.

 

[Mikehit]

You know that doesn’t tell us much. The plane was close to the center, where it’s always sharpest. Show us a full frame with detail out to the edges.

If you are zooming like that, the main subject is often in the middle and the frame edges are most likely irrelevant to the intention of the photograph.

 

[melgross]

If you are zooming like that, the main subject is often in the middle and the frame edges are most likely irrelevant to the intention of the photograph.

That’s a terrible excuse.

 

[Michael Clark]

I am not sure who needs 150MP sensor, and since pixel size will limit the sensor flexibility and therefore the dynamic range. I suppose that arthcitectes and fashion photographers will "jump" on the new sensor.

WIll the R5 will be acompanied by simialr 5Dv4?

NO. The 5D Mark IV was released in 2016. I think your question is will there be a corresponding 5D Mark V to go with the R5?

 

[Michael Clark]

That's a quite important point. One could simply think of a 150MP-sensor camera as a ~38MP-sensor camera that actually has full-resolution rather than half- or quarter-res chroma channels (although the red and blue channels would still have a stop less DR than the green channel).

Except it's not that simple since the "red", "green", and "blue" filters in a Bayer mask are not the same colors as the 'Red', 'Green', and 'Blue' colors emitted by our RGB reproduction screens.

 

[Michael Clark]

With my EF 16-35 f4L, say at 16mm, f8 is sharp, f11 is acceptable in most cases (although I prefer f9 or f10 when possible), f16+ clearly shows loss of sharpness compared to the same scene shot at f11.
Sometimes I'm forced to use f16+ for misc. reasons, but prefer to use f11 and wider. Also I prefer to focus stack rather than increase the f-number, if possible.



In terms of resolution/sharpness measurements, DxO is somewhat useful if you want to figure the 'sweet aperture spot' of your lens. But I agree that in general the perceptual megapixels thing is an obscure metric and scientifically speaking, a random number because the calculations aren't published, aren't peer-reviewed and aren't falsifiable.

Their raw data is useful when taken with the understanding that single copies of lenses may or may not be representative of an average of all copies of a particular lens model. Their "perceptual MP" mumbo jumbo is junk.

 

[Michael Clark]

a phone sensor isn't that easy to scale up (or should I say, enlarge with the same pixel density). I suspect electronics will be getting more and more tricky to do, also the production cost will grow exponentially. But most important thing is, even in case we enlarge them, the phone sensors are only 10 or 12 bit ones. Tiny photosites just don't have enough well capacity. That limits the dynamic range and overall IQ.

Have you ever worked with raw files from phones, before they're processed into jpegs? I have, and they're tear-shedding.

Have you ever properly lit the entire scene you are shooting to fit into the 6-7 stops of DR that your display medium is capable of reproducing? So that you don't need 13-14 stops of DR to make an outstanding photograph?

 

[Michael Clark]

Marketing. Each subpixel is now a pixel

Each "subpixel" has always been a pixel.

 

[Mikehit]

That’s a terrible excuse.

Why?
You don't even know how poor it is at the edges and yet you are looking at my comment as a justification for poor quality. I was merely stating my opinion that edge performance is less important for super-telephoto than it is for shorter focal lengths.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Have you ever properly lit the entire scene you are shooting to fit into the 6-7 stops of DR that your display medium is capable of reproducing? So that you don't need 13-14 stops of DR to make an outstanding photograph?

But how would I properly lit a landscape?..
But even in a controlled environment, the more contrasty the scene is the better. The controlled light may in fact increase the required DR.

 

[SecureGSM]

But how would I properly lit a landscape?..
............

golden hour?

 

[masterpix]

NO. The 5D Mark IV was released in 2016. I think your question is will there be a corresponding 5D Mark V to go with the R5?

correct, I was inquering for the 5Dv.

 

[Architect1776]

You know that doesn’t tell us much. The plane was close to the center, where it’s always sharpest. Show us a full frame with detail out to the edges.

So?

 

[melgross]

Why?
You don't even know how poor it is at the edges and yet you are looking at my comment as a justification for poor quality. I was merely stating my opinion that edge performance is less important for super-telephoto than it is for shorter focal lengths.

We do know from. Any tests that lenses on higher rez sensors show problems at the edges and corners. And those are much lower rez. Canon did state at some point that they were developing lenses for 100mp.

 

[Jack Douglas]

Why?
You don't even know how poor it is at the edges and yet you are looking at my comment as a justification for poor quality. I was merely stating my opinion that edge performance is less important for super-telephoto than it is for shorter focal lengths.

I could almost go along with the idea but then I think of how often my active AF points are not in the centre. Mind you with a DSLR the furthest points are not exactly at the edge, but parts of the subject certainly are. What do you think?

Jack

 

[SteveC]

But how would I properly lit a landscape?..

Global thermonuclear warfare is OFF the list of options.

 

[Mikehit]

Any tests that lenses on higher rez sensors show problems at the edges and corners.

When you say 'edge' and 'corner' how far are you talking from the centre? For example, if the 'problem' at 90% towards the edge, then why is your main subject out there?

I am not doubting reduced image quality, but your use of the word 'problem'.
Just because the edge is not as good as the centre does not mean it is 'a problem'. If it is not a problem with a 20MP sensor it is not a problem with a 45MP sensor. Or a 100 MP sensor. The viewing medium is no more detailed for a 20MP image or a 40MP image. Too many people look at 1:1 on screen and forget the image size they will actually reproduce it on.
I assume you have examples were an 8MP and a higher MP image with the same lens where the image on the higher MP image becomes problematic.....?

 

[Mikehit]

I could almost go along with the idea but then I think of how often my active AF points are not in the centre. Mind you with a DSLR the furthest points are not exactly at the edge, but parts of the subject certainly are. What do you think?

Jack

I agree. If there is significant vignetting (sometimes hidden by in-camera software) it can affect the amount of light/contrast available for the AF. Though this will probably be more important for RF lenses where AF points go almost to the edge.