High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?

[danfaz]

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.

Perhaps making large prints would be a reason.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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"

On that note, people do currently use some EF lenses on the Super 35 URSA Mini 12K.

 

[sanj]

Perhaps making large prints would be a reason.

Two different things sir. A toothpaste may also require a large print. Or a face. Or a car.

 

[sanj]

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.

In theory yes. In reality a NO. The look of a telelens is very different. And when you crop, the slightest focus issues or camera shake magnify. 200mm to 500mm is not a slight crop. Sir.

 

[sanj]

Very few, if any, current lenses can resolve a 100MP sensor image. Diminishing returns.

I would like to understand this. Please please educate me. Thanking you in advance.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

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.

I guess it depends on your budget but an R10 + RF 200-800 f/6.3-9 is far cheaper than an R5.
The RF 100-400 f/5.6-8 is even cheaper.
However, once we go to 1200 mm cropping in becomes the cheaper option.

 

[roby17269]

I am discussing something slightly different: I am confused as to why people want a high MP camera for landscapes. As, to me, high MP is for large prints and crops. Nothing else. Instead, I would focus a camera with a high dynamic range for landscapes as landscape photos have a huge range of exposures and need manipulation by me with Nd's, double exposures etc.

High MP is for details. I shoot fashion and details are important to show materials textures. You may want to crop heavily to show some accessory detail. Same with product photography. I use an 80mp digital back for that and I would buy a 150mp one if I could afford it.
With landscape details may be important and, if that's the case, higher resolution is better / easier than composites.
Since I also shoot a lot of different things when I travel, I prefer having high mp images for versatility (I cannot bring a lot of different lenses when we hike). If the next R5 or R1 will have 60+mp I will be happy... the more the merrier for me. I would prefer 80mp since going from 45 to 60 will not yield a very meaningful difference.
And I have a recent computer which can deal with thousands of 45mp files with panache.

High-res cameras do not suffer in DR compared to low-res ones in a significant way.

I would say this though. It is not a free lunch, in the sense that higher resolution requires more "discipline" to enjoy the advantages it offers. Better shooting techniques, maybe tripods, higher shutter speeds, good lenses used in their sweet spots, etc. If you don't then you may just experience the downsides of high mps, such as bigger files, lower fps, heavier computing, and none of the advantages.

 

[Fixxxer]

I wouldn't expect the R1 to be 33MPX+.

 

[Quack]

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.

Seems like some posts from yesterday disappeared...So this may end up being a duplicate answer.

The 100mp sensor is only about a 50% increase in resolution compared to a 45mp sensor, so I think your 70-200 will do no better than a 300mm lens on the 45mm sensor camera. So, no, you better not leave your 100-500mm at home.

 

[AaronT]

640 kilopixels ought to be enough for anybody.

Not many will but I get what you're saying. I had a IBM PC, booted from a 5 1/4 floppy!!

 

[AaronT]

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.

Really! I have a 5DsR and a 24" Canon IPF6400 printer that will prove you wrong. What SHARP 24x72 inch photos have you printed out? Let's see. WAIT!! You only publish web sized photos.

 

[jdavidse]

The 5Ds/5DsR had 50mp. The R5 has 45mp. The R5II is rumored to have 62mp. Seems like they all fit the same category of "high resolution."

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Seems like some posts from yesterday disappeared...So this may end up being a duplicate answer.

Yes, I had a post that disappeared yesterday too.

 

[Dragon]

I'm not convinced. Trees, water, clouds, lots of things in landscapes move and multi-image compositing doesn't work that well for those conditions.

I think you are correct. I have spent some time playing with the R5 high res mode and it only works well in a very limited number of situations. Firstly, the camera has to be VERY stable and particularly so if the lens has any reach. Secondly, the scene can have no short term movement. It works best with a wide lens and a non-moving subject and no wind on camera/tripod. When it does work, the result is impressive. Probably not really much useful info past 200 MP, but it makes good 200 MP shots and stunning 100 MP shots (all downscaled from the original 400). It does offer a teaser as to why I would like and actual 100 MP+ body.

 

[Dragon]

eed

I don’t believe there was ever a development announcement. A development announcement indicates a planned product. There are plenty of announcements that are just ‘look what we can do’.

At the 2015 Canon Expo, Canon showed off a prototype DSLR with their 120 MP APS-H sensor in it. That sensor was a new version of the one announced in 2010 (in 2015, they announced a 250 MP sensor, also APS-H). About the prototype camera they said, “"This camera was produced as an example of Canon's high-definition imaging capabilities.”

In fact, that 120 MP APS-H sensor was intended for industrial applications, i.e., planned to be sold as a sensor not a camera. It’s been available since 2018. If you’re interested, you can order an evaluation kit from Canon:

https://canon-cmos-sensors.com/canon-120mxs-cmos-sensor/

Nice! It is available in a monochrome version (build your own Leica killer) and a very different kind of Bayer array with R, G, B , and Near IR filters. Swap the IR filter for a LW UV filter and it will see like a hummingbird. There really are a lot of photo tech opportunities out there, but most require a lot of creative software to be able to turn the capture into something our limited vision system can appreciate.

 

[Bob Howland]

Since we're talking about high resolution, let me repeat my question that disappeared. How many pixels would be required to recreate Rembrandt's painting The Night Watch in the same size? (Neuro countered with The Wedding Feast at Cana by Veronese.) Take a look at Wikipedia to appreciate the scale. Historically, paintings have tended toward the huge. Photographs have a long way to go to catch up. Or will we all end up viewing photographs on 8K, 85 inch televisions? 8k is only 33MP

 

[Dragon]

Since we're talking about high resolution, let me repeat my question that disappeared. How many pixels would be required to recreate Rembrandt's painting The Night Watch in the same size? (Neuro countered with The Wedding Feast at Cana by Veronese.) Take a look at Wikipedia to appreciate the scale. Historically, paintings have tended toward the huge. Photographs have a long way to go to catch up. Or will we all end up viewing photographs on 8K, 85 inch televisions? 8k is only 33MP

Those paintings were physically very large for a good reason. Human vision is limited in angular resolution, so to appreciate great detail, we need to be able to scan a wide field of view. For example, the optimal viewing distance for an 85 in 8k TV is about 3 feet. This means that for even 33MP to be fully appreciated, we need a screen that is most of a wall unless we are going to sit with our noses in said screen. Sadly, with "smart" phones, the trend is in exactly the opposite direction and with a 4 in screen, not many pixels are needed. Maybe some genetic engineering can increase average human visual acuity in future generations, but that won't help the commenters on this forum .

 

[DhlcadR6]

40~50MP for mid high MP but maintaining fast CMOS is my preference. However, Canon needs to put a 60+MP, sub-100MP FF to grab some market share from a7Rx series. Sony has monopoly in that segment.

Any higher will end up the lens cannot resolve the MP. And I struggle to understand why so much MP is needed if is for the sake of cropping. That just means they are using wrong focal length.

 

[Finn]

45MP is plenty for me. Give me stacked BSI sensor with bumps in DR performance and 14-bit electronic shutter modes. Toss the mechanical shutter if sensor readout speed is fast enough. IP rated weather sealing like the Leica SL2 or OM SYSTEM OM-1.

 

[sanj]

High MP is for details. I shoot fashion and details are important to show materials textures. You may want to crop heavily to show some accessory detail. Same with product photography. I use an 80mp digital back for that and I would buy a 150mp one if I could afford it.
With landscape details may be important and, if that's the case, higher resolution is better / easier than composites.
Since I also shoot a lot of different things when I travel, I prefer having high mp images for versatility (I cannot bring a lot of different lenses when we hike). If the next R5 or R1 will have 60+mp I will be happy... the more the merrier for me. I would prefer 80mp since going from 45 to 60 will not yield a very meaningful difference.
And I have a recent computer which can deal with thousands of 45mp files with panache.

High-res cameras do not suffer in DR compared to low-res ones in a significant way.

I would say this though. It is not a free lunch, in the sense that higher resolution requires more "discipline" to enjoy the advantages it offers. Better shooting techniques, maybe tripods, higher shutter speeds, good lenses used in their sweet spots, etc. If you don't then you may just experience the downsides of high mps, such as bigger files, lower fps, heavier computing, and none of the advantages.

Agree.