Upvote
0
A high megapixel camera is coming [CR2]
- Thread starter canonnews
- Start date
If this rumor is to come to fruition (and a rating of CR2 indicates it has a strong likelihood) then I hope that like the R5c announcement along with lots of other video focused announcements this will be an ecosystem upgrade announcement.
Along with an R5s (or pick your name) I would love to see the R system replace many of the pieces of the EF system that high MP users leverage. This would include in my mind TS lenses (at least a couple to address architecture community), The rumored 10-24 RF lens (instant buy for many landscape photographers), and some wide and/or wide fast primes. Also, I would hope for camera features that appeal to the current 5DSR users like faster sync speeds for studio work, higher DR for landscape work, etc.
As a business, Canon would be looking to address segments in wholistic ways. The bodies are just a path to upgrade a whole series of lenses, flashes and other accessories. A $4900 body purchase adds on warranty sale, adapters for many, lenses for many more (I would easily spend another $5-8K on additional RF lenses), flashes,etc. I wouldn’t expect to see a high MP announcement without a lot of supporting elements in the user ecosystem. I think this would go hand in hand.
The same philosophy would apply to an R7 announcement (200-500 f4 lens, the new big whites, etc.), a consumer oriented entrant (rebel R, RP replacement, with lots of less Expensive lenses) and ultimately the R1. Not sure what the wow ecosystem elements will be with the R1 but I am sure there will be a few.
Just my thoughts into the rumor grist mill.
Along with an R5s (or pick your name) I would love to see the R system replace many of the pieces of the EF system that high MP users leverage. This would include in my mind TS lenses (at least a couple to address architecture community), The rumored 10-24 RF lens (instant buy for many landscape photographers), and some wide and/or wide fast primes. Also, I would hope for camera features that appeal to the current 5DSR users like faster sync speeds for studio work, higher DR for landscape work, etc.
As a business, Canon would be looking to address segments in wholistic ways. The bodies are just a path to upgrade a whole series of lenses, flashes and other accessories. A $4900 body purchase adds on warranty sale, adapters for many, lenses for many more (I would easily spend another $5-8K on additional RF lenses), flashes,etc. I wouldn’t expect to see a high MP announcement without a lot of supporting elements in the user ecosystem. I think this would go hand in hand.
The same philosophy would apply to an R7 announcement (200-500 f4 lens, the new big whites, etc.), a consumer oriented entrant (rebel R, RP replacement, with lots of less Expensive lenses) and ultimately the R1. Not sure what the wow ecosystem elements will be with the R1 but I am sure there will be a few.
Just my thoughts into the rumor grist mill.
Upvote
0
What would you want 16-bit readout for with a 75MP camera? Even at a base ISO saturation capacity of, say, 3000 e⁻/μm² (high end of R3, R5, R6), so ~35k e⁻/pixel, you would need a base ISO read noise of less than 2e⁻ rms to make more than 14 bits worthwhile. I really doubt that it is going to be the case.
(Speaking for myself, I would prefer that they stick to a fully-articulated screen.)
It becomes less (but still) important but also less of a hindrance. I would rather they kept it. https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/optical-low-pass-filters-and-high-resolution-cameras/
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I stand corrected!Unfortunately even worse: An image that occupies 100% fully a 4K monitor it will occupy 25% of a 8K pixelwise:
4K monitors: 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 8.3 Mpixel)
8K monitors: 7680 x 4320 pixels = 2x 3840 x 2x 2160 = 4 x 3840 x 2160 pixels (about 33 Mpixel) So a 8K monitor has 4 times the megapixels of a 4K monitor.
I really hope we will not use 8K monitors soon since only an image from a high megapixel camera will cover a 8K monitor. And if we want to show a bird which will occupy a small part of the photo then we will have to stand close to the monitoror get even bigger lenses
Upvote
0
FWIW, I had the 50MP 5DS but I found the slow burst speeds and mediocre AF held me back, so I bought the 30MP 5DMkiv, and that became my primary camera. But boy, did I miss those extra pixels!
Fortunately, now I've got the best of all worlds with the R5 - high resolution, more DR, faster fps and infinitely better subject tracking.
20MP is plenty for some subjects, but I find 45MP is about right for my style of working - enough to allow a lot of cropping when needed, but not so much that it slows down processing or fps.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Same here. I don't like gripped cameras and the R5 has enough MP, DR and fps for me.
I need to replace my 5DMkiv though and switch to having a mirrorless backup body.
I'm hesitant to get a second R5 though, in case something even better is announced later this year, or early next year.
Upvote
0
Historically the camera release cycle and lens release cycle have not matched up.
Expensive lenses were released with RP and cheap lenses were released with the R3.
If I had to make sense of it then I would say that Canon always wants us to know that they are going after both markets.
Upvote
0
Then don't reply
As for the "oh please"...it's directly observable. I used to repeat the claim that higher MP sensors do not suffer any more from motion blur than lower MP sensors. But I noticed I needed/was using higher shutter speeds on average with my own 5Ds, and then explicitly put it to the test. Observation trumps and modifies theory. It is true that the difference is minor because, again, the window where one will pick it up but not the other is minor. It's not something to be concerned with when considering a high MP camera, just something to be aware of.
Upvote
0
At the risk of incurring the wrath and ridicule of the equivalence zealots I’d say that over the five years of being a 5DS user I too have noticed some empirical evidence to suggest that these cameras, under certain circumstances, suffer from a little more motion blur, even after downsampling, than I would have expected previous to 50mp. My experience has been more with shooting motion rather than camera shake.Then don't reply
As for the "oh please"...it's directly observable. I used to repeat the claim that higher MP sensors do not suffer any more from motion blur than lower MP sensors. But I noticed I needed/was using higher shutter speeds on average with my own 5Ds, and then explicitly put it to the test. Observation trumps and modifies theory. It is true that the difference is minor because, again, the window where one will pick it up but not the other is minor. It's not something to be concerned with when considering a high MP camera, just something to be aware of.
Upvote
0
You might want to consider the second point of this paragraph, which opticallimits.com trots out when they do MTF charts at 50 Mpx and 21 Mpx.
"Why are the MTFs sometimes "better" on 21 megapixels compared to 50 megapixels ? There are two reasons for this. Lateral CAs are lower in terms of pixel widths at 21mp simply because the pixel density is also lower. Extreme CAs that may exist at 50mp are therefore less affecting the measurements at 21mp. Generally we are also using a certain degree of sharpening during the image conversion (just like in real life images) and because the 21mp results are "sharper" on pixel level they are relatively more receptive to (mild base-) sharpening." https://opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/992-canon1635f28mk3?start=1
The effects of sharpening also make sense in another way I have just thought of. If you use say USM and set to a 1 pixel radius, you are sharpening over a large distance with a low resolution sensor than a higher. Have you compared different sharpening settings in your comparisons? You also get artificial sharpening because of aliasing, and that's higher with larger pixels.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I understand what you're saying @AlanF, but it's only been a passing observation, more of technical interest that it exists rather than any practical issue, a little like the effect of 1/100 shutter speed on vibration, so it's not something I'd have tried to identify a way around. Actually I do very little sharpening on my images; I still use the traditional USM, and generally I'd be around the 80% of 0.3 px mark. For printing this would be greater depending upon the size of the print.
I guess if something slight is going on here we may hear something in the future now that cameras like the 50mp A1 are being used to capture action.
I guess if something slight is going on here we may hear something in the future now that cameras like the 50mp A1 are being used to capture action.
Upvote
0
Speaking of "Never can have too much screen real-estate"....
I came across this the other day:
Dell 49" Monitor
Any thoughts out there about this? I had been thinking maybe a 4K 32" monitor, but this would be nice getting as much space as possible in one monitor....this says QHD...is that 4K?
What high quality monitors would ya'll be looking at for 4K....?
cayenne
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I’ve loved every minute with the 5DS in the environment I use it which is studio only. The camera is always set to 100iso, shutter speed 160 with the aperture and strobe output being the only variables.
Can honestly say I’ve not experienced any motion blur (which is not surprising given the strobe speed). I only ever used lenses Canon recommended near the launch period and as a result I’ve been able to achieve high resolution shots. The camera is 60% hand held and 40% on a movable stand. If Canon do replace this camera it’s use for me will be identical.
Can honestly say I’ve not experienced any motion blur (which is not surprising given the strobe speed). I only ever used lenses Canon recommended near the launch period and as a result I’ve been able to achieve high resolution shots. The camera is 60% hand held and 40% on a movable stand. If Canon do replace this camera it’s use for me will be identical.
Upvote
0
That Dell is a 32:9 aspect monitor, so very, very wide. Resolution is 5120 x 1440. Compare that to the standard 3840 x 2160 resolution for 4K.
With such a wide screen, the curvature makes sense. I haven't looked into the panel, but for tog-heads like us on CR, color space, panel type (stay away from TN), good contrast and fidelity is quite important. Make sure to check up on reviews and look for color and linearity.
My screens are BenQ SW321C. Comes calibrated from the factory. Not exactly cheap, though.
Upvote
0
QHD is 2560x1440, so well shy of 4K. The Dell you link is dual-QHD, so 5120x1440.
Personally, I use an LG 34” 5K:2K display at home. The ultrawide format (5120x2160, 21:9 aspect ratio) is like having a pair of monitors without the bezel in between, similar to the Dell. At work, I use a Samsung 34" WQHD curved display, same idea but lower resolution (WQHD is 3440x1440).
I prefer the LG display for the higher resolution and the flat style; I chose the Samsung displays for my company since I wanted everyone to have the same display (me included) and it was easier to justify spending $700 each than $1500 each when buying 10 of them with more to come.
Upvote
0
A very sensible choice.
I recently moved from a single 32" 4K display setup to a dual 32" 4K setup (essentially 7680 x 2160), as I found the single screen setup to be lacking when working with a lot of data or windows at the same time.
However, the two 32" screens side-by-side is somewhat over-the-top as it's hard to utilize both screens fully. I'd say that I'd be able to roughly use 1 2/3 screen.
But a "Full HD" is now officially relegated to "periscope" status (way too small viewing area) for me.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
