Canon is gearing up to finally release a high megapixel camera with 100+ megapixels [CR3]

Del Paso said:

And why doesn't Leica fit their SL2 sensor with an AA filter, lenses cannot be the reason (all WAs are retrofocus type) ?
My Wetzlar contact (R/D) confirmed they suppressed the AA filter to obtain better sharpness, and I'm convinced he knows what he is talking about. Even the M could have been fitted with a thin AA filter, at the cost of sharpness reduction.
It was a choice, not a necessity, no matter what the internet believes to know. The Leica M sensor microlenses were a necessity which doesn't exist for the SL, SL2 and SL2s. The drawback is a higher risk of moire.

Click to expand...

Microlenses over the sensor are used by every single manufacturer and have no relation with aliasing or AA filters, but just to avoid losing the light "between pixels" and to improve the capture in the corners. But I was not talking about microlenses.

I was talking about Leica removing the AA filter which started in their M bodies. In the link I posted to POTN you can see how a mere 2mm glass cover over the sensor changes the light path enough to turn a great lens as garbage at wide openings. A big aperture lens designed for certain exit pupil in a film camera can not successfully deal with a sensor, necessarily placed at the same distance, but holding a new additional glass element just over it (the filter stack, including the AA, which tends to have several millimetres).

Digital cameras with a filter stack require newly designed lenses. And such new lenses neither will properly work in a camera lacking the same filter stack they were designed for. So once a manufacturer chooses to remove the AA filter to create a thin filter stack... yes, it achieves great performance with its old lenses... but will be locked forever in that design choice, and the fate of aliasing. And yes, ultimately they trade sharpness for image quality.

I don't know why the new L mount Leica cameras lack the AA filter (M adapted lenses compatibility perhaps?) but this a a Leica specific choice. The Sigma 61MP L mount camera does have an AA filter, and I suspect that Sigma L lenses will be properly finetuned for it. Quoting Sigma:

"The SIGMA fp L features a Bayer sensor [...] Furthermore, for its image quality that are in principle free of color artifacts, the Foveon sensor legacy was also behind the decision that the fp L should have a low-pass filter to reduce moiré to minimum levels. The use of a low-pass filter was a choice that made sense for a camera with an ample megapixels such as the SIGMA fp L."

I couldn't agree more with Sigma!

Most people is never aware of the filter stack. Even Lens Rentals experts, despite their huge investment in expensive testing equipment, discovered with surprise by themselves this fact lot of years later than the people talking at POTN.

In addition Canon has designed an excelent AA filter design for their high end bodies, as some have studied. An additional reason to eagerly desire such tech in a 100MP camera (which will otherwise aliase badly from F5.6 and above). Aliasing doesn't only show on fabrics. Every single city shot including balcony and similar repeating patters may show it to a greater or less extent. It is an aberration which must be manually locally handled during post and not at zero cost. Perhaps I'm a perfectionist, but I'm just tired of my A7R3 regarding this matter.

1: There is of course no relation between microlenses and AA filters, but Leica needed a more specific design (microlens orientation, if I'm not mistaken), some of their WAs intruding too deeply into the body. It was about "guiding" the light rays.
2: M lens adaptability to the SL2 was rather a software issue to suppress the heavy magenta hue on sides. The SL can , like the M, read the 6 bit coding, other brands can't.
3: Lack of AA filter can indeed help when using extreme Leica M WAs on an SL. Agreed!
4: Only 35mm + M lenses can be used on L mount Sigmas an Panasonics, if you want to avoid magenta cast. So, no retrofocus lenses. I personally adapt from 35 to 135mm M lenses to my EOS R.
5: Moire etc.. I fully agree and understand your point, fortunately there's Lightroom as a fix. But avoiding aliasing is indeed better.

Well, finally my old wallet is going to give Canon some $$$$

AlanF said:

Nature photographers love rugged high resolution cameras to get extra reach while out in the wild.

Click to expand...

I agree, but not completely about resolution. Let's take the R7 as an example, since that will be available soon and its 32.5 MP 1.6x crop sensor transforms into a 83.2 MP equivalent FF sensor (if I calculated correctly), which is already close to 100 MP. Bryan Carnathan calculated in his very good initial review of the R7 (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx) that the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) is already f = 5.2, so stopping down to higher f-stop numbers results in a loss of resolution. Now, it depends on personal preferences, but when I shoot e.g. birds with a long supertele lens and there is enough light available, I prefer f = 6.3-8.0, to get a good balance of tack sharp images of the motif itself and still a nice background blur (which you get anyway "for free" at 500+mm focal lengths). So, I'd already lose a part of the camera's best resolution and therefore image information but get always the same huge image files. Of course I can downsize those files at the beginning of my work-flow, but that's an additional step which is superfluous.

That's why I personally would have preferred a 24 MP R7, like the R10, and I would not buy a 100 MP FF camera if I wouldn't use it for studio work with < 5.6 f-stop numbers and with the aim of producing huge prints. In that case I'd prefer a medium format camera with 100 MP anyway.

H. Jones said:

Even at 120mp, 120 would mean a crop mode of 45 megapixels.. That would be one serious camera for wildlife and birding depending on the frame rates available.

I said it in the R7 post, but I think Canon is in a position to give professionals more options for reach/cropping in the form of the R5s for wildlife photographers who need pro features, a fully pro build, and lots of reach.

A 120mp full frame camera that could crop to 45mp at 20 fps could definitely make a lot of people happy. Especially when you consider the need to save on as much space as possible for air travel, you'd have both a super-high-res landscape/full frame camera, and a super-high-res crop camera both in the same body.

It's one of my favorite features of my R5--I'm not personally ever in the market for a crop camera, but the 17mp 1.6x crop mode is more than adequate for my uses when I can't get close to a subject and need to turn the crop mode on. 45mp in the crop mode would be a whole different story.

Click to expand...

The only problem is that with that small pixels you would be already diffraction limited using the 600/4 wide open. Maybe with the 400/2.8 it would be alright, but that is a tiny bit short for birding (at least in Europe, where birds are not that tame).

justaCanonuser said:

I agree, but not completely about resolution. Let's take the R7 as an example, since that will be available soon and its 32.5 MP 1.6x crop sensor transforms into a 83.2 MP equivalent FF sensor (if I calculated correctly), which is already close to 100 MP. Bryan Carnathan calculated in his very good initial review of the R7 (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx) that the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) is already f = 5.2, so stopping down to higher f-stop numbers results in a loss of resolution. Now, it depends on personal preferences, but when I shoot e.g. birds with a long supertele lens and there is enough light available, I prefer f = 6.3-8.0, to get a good balance of tack sharp images of the motif itself and still a nice background blur (which you get anyway "for free" at 500+mm focal lengths). So, I'd already lose a part of the camera's best resolution and therefore image information but get always the same huge image files. Of course I can downsize those files at the beginning of my work-flow, but that's an additional step which is superfluous.

That's why I personally would have preferred a 24 MP R7, like the R10, and I would not buy a 100 MP FF camera if I wouldn't use it for studio work with < 5.6 f-stop numbers and with the aim of producing huge prints. In that case I'd prefer a medium format camera with 100 MP anyway.

Click to expand...

And what should I say?
Most of my macros are shot at f = 8 to f= 16...
Isn't it a bit strange that portrait and astro photographers will be the ones to benefit a maximum from the 100 MP, and not the ones -landscapers and macro photographers- who would need them?

justaCanonuser said:

I agree, but not completely about resolution. Let's take the R7 as an example, since that will be available soon and its 32.5 MP 1.6x crop sensor transforms into a 83.2 MP equivalent FF sensor (if I calculated correctly), which is already close to 100 MP. Bryan Carnathan calculated in his very good initial review of the R7 (https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R7.aspx) that the Diffraction Limited Aperture (DLA) is already f = 5.2, so stopping down to higher f-stop numbers results in a loss of resolution. Now, it depends on personal preferences, but when I shoot e.g. birds with a long supertele lens and there is enough light available, I prefer f = 6.3-8.0, to get a good balance of tack sharp images of the motif itself and still a nice background blur (which you get anyway "for free" at 500+mm focal lengths). So, I'd already lose a part of the camera's best resolution and therefore image information but get always the same huge image files. Of course I can downsize those files at the beginning of my work-flow, but that's an additional step which is superfluous.

That's why I personally would have preferred a 24 MP R7, like the R10, and I would not buy a 100 MP FF camera if I wouldn't use it for studio work with < 5.6 f-stop numbers and with the aim of producing huge prints. In that case I'd prefer a medium format camera with 100 MP anyway.

Click to expand...

I don’t disagree and have written in a couple of places that the R10 resolution is good enough for me with the narrow telephotos I use. But, if I had an f/2.8 or f/4 lens I would benefit from the R7 better. At longer distances, I’m not worried much about depth of field and tend to shoot wide open.

Hmm, so I guess they're going to give us a high res camera to crop like there's no tomorrow... instead of decent "affordable" super telephotos like Nikon did with the 500mm. I bet it won't be cheap, knowing Canon of late....

2 cents said:

Hmm, so I guess they're going to give us a high res camera to crop like there's no tomorrow... instead of decent "affordable" super telephotos like Nikon did with the 500mm. I bet it won't be cheap, knowing Canon of late....

Click to expand...

The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 used to be my favourite lens. But, the RF 100-500mm is as near as dammit as sharp, can focus very close up, has all the advantages of a zoom and is cheaper.

smh at Petapixels coverage of this rumor from CR (incorrectly for clicks)

Blue Zurich said:

smh at Petapixels coverage of this rumor from CR (incorrectly for clicks)

Click to expand...

It must be exhausting for them to jump to conclusions so quickly

I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping.
The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.

AlanF said:

The Nikon 500mm f/5.6 used to be my favourite lens. But, the RF 100-500mm is as near as dammit as sharp, can focus very close up, has all the advantages of a zoom and is cheaper.

Click to expand...

I find it a bit funny how so many folks compare the telephoto lenses of other brands to Canon's, and consider Canon oh so lacking - and yet, the best overall telephoto lens out there is the RF 100-500, in my opinion.

jeffa4444 said:

I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping.
The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.

Click to expand...

I would love to see someone compare the 100 MP camera to a 45 MP camera shooting hand held. The hand held factor, along with diffraction and the lens's ability (or inability) to take advantage of the higher MP count make me wonder if one would actually get any resolution advantage.

Czardoom said:

I would love to see someone compare the 100 MP camera to a 45 MP camera shooting hand held. The hand held factor, along with diffraction and the lens's ability (or inability) to take advantage of the higher MP count make me wonder if one would actually get any resolution advantage.

Click to expand...

Good idea!
But don't forget to test at F 11 and F 16 too!

Czardoom said:

I would love to see someone compare the 100 MP camera to a 45 MP camera shooting hand held. The hand held factor, along with diffraction and the lens's ability (or inability) to take advantage of the higher MP count make me wonder if one would actually get any resolution advantage.

Click to expand...

I'd be shocked if someone didn't do that to be honest. But as with anything, it likely won't be a black and white result; it'll be very dependent on specifics - i.e. shutter speed, lens length, aperture, how shaky the hands of the photographer are, sensor/lens stabilization, etc. If I was betting, I'd say even in those scenarios you should be able to create a difference, but the point at which that difference is meaningful really depends on the photographer's expectations and the use case.

jeffa4444 said:

I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping.
The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.

Click to expand...

As someone who has used 5DS cameras for the past five years this is broadly my experience too. Cropping tight and still being able to produce a large output is definitely an advantage, beyond that………not so much. I’ve struggled to prove that 50mp captures more perceivable detail than say 30mp. At very large output sizes, that is larger than native, there is a slight improvement in quality against a lesser mp frame but straight away you run into the reality of viewing distance; much larger pictures are viewed from further away negating the fractionally improved clarity / resolution. Camera manufacturers will no doubt keep producing higher and higher mp bodies until people have had enough and stop buying them, but personally I think as a practical camera 100mp on FF is too much.

Del Paso said:

And what should I say?
Most of my macros are shot at f = 8 to f= 16...
Isn't it a bit strange that portrait and astro photographers will be the ones to benefit a maximum from the 100 MP, and not the ones -landscapers and macro photographers- who would need them?

Click to expand...

I'll start by qualifying what I mean by "macro" - I'm using it in the broad sense, i.e. reproduction ratios between 1:4 and 1:1.

Optimum aperture for resolution with a F2.8 macro will typically be at around F5.6. So, if you're shooting at F8-16 you're not getting the best resolution from the lens. But of course, with a lot of macro subjects (unless focus-stacking) you need to stop down to get enough depth of field.

The only really relevant question is whether or not the resolution you get at F8-16 is good enough to satisfy you.

FWIW, I've been shooting macro for more years than I can remember. In the early days maximum depth of field was my goal, so I shot everything at F16, but I did notice a significant loss of overall sharpness compared to F8-11. Nowadays I tend to shoot mostly at F5.6 to ensure an uncluttered background and maximum resolution.

jeffa4444 said:

I absolutely loved using the 5DS in the studio it really produced great colours and files you could crop at will. It was a terrible camera in low daylight with excessive noise in the shadows but in good conditions again gave great results. The files however ate up hard drive space and the combo of the camera itself and the EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM II was heavy shoots 4-5 hour stints. Recently I started using both the R6 and the EOS R which are not my usual cameras for portraiture in and out of the studio. I realised that for 95% of the time they are just fine with plenty of fine detail particularly if not cropping.
The 5DS, EF 70-200mm 2.8L II EF 24-70mm f2.8 L II have now been traded for a RF 24-70mm f2.8L IS USM and I’ve the R7 on order to join the two full frame cameras. As for replacing the 5DS for a 100MP plus camera? I doubt it as defraction will be a huge issue as will lenses that are up to the job of resolving the MP count and getting all the detail possible. I’m also of the opinion that the sweet spot is between 30-45MP. As it is for 45MP to maximise sharpness even with image stabilisation you need to use a sturdy tripod.

Click to expand...

I'm a little confused, you say 100MP makes diffraction a "huge issue", but you're getting an R7 which is equivalent to more than 80MP.

entoman said:

I'll start by qualifying what I mean by "macro" - I'm using it in the broad sense, i.e. reproduction ratios between 1:4 and 1:1.

Optimum aperture for resolution with a F2.8 macro will typically be at around F5.6. So, if you're shooting at F8-16 you're not getting the best resolution from the lens. But of course, with a lot of macro subjects (unless focus-stacking) you need to stop down to get enough depth of field.

The only really relevant question is whether or not the resolution you get at F8-16 is good enough to satisfy you.

FWIW, I've been shooting macro for more years than I can remember. In the early days maximum depth of field was my goal, so I shot everything at F16, but I did notice a significant loss of overall sharpness compared to F8-11. Nowadays I tend to shoot mostly at F5.6 to ensure an uncluttered background and maximum resolution.

Click to expand...

Focus stacking is usually impossible outdoors, wind, or simply handheld photography. So, if I want to get maximum d.o.f, and the subject in focus, I must close the diaphragm.
At 1:2 to 1:1, this can mean F 11 to 16, ISO 100 (less grain) and the best lens possible (Apo Macro Elmarit, sometimes EF 100L). By the way, I'm speaking of flowers here.
If flowers are "flat", F 5,6 or F 8 are often sufficient. Not the case with cacti, irises or orchids, unfortunately.
"Good enough" is often better than only a sharp slice of the subject.
"Artistic" macro pictures offer far more liberty, like playing with unsharpness, focusing on small details etc...
You understand what I'm speaking of: compromising!
With the 5 D4 or Leica M 240 (both between 24 and 30 MP), quality obtained is very satisfactory. But will high MPs make sense for me, I'll have to check by renting.
Yet, for focus stacking closeups, 100 MP will be perfect!