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

Sporgon said:

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.

Click to expand...

AlanF said:

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.

Click to expand...

justaCanonuser said:

It is also the lens combo - I frequently use Canon's 1.4 TC III, which is already good but improves on my EF 500mm when I stop it down. So, we both agree that 24 MP would have been the sweet spot for a 7D2 successor. If the R10 would be more rugged and would have two card slots, I'd prefer this camera over the R7. But I really needed and appreciated the ruggedness of my original 7D (still working btw) and 7D2. Our Nikons need much more protection if it starts to get a bit rough, or its batteries lose so much power when it is getting really cold, that the AF drive slows down. I hope the R7 will have the same mechanical quality, despite it is so tiny.

Click to expand...

takesome1 said:

Even if you think bigger is better, 120mp might be the equivalent of the Tijuana donkey.

400% crops and viewing billboards for detail 5' away would be a good use. When is enough, enough?

Click to expand...

jam05 said:

So, will Canon market it as a "Medium Format" camera? Or simply a high resolution camera to replace it's former high res offerings. Interesting. 2023 looks to be rather interesting year. Let hope Canon doesn't ruin it with a cheap crappy LCD on the rear of it.

Click to expand...

Skyscraperfan said:

You could, but you lose a lot of light because of the Bayer Filter. Of yourse the Bayer Filter gives you the option to compose your B/W photos out of three channels. So you can decide how dark the sky or the grass get. You lose that option with a monochrome sensor, but in return you get much sharper images and much lower noise. You do not need any demosaicing algorithms to guess the brightness of each pixel based on its neigbours. A normal 24 megapixel camera has 6 million red pixels, 6 million blue pixels and 12 million green pixels. Having 24 million "white" pixels increases the image quality by a lot. That's why Leica and Phase One offer monochrome sensors.

Click to expand...

amorse said:

That's really interesting - I wasn't aware that the Fuji MF bodies were so sensitive! I'd written the GFX system off because of the lack of lenses - no really wide and no long ish. Ideally, I'd want flexibility in focal length from maybe ~15mm-400mm covered in my kit, and I just don't see that realistically happening in GFX any time soon.

Click to expand...

GoldWing said:

So Canon is going heads up with the GFX 100s. Don't know. I thought the sweet spot was about 80 to 85MP to double the resolution of the 1DXMKIII

Love to think this is the R1 coming out but, it's just a tease to stop the bleeding from the Z9.

If canon gets even close to the quality of the GFX 50II or the GFX 100s, I'd be shocked. Canon is so "cheap" with resolution, it's just not in their character to give value like that.

Click to expand...

cayenne said:

But my question is....if Canon is going to try to squeeze 100mp into a regular full frame sensor, won't that cause some problems?

Is it not better to have a larger sensor when the megapixel count goes past a certain threshold so that the pixels aren't having to be shrunk so small and packed in together so densely?

Is there a "wall" you hit at some point with MP count vs sensor area size?

Click to expand...

stevelee said:

Were I to get the 100S, I wouldn’t get rid of my Canon gear, nor would I buy a panoply of new lenses. I would keep what I have, and get just lenses I would use for landscapes and the like. I’d probably start with the 23mm (~18mm) f/4 to start with, maybe soon adding the 32–64mm unless they come out with something more interesting to me in the meantime. Then I would choose the gear that best fit what I wanted to do. For traveling, I’d still use the G5X II, and the reality is that it is the camera I use most for landscapes as it is. It is the camera I have with me when I go to scenic places. If I found myself using my DSLR for more landscapes, then I’d revisit the question of buying the 100S. Of course late some night if I discovered that both the 100S and the 23mm were in stock, they could make a great impulse purchase. But my point is that I don’t see the 100S causing my abandoning anything I can do now, just supplementing it.

Click to expand...

cayenne said:

Also, don't forget, with an adaptor you can still use your Canon lenses on your GFX....many of them have an image circle that will still cover that sensor.
At the very least, you may have some vignetting but that's always easy to fix in post.

Click to expand...

cayenne said:

Well, I own and have used a Fuji GFX100, a 101 MP digital medium format camera for a couple years now....and I have to say, having such a breadth of ability to crop as needed IS a nice benefit!!

Zooming in is fun.

But my question is....if Canon is going to try to squeeze 100mp into a regular full frame sensor, won't that cause some problems?

Is it not better to have a larger sensor when the megapixel count goes past a certain threshold so that the pixels aren't having to be shrunk so small and packed in together so densely?

Is there a "wall" you hit at some point with MP count vs sensor area size?

cayenne

Click to expand...

stevelee said:

That sounds like fun. I could rent a TS-E lens (17 or 24mm) and make >800MP stitched panoramas, after a bit of cropping. The 100–400mm lens could still be >300mm equivalent. This is getting too tempting. I think (hope) I am through with making other large purchases for a while. I've just spent more than the cost of the 100S on repairs to my house and a rental property. My new Mac Studio and accessories come close. (Apple makes it way too easy to spend thousands of dollars seemingly painlessly with just a few clicks.) I'm not broke yet and anyway have lots and lots of credit.

Just to put more temptation in my path, what is the source of the adaptor to put EF lenses on the 100S?

Click to expand...

neuroanatomist said:

The idea is that in crop mode smaller files recorded, meaning an effectively bigger buffer and maintenance of a faster frame rate for a longer time. The camera has to support that, though.

Click to expand...

David - Sydney said:

I don't use crop mode in my R5. I crop in post if needed.
Faster frame rate may be possible (and theoretically lower rolling shutter and flash sync) only if the sensor is clever enough to only read the crop portion of the sensor. Do we have any evidence that Canon sensors have done this in the past?

Another reason to use crop mode is that for some competitions, cropping (or at least severe cropping) would not be allowed. When underwater, you can't change lenses but activating crop mode could be one advantage in this case.

Click to expand...

H. Jones said:

Bigger buffer, smaller filesize means less memory used, easier to compose the shots the way you'd actually like them at 17mp. There's several reasons I'm a big fan of having crop mode. I have it mapped to a button on the back of the camera so that I can quickly snap between 1.6x crop and full frame if my subject gets close enough for full frame to be useful.
A lot of times when I'm photographing wildlife or breaking news, you're just so far away from the subject that you'd be wasting quite literally dozens of gigabytes on empty space. It's a lot faster and easier when you're in crop mode to cull 2000 images of a distant subject at 17mp than have to hassle with 2,000 45mp images that only are using a small portion of the frame.

If we're talking about a 120mp camera, that's going to be a *serious* difference in filesize. That's easily saving hundreds of gigabytes of empty space and making the buffer far more usable, no matter what the buffer is.

Add to that, it's easier to find smaller subjects in the frame at 1.6x and easier to keep a focus point over a bigger subject in the viewfinder than trying to use even the spot focus point on a tiny subject.

It doesn't make sense for a lot of people to use, but for the times when a 1.6x crop camera makes sense to begin with, it definitely has its place. I personally enjoy the ability to use the camera as a full frame 45mp camera, and then in the instances when I need the reach, turn it into a 1.6x crop camera.

Click to expand...

usern4cr said:

I'm looking forward to see what "other" new features they come out with in the rumored R5s-ish camera. I'm most interested in the addition of in-camera features such as GPS, aperture bracketing, QP, better AF, or ND ability. I'd actually prefer 60MP over 120MP, but I'm prepared to accept a 100+MP camera if it's in a R5 style body just so I can get all the other newer features it has since the R5 came out.

Click to expand...

usern4cr said:

I'm looking forward to see what "other" new features they come out with in the rumored R5s-ish camera. I'm most interested in the addition of in-camera features such as GPS, aperture bracketing, QP, better AF, or ND ability. I'd actually prefer 60MP over 120MP, but I'm prepared to accept a 100+MP camera if it's in a R5 style body just so I can get all the other newer features it has since the R5 came out.

Click to expand...