The Canon EOS R1 may not come until 2024

Michael Clark said:

It's not the "flagship", but it is the "sports" body. Just as the higher resolution, FF 1Ds series was the "flagship" and the lower resolution, faster handling APS-H 1D series was the "sports" body from 2002-2012.

Click to expand...

And then the 5D2 killed the 1Ds series and the Nikon D800 replaced the D3X.

Kit. said:

Given Canon's existing track record, it will be highly unlikely to get any feature updates for R5 once R5II is released.

R5S is another story, but then it "needs" to be somewhat inferior to R5 (slower burst rate, for example) or considerably more expensive.

Click to expand...

Of course, but I think the successor is still at least a year away, which leaves Canon plenty of time to put out more firmware updates for the R5.

Given the rumours here that the "R1" will have 90-ish MP, I find it hard to reconcile with the possible launch of a "R5s" with roughly the same MP. I'm not even convinced that there is enough demand for a "R5s" to justify its existence. Sure, there will be some folk who would choose it over a "medium format" Fujifilm, but a R5s would I think be very much a niche camera and not a big money earner for Canon.

Skyscraperfan said:

I wonder if the dynamic range might suffer though. Four times the resolution sounds nice, but that also means that the signal has to be amplified by four times and the noise with it. Of course noise gets lower if you average four pixels, but that does not work with a lower frequency noise. Also the R5 has some issues with colour shift to green or magenta when you want to recover shadows at high ISO. That does not happen with the R3. Is that just because the R3 has a stacked BSI sensor?

The upside of having four times as many pixels might be that demosaicing the RAW file might work better, as you have one red, one blue and two green pixels for every pixel of the low megapixel result. At the moment camera manufacturers cheat with the megapixel count, as they add all the coloured megapixels separately

Click to expand...

I am not sure about DR. That depends on pixels size but also other factors, and in the past we've had examples of higher-ser sensors (e.g. the 36mp one in the D800) having better DR than lower-res sensors (e.g. the 22mp one in the 5D mkIII).
Moreover DR is not the end of the world. My IQ180 has terrible abysmal DR but that's because of the CCD tech (it's 80mp but also a 54x40mm sensor, so the pixels are big) - I can still happily shoot with it especially since I mainly use it with controlled lightning. I even managed to shoot images I like with it "in the wild" with no controlled lightning.

In any case, you do get advantages in terms of versatility with high mp sensors. For me, personally, those trump a potential marginal loss in DR

roby17269 said:

I am not sure about DR. That depends on pixels size but also other factors, and in the past we've had examples of higher-ser sensors (e.g. the 36mp one in the D800) having better DR than lower-res sensors (e.g. the 22mp one in the 5D mkIII).
Moreover DR is not the end of the world. My IQ180 has terrible abysmal DR but that's because of the CCD tech (it's 80mp but also a 54x40mm sensor, so the pixels are big) - I can still happily shoot with it especially since I mainly use it with controlled lightning. I even managed to shoot images I like with it "in the wild" with no controlled lightning.

In any case, you do get advantages in terms of versatility with high mp sensors. For me, personally, those trump a potential marginal loss in DR

Click to expand...

Yes, I saw some sample of PhaseOne cameras and was surprised about the visible noise at ISO 100. That were 150 megapixels cameras though.

My main problem with having a lot of megapixels is that you will adjust your photography for the resolution of your camera. So for example at a high resolution a tripod might make a difference more often than at low resolution. So with a 100 megapixel camera I would probably carry a tripod much more often and as a result photography would be much less fun for me. If I optimise my photography for 24 megapixels instead, I can use lower ISO for example, as longer shutter speeds are less of a problem. I can also you a higher f-stop like f/8 or even f/11 without losing visible sharpness, while at a high resolution diffraction might be visible.

Of course in a studio most of the downsides of a high resolution disappear. There you can use a tripod most of the time and you usually have plenty of light. A PhaseOne will really shine there.

Michael Clark said:

Color is not intrinsic to any wavelength of light, or any other wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, for that matter. Color is a construct of the system that perceives it when certain wavelengths of EMR cause bio-chemical responses in our retinas that are then processed and assigned colors by our brains. In short, color is not a properly of what we call visible light, it is a property of the perception of a narrow portion of the overall EMR spectrum.

Click to expand...

Yes, in reality colours do not really exist. That is quite mindblowing if you think of it. We might never know if one person sees red as the same colour as another person sees blue. We have all agreed that the colour of blood is called red, but we will never know how other people perceive that colour. Perhaps it might look blue to them, but they still call it red. Since I know that fact, I care less about the colour of my clothes.

Skyscraperfan said:

Yes, in reality colours do not really exist. That is quite mindblowing if you think of it. We might never know if one person sees red as the same colour as another person sees blue. We have all agreed that the colour of blood is called red, but we will never know how other people perceive that colour. Perhaps it might look blue to them, but they still call it red. Since I know that fact, I care less about the colour of my clothes.

Click to expand...

No. Since we all have the same DNA which leads to the same proteins and enzymes in our retinas and brains, we all do perceive the same colors the same unless there is some medical abnormality.

There's currently no R5-S on the roadmap. You're looking in the wrong places for the next exciting thing.

Michael Clark said:

No. Since we all have the same DNA which leads to the same proteins and enzymes in our retinas and brains, we all do perceive the same colors the same unless there is some medical abnormality.

Click to expand...

We don't all have the same DNA. At the basic level, we all have a vast number of differences called SNPs, single nucleotide polymorphisms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-nucleotide_polymorphism). These lead to different amino acids at different positions in proteins and so they can have different activities. It's these SNPs that the ancestry DNA sites use to tell you your genetic background, find your relatives etc. Your various traits may be linked to combinations of these SNPs - the science of GWAS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study). These SNPs don't usually qualify as being medical abnormalities as they can be very widespread. Some rarer mutations, like those in cystic fibrosis etc can have a severe affect by themselves. These SNPs in the opsin genes count as a "medical conditions" https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Colorblind.

Michael Clark said:

No. Since we all have the same DNA which leads to the same proteins and enzymes in our retinas and brains, we all do perceive the same colors the same unless there is some medical abnormality.

Click to expand...

We can all have receptors for the same colour spectrum in our eyes, but we will never be sure how those colours are translated inside of our brains. That does not even work with pain. If we both hit a hammer on our thumbs, we will both feel pain, but we can't find out who of us feels more pain. The same food might even taste differently for different people, although we all have the same receptors. There is a scientific phrase for that problem, but I can't find it at the moment.

Michael Clark said:

No. Since we all have the same DNA which leads to the same proteins and enzymes in our retinas and brains, we all do perceive the same colors the same unless there is some medical abnormality.

Click to expand...

Although I don’t know what you look like, I am certain we are not identical twins. Therefore, we don’t have the same DNA.

The diverse genetic polymorphisms that result in people having different physical appearance also result in people having different spectral sensitivities in their cone opsins (and in rhodopsin, as well). As one example, a serine instead of alanine for the 180th amino acid in the L cone opsin (long wavelength, i.e., red) shifts the λmax 3-4 nm to the red side and results in greater sensitivity to red. That particular polymorphism is common, ~60% of the population has a serine, ~40% has an alanine at that position.

neuroanatomist said:

As one example, a serine instead of alanine for the 180th amino acid in the L cone opsin (long wavelength, i.e., red) shifts the λmax 3-4 nm to the red side and results in greater sensitivity to red. That particular polymorphism is common, ~60% of the population has a serine, ~40% has an alanine at that position.

Click to expand...

Excellent example. It's not a medical abnormality as the variation is so widespread and phenotypically affects the opsin genes in vision.

neuroanatomist said:

Although I don’t know what you look like, I am certain we are not identical twins. Therefore, we don’t have the same DNA.

Click to expand...

There are many cases of identical twins being separated at birth or soon after and they are subjects for studies on the effects of nurture. There may a very slight possibility that you and Michael are identical twins, in which case it would make for a fascinating study.

Maybe there are people who see more or less colour, but what I mean is what happens in our brains. This is the same photo, but with a different hue. Imagine someone see the world like on the right photo. Then he will still call the sky blue and the grass green. There is no way to find out that two people use the same word for different colours, if both colours are just different translations from the same wavelength.

AlanF said:

Excellent example. It's not a medical abnormality as the variation is so widespread and phenotypically affects the opsin genes in vision.

Click to expand...

Likely selection is involved in that one. A180 is more common in Norwegians than East Asians, and nocturnal lemurs have A180 while diurnal lemurs have S180. That suggests A180 is beneficial in low light levels.

Great discussion guys!

Skyscraperfan said:

Maybe there are people who see more or less colour, but what I mean is what happens in our brains. This is the same photo, but with a different hue. Imagine someone see the world like on the right photo. Then he will still call the sky blue and the grass green. There is no way to find out that two people use the same word for different colours, if both colours are just different translations from the same wavelength.

Click to expand...

Well, yes, unless they are among the ~4.5% of the world population who are at some level colour blind. The most common type is red-green (including me to a lesser degree), but there is also blue-yellow. So at least some of those people will absolutely 'see' the sky differently than the majority.

Michael Clark said:

I'm beginning to suspect the R5s may be as elusive as the 7D mark III.

Click to expand...

I yearn to know for sure, if it isn’t coming I would be leaning toward Fuji 100s.

Michael Clark said:

No. Since we all have the same DNA which leads to the same proteins and enzymes in our retinas and brains, we all do perceive the same colors the same unless there is some medical abnormality.

Click to expand...

Technically, there is a significant amount of perceived color variation among people. In the color industry we call it viewer metamerism. If color is your business you have to acknowledge and deal with it.

Skyscraperfan said:

Yes, I saw some sample of PhaseOne cameras and was surprised about the visible noise at ISO 100. That were 150 megapixels cameras though.

My main problem with having a lot of megapixels is that you will adjust your photography for the resolution of your camera. So for example at a high resolution a tripod might make a difference more often than at low resolution. So with a 100 megapixel camera I would probably carry a tripod much more often and as a result photography would be much less fun for me. If I optimise my photography for 24 megapixels instead, I can use lower ISO for example, as longer shutter speeds are less of a problem. I can also you a higher f-stop like f/8 or even f/11 without losing visible sharpness, while at a high resolution diffraction might be visible.

Of course in a studio most of the downsides of a high resolution disappear. There you can use a tripod most of the time and you usually have plenty of light. A PhaseOne will really shine there.

Click to expand...

I believe if you scale down the high MP, the blur disappears.

JohnC said:

Technically, there is a significant amount of perceived color variation among people. In the color industry we call it viewer metamerism. If color is your business you have to acknowledge and deal with it.

Click to expand...

Wow. I would love to learn more about this. I have often wondered about this.