The Canon EOS R1 may not come until 2024
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Typical @Michael Clark. Would have been refreshing for you to admit you were wrong, but as usual you double down, instead. Your DNA is ~99% identical to that of a chimpanzee. Since you're the local expert on rounding, and 100mm is the closest full-frame focal length to 99, you can just round your DNA similarity up to 100% and call yourself a chimpanzee.
Upvote
0
I know what metamerism is, I’ve been working with color for 35 years. VIEWER metamerism is an industry term, not a technical definition. It is used to describe the phenomena of different people perceiving color, or a color difference…differently. I didn’t know I needed to get in the weeds here.
In fact, I’m not going to. What I described exists. Whether it is a learned behavior, differences in rod/cone sensitivity, or some other root cause doesn’t change the result. It is something that has to be considered and/or worked around with different people. Getting color approved at an auto manufacturer would be an example.
Upvote
0
Yes, but even the widest perceptive variation due to metamerism is nowhere close to some people seeing as red what others see as blue while also seeing as blue what the others see as red, which is where this conversation started.
Two individuals viewing the same scene in the same lighting conditions and perceiving that same scene this disparately is not metameric failure.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Downsampling is more versatile, with the advantage that you could extract a wide range of sizes from the same image... but I imagine that downsampling by a factor of 4 or 9 would be the same as binning. Binning and line skipping are 2 very different things.
Why would downsampling be the "only" option?
Upvote
0
I am someone who knows how to round numbers properly, which is one of the things that differentiates us.
Upvote
0
What good would it do?
You'd still maintain until Judgement Day that I was wrong about it, just because you
The slight perceptual differences between people without genetic defects, which I have already acknowledged several times above after certain folks here demonstrated a total lack of ability to understand the context of my original statement, comes nowhere close to explaining how two people (both with fully functioning S,M, and L cones) might look at the same scene under identical illumination and perceive it this radically different.
Slight differences in cone sensitivities do not spin the color wheel by 180° as was suggested by the comment to which I originally responded above.
Upvote
0
That I agree with.
Although I’ve often wondered how we decided the color of the sky was blue, and not red, or green. The origin of color names if you will.
The etymological origins of words is a whole 'nuther subject.
Upvote
0
For a flagship, Canon would be widely panned to provide smaller resolution files with poorer "quality". I say poorer as DR does not correlate equally with pixel size anymore but line skipping/binning would be preceived that way...
Downsampling would be the gold standard and remove any criticisms of a higher native resolution and the R1 would then be equally useful for sports, landscape and portrait. I see it as similar to the RAW vs (slightly lossy) cRAW on the R5 vs complaints of no S/M/L RAW formats that the 5DS/R had.
The only issue is sensor readout ie what could the R1 achieve? Global shutter (or equivalent) is the key feature and good DR with no mechanical shutter.
The R1 would need to match the Z9 ie 20fps raw @45mp (could be medium raw for R1).
The R1 should be faster than the R3 @24mp but not necessarily.
Perhaps an option would be a cropped area to get the higher speed... with that much resolution, you could have multiple crop options in camera to avoid changing TCs or longer lenses with TCs etc
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Those (CMOS) sensors have a base ISO of 50. My CCD one has a base ISO of 35. You can see noise in any image from any camera at any ISO, it depends also on exposure.
I use my MF camera hand-held most of the times and can achieve great sharpness most of the times. I do admit that my pretty hefty tripod improves things in that sense, but I have done entire photoshoots hand-holding and the results were still great (imho). Keep in mind that those sensors, while high resolution, are also bigger and therefore the pixels are not tiny. Also the <1 crop factor (0.67 for my camera) and the type of lenses you have available mean that you are never really shooting above 200mm in 35mm equivalent.
And again, because of bigger sensors, diffraction hits you later. I usually shoot fashion at between f/8 and f/13 and the results are way sharp.
In any case my main issue is not sharpness or stability, it is the horrendously bad AF of the H5X which is generations behind what my Canon R5 can do.
Of course you are right in that, sensor size being equal, higher mp will require better technique and better lenses to fully exploit the higher resolution, with the added side effects on storage and compute requirements, support gear, etc.
But, for me, the advantages of higher res trump the disadvantages... and with current binning or downsampling algos, a high res sensor can double as a lower res one, but the opposite is not true (I know you can apply ML uprezzing algos with great results to low mp images, but you can do the same to high mp images to get them even bigger).
Upvote
0
Ways to round numbers fall into two categories:
- Mathematically correct
- Wrong
Upvote
0
Nikon's Z9 has caused Canon to re engineer the R1. 85mp in 2024... Nikon will have a 102mp answer.
Upvote
0
You may be able to measure brain activity corresponding to specific wavelengths, but as colours do not really exist and are just a concept of our brains, how on earth can we find out if the sky looks the same for both of us? No matter how the sky looks, each of us would still call that colour "blue", as we both have learned that this colour is blue.
Here is an article about that:
Your Color Red Really Could Be My Blue
Scientists think our brains do not have a predetermined way of perceiving each wavelength of light. The way we each perceive colors could be unique.
www.livescience.com
Quote:
Anyone with normal color vision agrees that blood is roughly the same color as strawberries, cardinals and the planet Mars. That is, they're all red. But could it be that what you call "red" is someone else's "blue"? Could people's color wheels be rotated with respect to one another's?
"That is the question we have all asked since grade school," said Jay Neitz, a color vision scientist at the University of Washington. In the past, most scientists would have answered that people with normal vision probably do all see the same colors. The thinking went that our brains have a default way of processing the light that hits cells in our eyes, and our perceptions of the light's color are tied to universal emotional responses. But recently, the answer has changed.
"I would say recent experiments lead us down a road to the idea that we don't all see the same colors," Neitz said.
Another color vision scientist, Joseph Carroll of the Medical College of Wisconsin, took it one step further: "I think we can say for certain that people don't see the same colors," he told Life's Little Mysteries.
One person's red might be another person's blue and vice versa, the scientists said. You might really see blood as the color someone else calls blue, and the sky as someone else's red. But our individual perceptions don't affect the way the color of blood, or that of the sky, make us feel.
Upvote
0
PS: The word I was looking for is "qualia". It describes all those perceptions that only happen inside our brain and can't be measures from the outside. LIke the taste of an Apple for example. We may both have the same taste receptors, but they might translate into different tastes and there is no way of finding out if an Apple tastes different for you that for me:
en.wikipedia.org
Qualia - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
Yes, and there is no solution to the problem you present. As there is no way to see or feel what another person sees or feels.PS: The word I was looking for is "qualia". It describes all those perceptions that only happen inside our brain and can't be measures from the outside. LIke the taste of an Apple for example. We may both have the same taste receptors, but they might translate into different tastes and there is no way of finding out if an Apple tastes different for you that for me:
Qualia - Wikipedia
Upvote
0
It will be interesting what Canon actually deliver. I always thought that 20MP photojournalists limit was a load of rubbish. Internet technology has moved on, files can be compressed or lower quality settings used. You can reduce MP but not increase. I own the 1DXIII and it’s a great camera but it lacks MP, for sport and wildlife . For studio it’s perfectly fine . I always thought at the time there was no good reason that it couldn’t have been a min 30MP camera but ideally a 45MP camera. I find the R5 a much better camera for sports and wildlife. It hardly felt like a flagship camera the day it arrived and certainly doesn’t feel like one now. I’ve always thought the R3 had been destined to be the R1 but they were embarrassed to call it that. Now they’ve held back I’m really curious what they will do. I think it will exceed 61MP at least, global shutter and a high frame rate with processing power to deal with it. Focusing could definitely be improved upon. Focusing is not a perfect science, the R5 is good but doesn’t always work intelligently or against cluttered backgrounds . I am hoping for a flagship that amazes that keeps Canon as a consumer favourite/ something to aspire to. I didn’t start with Canon because their basic model was good but because their high end gear seemed to be the best (what I started with was fairly low end and plasticky ).
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)