I would expect slightly higher than the a1.The R1 will have either equal or slightly higher resolution than the Z9
There is a precedent - the Leica M11.... a sensor that can function as 20MP or 80MP would certainly be nice and I don't know of another model on the market that can do that. (In other words, have the dynamic range and low-light capability of a normal 20MP sensor, AND shooting speed etc., but also do 80MP as well).
And then Canon introduced the 5D2 with the same resolution as the 1Ds3 and the market collapsed for the 1Ds3. Nikon introduced a high MP D3x but replaced it with a D800, a much less expensive body.For 8-9 years or so, we had the EOS-1D and EOS-1Ds lines side by side. 1D was fast, lower pixel count, smaller sensor, and favored by sports and maybe some wildlife photographers. The 1Ds models were the highest resolution, maybe only half the shooting speed, but great for landscape and fine art work, and anyone who wanted the best resolution possible.
Personally I always had the 1Ds models.
It all depends on whether you are using the same lens on each and viewing at the same physical size in mm x mm or you are using different focal length lenses and are viewing the same scene cropped to the same number of pixels and differentially enlarged to the same metric size. And, it's not my view, it's the physics.Indeed, so let's concentrate on comparing low and high pixel-density for a given sensor size, i.e. FF. I'm not debating for the sake of pedantry, just trying to separate fact from popular myth. We are all here (I hope) to amicably exchange opinions and understand the truth about perceived facts.
Which if any of the following, in your view, are adversely affected when comparing hypothetical same-generation 20MP and 80MP FF sensors of similar technology, and when examining the final image occupying the entirety of e.g. an 8K monitor ? -
minor focus errors
subject movement
camera-shake
high ISO noise
diffraction-related softness
perceived edge sharpness
perceived fine detail
I think you missed his point somewhat - I agree from a consumer's perspective your idea is appealing, but if it leads to fewer bodies being sold than segmenting the market, then Canon has no motivation to do it. They obviously want to maximise sales, whichever way they can.Check my reply to neuro, and check the reply from Goldwing
Well, to compete with Fuji Medium Format (Digital), the GFX line, Canon is going to have to start making MF sized sensors.I hope its a highly tuned 75MP sensor with 16-bit readout and a tilt screen instead of a flip out. That would be an excellent FF landscape camera for Canon. Don't compromise image quality for fast shutter or FPS.
I would rather see something that competes against Fuji MF.
Ambiguous: In your jeans or crying?Finally we are going to get our Long awaited R5s or Rs Camera Body !!
I've been on the Waiting List for for over three tears
I agree entirely that from Canon's perspective, segmentation is beneficial.I think you missed his point somewhat - I agree from a consumer's perspective your idea is appealing, but if it leads to fewer bodies being sold than segmenting the market, then Canon has no motivation to do it. They obviously want to maximise sales, whichever way they can.
Now THAT is a very interesting question, and one that I've been wondering about myself.Where does Canon go with the R5II in two years or so? It seems like the resolutions are converging if this is 75mp and the R5II is...what...60mp?
As I recall, the world-wide market for MF bodies are in the few thousands. 5-6K maybe.I'd LOVE to see Canon dip their toe into digital MF....but not holding my breath on that one...
I'm trying to understand the buffer issue you have... The digital picture did some tests on the R5 and came up with the following.Beware of the buffer. The R5 can barely handle 45 mp. Generally okay for birds in flight, but it becomes a real problem with any kind of sports shooting. Even the R3 can run into buffer problems at the highest frame rate. I've gone exclusively to CRaw to reduce buffer issues.
The buffer is another reason this will not be an R1. Just too much data to push through for sports shooters.
Test | Image Count | Seconds |
12 fps RAW > CFexpress | 405 | 33.8 |
12 fps RAW > SD | 182 | 15.0 |
12 fps RAW + RAW | 175 | 14.6 |
20 fps RAW > CFexpress | 146 | 7.3 |
20 fps RAW > SD | 110 | 5.5 |
20 fps RAW + RAW | 104 | 5.2 |
I can only speak to my personal experience. R5 with Raw in slot 1 and jpg in slot 2 as backup. If I'm shooting a basketball player running down the court and doing a layup, the R5 buffer will often fill before he or she reaches the basket (shooting mechanical shutter on the R5 High Speed +). Then, the camera is frozen while waiting for the buffer to clear (you can shoot once the buffer gets to a certain point, but it will immediately fill up again if it isn't completely cleared.I'm trying to understand the buffer issue you have... The digital picture did some tests on the R5 and came up with the following.
Are you using mechanical or electronic shutter?
What number of shots would you be taking in your sports shooting and over how much time? 12fps raw + raw on 512GB cards would only get you ~60 bursts of 15 seconds
cRaw would certainly improve on these figures further but it hard to see how the buffer is a major issue even with full size raw files.
Test Image Count Seconds 12 fps RAW > CFexpress 405 33.8 12 fps RAW > SD 182 15.0 12 fps RAW + RAW 175 14.6 20 fps RAW > CFexpress 146 7.3 20 fps RAW > SD 110 5.5 20 fps RAW + RAW 104 5.2
All mirrorless (and DSLR in live view) use video off the sensor. They are already processing video so the incremental cost is small for firmware to handle video output especially as Canon has already managed all the codecs in the R5/R5c. I would be surprised if Canon added oversampling from 75mp to 8k with significant thermal record times but using a ~1.3 crop from the sensor would be simple.Im likely a minority but as with the 5DS that I still have and use, a 75mp version of the R5 should be aimed at photographers and not worry about 8K. The videographers are well catered for with the R5 and the R5c so why do they need a third R5 series camera?
I am not suggesting that the R5 has sufficient mp for you only to put it in context as the 5Ds/r has roughly the same resolution as the R5 and basically replaced it as the high resolution Canon body.The 5DS / 5DSr were favourites with landscape photographers and studio photographers and its the latter where Ive used the 5DS. This camera was better damped than the standard 5D MKIII and MKIV and had other improvements over the 5D MKIII it was based on all aimed at photographers.
Ive never shot a single clip of video on my Canon DSLRs or mirrorless cameras and Im sure Im not alone. I do shoot video but much prefer dedicated video cameras than compromises to be able to do both.
So based on the 5DS experience, mirrorless experience with the EOS R and R6 heres what I would like to see.
1. Better ISO than the 5DS provided
2. Better cable management for thethered shooting
3. Two CF express slots (75mp your need them)
4. Higher strobe sync speed
5. Same FPS as the R5 / R6 in both mechanical & electronic shutter
Other than that I think the AF, metering, button & control layout should stay the same as the R5 and I could see fashion, food & landscape professional photographers buying it in droves.
How many shots are you taking in a basketball game?I can only speak to my personal experience. R5 with Raw in slot 1 and jpg in slot 2 as backup. If I'm shooting a basketball player running down the court and doing a layup, the R5 buffer will often fill before he or she reaches the basket (shooting mechanical shutter on the R5 High Speed +). Then, the camera is frozen while waiting for the buffer to clear (you can shoot once the buffer gets to a certain point, but it will immediately fill up again if it isn't completely cleared.
With the R3, you can usually complete the play before the buffer fills, but I've still had the occasional problem where it doesn't clear in time for the next play. Using the electronic shutter High Speed +.
I don't know how Brian conducted his tests, so I can't speak to them. I suppose it isn't the size of the buffer, but the speed at which it clears that is the problem.
This isn't entirely true. A higher MP camera can pick up motion blur that a lower MP camera does not. It may be an optical phenomenon, but the motion is across a pixel grid. It is possible for a finer grid to detect a moving line across two pixels where on a coarser grid the moving line never leaves the bounds of one.If you compare the same image taken from a 1 - 20 -50 - 5000 MPIX picture there will be zero (0.0) more shake, zero (0.0) more subject movement and zero (0.0) more focus miss between them.
We need a high MP FAQ at the head of every rumor about a high MP bodyI don't see any limit to the desire of more pixels - as long as they actually provide more detail, there's obviously no point in having more pixels than your lens can resolve, for example.
Agree. Shot the S1R as a primary body for better part of a year a couple years back. The sensor shift stuff was fantastic in terms of how much I could get away with hand-held.Having had an H6d 100C here for a while with an HTS1.5 tilt/shift adapter, I'm rather liking working with 100MP images on occasions
So, yes please - for my 5Ds replacement as well, since the H6D will be going back to Hasselblad at some point
I sometimes stitch multiple 5Ds shots to get resolution - it would be nice to have more available in one shot (oh, and some new T/S lenses as well ;-) )
75 and well implemented sensor shift high res would be nice - I really liked the S1R when I had one here to test
I appreciate it's not something many want, but I've never stepped up in resolution with a new camera and thought 'that's too much'