Canon EOS R6 Mark III Resolution Increase?

[Sporgon]

So now you're tripling down and saying no camera has too few megapixels.

OK...

So which cameras do have too few megapixels ? Has the person at Sony who mixed up the numbers and mistakenly read 21 as 12 got sacked for putting a feeble sensor in the A7S that can resolve little more than a pin hole camera ?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In low light/high iso situations, a high Mpx sensor image (eg from an R5) viewed at the same physical size as one from a low Mpx sensor (eg R6ii) has the same signal/noise. Or, put another way, downresolved to the same resolution they have the same S/N. That’s true in theory and also in practice as you can see from Photonstophotos charts. The low Mpx sensor has the advantage in individual pixels that are larger but not in the overall image viewed at the same physical size. The readout time for the R6ii is 14.5ms and for the R5ii is less than half at 6.3ms.

If you go by DXO, there is no correlation between MP and low-light performance.
However, the R3 does better than the R5.
The R6 II does better than both.
The R6 and R6 II are about the same.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

So which cameras do have too few megapixels ? Has the person at Sony who mixed up the numbers and mistakenly read 21 as 12 got sacked for putting a feeble sensor in the A7S that can resolve little more than a pin hole camera ?

Not very many people use the a7S III for photography.
12 MP is perfect for 4K video.
Now that the FX3 is out, not very many people buy one at all.
It is not that 12 MP is unusable, but no one wants to pay that much for it.
Older cameras with 12 MP or less sell very well, just for a lot less money.

 

[Sporgon]

Not very many people use the a7S III for photography.
12 MP is perfect for 4K video.
Now that the FX3 is out, not very many people buy one at all.
It is not that 12 MP is unusable, but no one wants to pay that much for it.
Older cameras with 12 MP or less sell very well, just for a lot less money.

I just wondered if the a7Siii was an example of a camera that had too few megapixels ;-)

 

[AlanF]

If you go by DXO, there is no correlation between MP and low-light performance.
However, the R3 does better than the R5.
The R6 II does better than both.
The R6 and R6 II are about the same.

First of all, DxO scores of sensors are a complete joke - just about every Sony sensor is ranked above Canon's, and it is mystifying how they come to their overall scores (their measurements of individual characteristics are probably meaningful but the way they combine the scores isn't).
Secondly, they state specifically for their low-light performance scores: "A difference in low-light ISO of 25% equals 1/3 EV and is only slightly noticeable. Low-light ISO is an open scale.". The difference between their scores for the R5 and R6 is only 10%, which means they are the same within 0.12 ev, and the differences are far less than even "slightly noticeable". In other words, the difference between the R5 and R6 is insignificant. Oh, and for the overall sensor score the R3 is 96; the R5, 95; and the R6 90 (to be taken with a large pinch of salt).

 

[neuroanatomist]

If you go by DXO, there is no correlation between MP and low-light performance.
However, the R3 does better than the R5.
The R6 II does better than both.
The R6 and R6 II are about the same.

If you go by DxO, dynamic range is a very important factor in lens performance. So, maybe don’t go by DxO.

 

[Chig]

The readout time for the R6ii is 14.5ms and for the R5ii is less than half at 6.3ms.

Stacked sensor vs unstacked

 

[neuroanatomist]

Stacked sensor vs unstacked

And the R6III will probably have a stacked sensor, too. Meanwhile, you can clearly see the benefit of larger pixels when you compare the R5II to the R1…



…but you have to really squint.

 

[MikeGalos]

…but you have to really squint.

Exactly. And you need to squint only where there is any difference and then it's pretty much only going to come into play with a badly exposed image.

 

[Chig]

The things I want in the mark iii

• stacked sensor
• CFe card
• Stills/video switch moved to the righthand side where it belongs so I can switch to video without fumbling
• I'd prefer staying with 24MP as it's plenty for stills and ideal for 4K video and manageable file size
• 120fps 4K video with sound
• Focus stacking with flash for macro

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The things I want in the mark iii

• stacked sensor
• CFe card
• Stills/video switch moved to the righthand side where it belongs so I can switch to video without fumbling
• I'd prefer staying with 24MP as it's plenty for stills and ideal for 4K video and manageable file size
• 120fps 4K video with sound
• Focus stacking with flash for macro

Sounds like you want an R3.
The price has come down a lot.

 

[David_B]

What about printing?

At 300dpi, an A2 page needs about 35MP to fill it, so if you include a white border for the mounting frame, 30-32MP will get you closer to filling an A2 page without needing to scale (if you don't crop.) FWIW, A1 needs >60MP.

The megapixel fights in this thread have some of the most inane comments. If 24MP is enough for pros then why do pros buy 280MP digital backs? The answer is in the nature of the subject matter and work style used. Canon's 1-series cameras are aimed at a very specific set of types of professional photographers but not all. Canon aims for the mass-market of professional photographer with its R1/R3. Mass market includes parapazzi and those filling your trash-mags at the supermarket checkout, or latest online stuff. Mass-market is where the numbers are for relatively healthy unit sales. Mass-market is a relative term here, with digital backs being what I'd call bespoke (for want of a better word.)

At 300dpi a full spread in a magazine needs less than half the 24MP of the R1. Thus the professional selling their pic to news outlets probaly want some slop for crop/rotate but when they're doing high fps to get "the moment", 200MP is of little benefit.

The R6 series of camera clearly isn't targeted at the mass-market pro because it doesn't have all the features they use, or if it did, they'd stop buying R1s and R3s and save some $$.

Why does the next R6 need more MP? I'm going to be simple and say better product differentiation & segmentation between the R6 & R8. The product line will be divided up with the R5 always having the highest MP, the R6 will be next, and the R8 below that. Differentiated in price and MP. I understand that the differences are more significant, but many might not. The R6 moving up in MP may be Canon's response to R6 sales dropping after the introduction of the R8 or otherwise allow Canon to put more features in the R8 to make that more competitive without impacting R6 sales. There may also be some need by Csnon to want more MP than the equivalent Nikon, and blah blah competitive marketing. i.e nothing to do with pros but everything to do with protecting profit.

 

[MikeGalos]

If you go by DxO, dynamic range is a very important factor in lens performance. So, maybe don’t go by DxO.

Technically, bad internal reflections can reduce dynamic range, but, yeah, that's pretty silly.

 

[rombe3jr]

R6 iii wish list:

• 6K recording
• 240 fps
• Open gate
• Tally light
• Stacked sensor
• Exsternal SSD recording
• Shutter angle setting
• Waveform/vectorscope/false color
• Priced under $3k

 

[Michael Clark]

My argument is that Canon’s objective is to please a plurality of their target market.

Not only is there not just one type of ‘pro’, the target market for the 1-series is not limited to pros.

I would argue that Canon targets different segments of their market with different products.

The 1-Series is not aimed strictly at pros, though it once was designed strictly for specific types of pros. Canon would, of course, gladly sell a 1-Series body to anyone else who wanted and could pay for one. The shift in whom the 1-Series is aimed at is mainly because the number of pros buying the most expensive bodies from each of the camera makers has been steadily shrinking to a mere shadow of its former self for at least a decade and a half.

The 1-Series is not aimed at a plurality of pros nor is it aimed at a plurality of amateurs, or even a plurality of all Canon buyers. It's aimed a plurality of shooters, whether pro, semi-pro, or amateur who need/want speed and AF accuracy over all else in a body rugged enough to use to club someone to death and then use to take their photo after and aren't deterred by the high cost to get that.

The 5-Series is aimed at a plurality of users, whether pro, semi-pro, or amateur who want or need maximum resolution in a high level all-purpose generalist camera who can handle the cost of a 5-Series body.

Their other products are similarly designed to target a plurality of various buyers who need specific camera functionalities at a specific price point.

 

[Michael Clark]

And what a pro needs can change from day to day depending on the type of pro and the needs for each specific assignment.

Which is why some of the highest level pros rent what they need for each assignment and bill the rental cost to the customer. It also makes it easier to fly from wherever they're based to NYC, Los Angeles, Paris, London or a similar hub for commercial/fashion photography where rental houses are plentiful for the assignment.

 

[Michael Clark]

Don't be silly, millions of people were delighted with about 1/7th of a megapixel for decades

A good quality wet drum scan of a low speed [in the ASA 25 to ASA 64 neighborhood] 135 format color negative contains about as much information as a 20-24MP digital image taken with comparable lenses under comparable lighting. As grain size increases with speed, that goes down. But so does digital sensor S/N ratio and DR when ISO is boosted. The big advantage digital at present has over film at its zenith is the usability of images shot at ISOs that would have been INSANE for typical film in the 1990s.

 

[Michael Clark]

As someone who does a fair amount of printing I agree that for even large, high resolution prints you don’t need what most now consider to be ‘high mp’ cameras.
However, for a 10x8” print at 300 dpi you require 7.2 million mp, not 2.
Extrapolate this up and you can see why 24 million mp really is more than enough for the vast majority of general uses.

You need 8.6MP at 3:2 if you're going to crop to 5:4. It takes a 2400 x 3600 pixel sensor to produce a 2400 x 3000 pixel crop from a 3:2 sensor.

But to double that linear size to 20 x 16 (or 16 x 20), you need four times as many pixels, or 34.6 MP if a 3:2 sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

Nor 16x20 a maximum. Surprisingly, one of the biggest markets for needing really high resolution are advertising posters (the kind you see in bus stops and other transportation hubs) since they tend to be a couple of dozen square feet and people view them at a close distance. That's, right now, a medium format only market from what I hear from pros in that market.

AI based resizing is getting to the point of changing that, though it still depends upon the properties of the subject(s) and how susceptible to artifacts the fine details are.

 

[Michael Clark]

But at 16x20 you need less PPI anyway: 150 PPI is plenty and as you print larger proportionally less is needed because the comfortable viewing distance increases and the limitations of human eyesight.
Magazine size is the apex of where detail is needed

You need exactly the same number of pixels to get the same visual experience for a viewer looking at an 8x10 at one foot or a 16 x 20 at two feet, because the angle of view, and thus the number of pixels per minute of arc of the viewer's vision is exactly the same. Ditto for an 80 x 100 feet image viewed at 120 feet.