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

[justaCanonuser]

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

There is a "wall" simply because of physics, of the wave nature of light (diffraction), see my discussion with Alan F above. That's why I'd prefer to switch to a medium format sensor when I wanted such a huge resolution. Fuji's GFX system is really attractive. But currently I still prefer film when I shoot medium format, because e.g. a 60mm x 60mm film camera has a substantial bigger image size than those 44mm x 33mm sensors. That pronounces the "medium format look" of the images even more and sets them apart from the 35mm world.

 

[Sporgon]

But currently I still prefer film when I shoot medium format, because e.g. a 60mm x 60mm film camera has a substantial bigger image size than those 44mm x 33mm sensors. That pronounces the "medium format look" of the images even more and sets them apart from the 35mm world.

Dream on !

 

[GoldWing]

I don't believe it. Canon at 100MP will have to compete with the Fuji GFX100s. Canon will never touch the IQ. Canon should make the R1 80 to 85 MP, doubling the resolution of the 1DXMKIII.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

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?

What makes you think a tse lens would help you get an 800 Mp image? The gfx 100s is only 100Mp and you don't even get 2 full frames in a classic max +/- stitching technique. Even with the very annoying 4 piece diagonal method, it's still barely and effective amount of maybe 2-2.5 frames tops. So you are basically lucky to get a 200Mp image by TSE method.

I use the Fringer pro EF-G adapter which has a ring that can be assigned and works well for manual non-communicating lenses to set aperture.

Regarding tele lenses, I have tested with very good results my canon 300/2.8 II IS on the GFX as well as with the 1.4, 2x and even doubled up 2x mkII with 2x Mk III onto it, then camera. The resulting equivalent on gfx is 960mm and autofocus is retained as well as lens IS combining with the Fuji IBIS it's kind of amazing.

The canon 70-200/2.8 II on it's own isn't so good and vignettes the whole range except at 200 but with the 1.4x, it's usable the full length and it makes it almost a similar field of view as on 35mm. 200 x 1.4 = 280 but then x .8 for gfx format = about 220. I shoot the GFX in 5:4 mode so it's even closer to the focal range I'm familiar with seeing.

To be honest though, the GFX 100s doesn't really replace the canon cameras I have in some aspects for certain shooting. It's slower to utilize, ergonomics are ok at best. I have a 5dsr that the gfx IS replacing for how i used that one but it's silly to even compare with the fast and fluid use of my 1DxIII and even my 5DC focuses better and works faster than the GFX.

I'm hoping this canon 100mp deal will be a 1D type body and at least have dynamic range getting into the 14+ stops zone but we shall see.

 

[AlanF]

I'm hoping this canon 100mp deal will be a 1D type body and at least have dynamic range getting into the 14+ stops zone but we shall see.

14+ is 2+ more than the present R series.

 

[Deleted member 380853]

14+ is 2+ more than the present R series.

Yes, it is, exactly my point. The R bodies are barely better DR than my 5dsr in terms of just image quality. I have recently been spoiled by the fuji 33x44 sensor ! But for fast fluid and enjoyable camera operation, I still prefer my 1dx3.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, it is, exactly my point. The R bodies are barely better DR than my 5dsr in terms of just image quality. I have recently been spoiled by the fuji 33x44 sensor ! But for fast fluid and enjoyable camera operation, I still prefer my 1dx3.

You won't get 14+ on a 36mm x 24mm sensor, so I am afraid you will have to stick with a larger format.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Dream on !

Yepp, I start to dream always when I take my Mamiya 6x6 and go out with it

 

[justaCanonuser]

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.

As others commented already, medium format means bigger image (sensor) sizes. It has often been discussed, also on CR, whether Canon would enter the MF market or not. I doubt they'll ever do, because that still is a very small, specialized market segment. Plus, they now are heavily invested in their transformation to the RF mount, which now looks like a long-term success but still needs investments into the expansion of the RF lens line etc.

For Fujifilm it was a different decision to jump into a new digital MF system, because they already have a long history with MF cameras and a certain reputation. So, besides a small pro photographer segment, like Hasselblad they could hope to attract wealthy amateur photographers with a bit of a luxury taste. Looks like it works well for Fuji, but I haven't checked their latest financial reports.

 

[stevelee]

What makes you think a tse lens would help you get an 800 Mp image? The gfx 100s is only 100Mp and you don't even get 2 full frames in a classic max +/- stitching technique. Even with the very annoying 4 piece diagonal method, it's still barely and effective amount of maybe 2-2.5 frames tops. So you are basically lucky to get a 200Mp image by TSE method.

My 6D2 is just over 26MP. With the 24mm TS-E I shot 19 frames using extremes of shift and rotating in 30º intervals (where the lens clicks) and had Photoshop stitch it all together. It came out about 85MP. So in guessing at the 100S results, I wildly extrapolated and guessed 800MP. There would be more issues with falloff, I realize, so that would be more than optimistic in terms of what would be usable. Reality might not be much more than 300 MP. Since I don't know what I'd really use 100MP for, the difference between 300 and 800 is not significant for me. I wouldn't even try the 400MP mode. If nothing ever moved, that might give you 1200MP with the TS-E, but I am not going there. Obviously for more than playing around, I'd rotate between the 30º clicks, too.

 

[photographer]

This one or Fujifilm GFX 100S for portraits? Tough choice…

 

[Sporgon]

This one or Fujifilm GFX 100S for portraits? Tough choice…

Let’s hope you’ve got some blemish free models.

 

[photographer]

Let’s hope you’ve got some blemish free models.

Good note. For the first time in my life, I'm considering leaving Canon. What if in 5 years there will be (portraits, glamour,…) FF format only for amateurs like the APS-C today?

 

[DotCom Editor]

Yes, the focus on that camera is not as good as r5. I returned my R3

I have no idea what an R3 is, as I am not seriously considering a mirrorless camera. I was referring to the 1D Mark III, from 2007. Mine was recalled twice, and then sent back yet again for a third round of repairs. Eventually it focused ok, but never lived up to the hype or expectations. And then there was the major recall of the original 24-105mm lens, due to internal flare caused by a reflective screwhead.

 

[DotCom Editor]

I'd love a 100MP full frame camera. I love detail in images. It would however cause alot of extra expense. Bigger memory cards, bigger external harddrives and a new laptop. I don't get laptops these days. When cameras were 10MP you could get a 2TB external disk drive. Now we are heading for 100MP images and SSD Drives tend to be 1TB or less. Thank god they created SSD Drives or we'd never be able to process large images. I wonder are CFExpress cards very profitable. They are very expensive and run very hot. None have died yet but I'd wonder are they cooking away until they fail.

I make very large prints on my 44-inch Canon PRO-4000. I'd love 100MP to get full-frame detail at very large print sizes, and I'd also like it for the ability to crop significantly, when I can't get close enough, such as at a concert or sporting event.

 

[Michael Clark]

True, they have announced two cameras at once in the past, but not two true flagships.

The R6 was announced alongside the R5, but the development announcement (8k etc) were solely about the R5. Imho, I guess the R6 was announced alongside the R5 because theirs was a pressing need for a more affordable and capable camera. At the point of the announcement, canon had a „flawed“ R, many people were unhappy with it. It was accompanied with the cheap RP and the headscratcher Ra. It was make or break for canon, so a huge announcement was needed.

The two-flagship theory sounds intriguing, but in the past those two flagships were announced separately. Imho, the R6 is not a flagship, so a double flagship announcement would be a premier.

Furthermore, I believe that the flagship R1 will be more like the A1/ Z9. Underneath canon will have a flagship made for speed (R3) and the high MP camera (R5s or so). If, and only if the high MP camera cracks 100mp, I could imagine an R1 with about 70-75mp.

If I remember correctly, the 1D X and the 5D Mark III were officially announced several months apart, but shipped/went on sale the same week in March of 2012.

 

[Michael Clark]

This is the best explanation I’ve seen for using the 1.6x crop in camera for wildlife. You make good points about having all that data that’s essentially empty anyway with distant subjects. And having the larger subject for tracking. Makes sense to me. Personally I think a faster buffer was more of an issue back in the day; even higher MP cameras move data plenty quickly for my use with moving critters, but to each their own.

It’s difficult to wrap my head around having a camera that can capture a ton of data and not using it—being stuck with 17MP on that photo forever. The FOMO of “what if” that subject suddenly fills the frame while flying towards me or another subject quickly darts into the scene, and I can’t switch back quickly enough for that photo of a lifetime. Perhaps a refinement that experienced wildlife shooters evolve to—not there yet personally.

I’ve generally been against the in-camera crop with the R5 but you’ve shifted my perspective a little and going to give it a whirl now. Thanks for the post.

If one maps one of the control buttons to switching between FF and crop mode, changing is quicker than zooming from one end to the other of a large zoom lens.

 

[Michael Clark]

It's good practice to set a personal limit on the number of photos that one keeps. Since switching to digital in 2002, I've been shooting around 15-20,000 images per year, but I decided long ago to restrict the total number of images in my collection to a maximum of 25,000. It pays to review older images regularly and compare them to current work, throwing out anything that is sub-par, and raising the overall standard.

I'll typically take around 30 shots of each subject on a given occasion, trying to get the best possible composition, lighting etc. After downloading to my computer, I compare images side by side in LR, whittling them down until I'm left with just 2 or 3 shots of each subject that get edited. After editing I then compare the final results with any similar but older shots that I have, and usually find that the latest "version" is better, so the older ones get thrown out.

If I had a 100MP camera (I don't want or need one, 45-50MP is enough for me), I'd still keep to a maximum of 25,000 images, but upgrade my storage capacity.

It all depends upon what one is doing. If wedding and event shooters did that, they'd be in trouble the first time a client didn't back up anything and calls for backup copies a few years after the fact.

 

[Michael Clark]

Well, such a camera will be great for modeling, portraits, landscape, architecture, however, it will have lower ISO and FPS, which will, unless resolved, a draw back for any action photography.

I just wonder, about the lenses such camera will need to have to produce as sharp images. Cause, as seen before, less pixels still can tolerate optical errors, and images that are sharp on the R6 are not so on the R5 just because the R5 has double the number of pixels on the sensor.

That's only because viewing both at "100%" means you're enlarging the 45MP sensor by over twice the linear magnification as the smaller one.

If you're using a 28 inch 4K monitor with a pixel pitch of 160 ppi, viewing a 20MP image at 100% is looking at a piece of a 34x23 inch enlargement. Viewing a 45MP image at 100% is looking at a piece of a 51x34 inch enlargement.

If you're using a 24 inch FHD monitor with about 96 ppi, the comparative sizes at "100%" are 57x38 and 85x57 inches, respectively.

 

[entoman]

It all depends upon what one is doing. If wedding and event shooters did that, they'd be in trouble the first time a client didn't back up anything and calls for backup copies a few years after the fact.

Yes that's an obvious exception. I was an industrial/commercial photographer for many years, and of course, everything had to be archived for the clients. My post was aimed at a different audience - hobbyists.

And, of course, there will always be shots (once in a lifetime travel photos, family photos etc) that need to be kept for sentimental reasons, even if they are of poor quality.

But I reiterate the fact that I've found that the quality of my wildlife photography has improved by leaps and bounds due to my practice of regularly reviewing my images, comparing them to older work, and dumping the sub-par stuff. It simply improves the overall standard of my work.