Canon: No Plans for High Resolution R1

[SvO2]

I understand canon wants a single flagship (though I think the 1D / 1Ds strategy was better), but the segmentation is definitely annoying. I'm sure many R5II owners could benefit from things like dual CFE slots, smart controller, larger bufffer. There's technically no reason such things couldn't be implemented on the lower end non-flagship model

 

[alFR]

Look, for me the move to MF was triggered empirically: I was happily dabbling into fashion photography with my 1D X, but then at one event I was allowed to shoot images with an Hasselblad (H5D-50) and, after the shoot, at home looking at the images, I fell in love with the detail and colors. From that moment on I started saving Simple as that.

Thanks for the follow-up, interesting (esp. about the detail shots / extreme crops, hadn't thought of that). Nothing wrong with shooting with what you like either!

 

[Sporgon]

Look, for me the move to MF was triggered empirically: I was happily dabbling into fashion photography with my 1D X, but then at one event I was allowed to shoot images with an Hasselblad (H5D-50) and, after the shoot, at home looking at the images, I fell in love with the detail and colors. From that moment on I started saving Simple as that.

You’ve hit the nail on the head here regarding “high resolution”. Viewing on a good quality computer screen at 100%.
Only you are going to see that. Outside of this, when it comes to viewing the whole image, even on a very big display, or printing, again, even very large, the difference between say 20mp and 50 on FF is not as obvious, and I guess the reason for this is that 20mp itself is already high resolution when you consider our human attributes.
I can well understand why those employed professionally in many areas of photography don’t want more than 24mp because their images aren’t being judged solely by someone scrutinising then at 200% on a 5K monitor.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I understand canon wants a single flagship (though I think the 1D / 1Ds strategy was better), but the segmentation is definitely annoying. I'm sure many R5II owners could benefit from things like dual CFE slots, smart controller, larger bufffer. There's technically no reason such things couldn't be implemented on the lower end non-flagship model

In particular, I find the Smart Controller to be far superior to any other method of AF point selection and I wish Canon would push that down to the 5- and 6-series, at least. It mattered far less in DSLR days with AF points numbering in the 10's, but with the entire frame available, the Smart Controller is just awesome. I find the R8 a bit frustrating in that regard now, but fortunately my use of that body is typically when I'm not in a hurry to take the shot.

 

[Karm]

You’ve hit the nail on the head here regarding “high resolution”. Viewing on a good quality computer screen at 100%.
Only you are going to see that. Outside of this, when it comes to viewing the whole image, even on a very big display, or printing, again, even very large, the difference between say 20mp and 50 on FF is not as obvious, and I guess the reason for this is that 20mp itself is already high resolution when you consider our human attributes.
I can well understand why those employed professionally in many areas of photography don’t want more than 24mp because their images aren’t being judged solely by someone scrutinising then at 200% on a 5K monitor.

Cropping does have a practical benefit though.

But I can still recall the first time I watched huge enlarged portraits taken with a medium format camera in a local photo museum. It was uncanny. It was like it was 3d, like I was staring at a person actually there. There was SO much detail. It pulled me in.

I don't think I'd be able to do something like that with my 24MPx camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But I can still recall the first time I watched huge enlarged portraits taken with a medium format camera in a local photo museum. It was uncanny. It was like it was 3d, like I was staring at a person actually there. There was SO much detail. It pulled me in.

I don't think I'd be able to do something like that with my 24MPx camera.

I haven't tried it myself, but I wonder about automatic panoramic stitching software (e.g. PTGui) combined with a 40 fps burst (or less, probably) while moving the camera around. Just a thought...

 

[Sporgon]

Cropping does have a practical benefit though.

But I can still recall the first time I watched huge enlarged portraits taken with a medium format camera in a local photo museum. It was uncanny. It was like it was 3d, like I was staring at a person actually there. There was SO much detail. It pulled me in.

I don't think I'd be able to do something like that with my 24MPx camera.

I agree that the original capture size has more influence on the perceived output quality than a difference of a few million pixels, once you’re over a certain threshold at least.

 

[roby17269]

I haven't tried it myself, but I wonder about automatic panoramic stitching software (e.g. PTGui) combined with a 40 fps burst (or less, probably) while moving the camera around. Just a thought...

I guess it could work as long as the shutter sped is fast enough to freeze the motion of the camera (I assume that the stitching software would have issues matching smeared shapes otherwise)

 

[roby17269]

You’ve hit the nail on the head here regarding “high resolution”. Viewing on a good quality computer screen at 100%.
Only you are going to see that. Outside of this, when it comes to viewing the whole image, even on a very big display, or printing, again, even very large, the difference between say 20mp and 50 on FF is not as obvious, and I guess the reason for this is that 20mp itself is already high resolution when you consider our human attributes.
I can well understand why those employed professionally in many areas of photography don’t want more than 24mp because their images aren’t being judged solely by someone scrutinising then at 200% on a 5K monitor.

It also depends on the subject matter... areas with fine detail such as hair / textiles / fur / feathers / etc may suffer if the resolution goes below a certain threshold. Sometimes that is visible on print or on a small screen.
But generally speaking you are right.

 

[Del Paso]

Frankly, I don't see the issue here.
Even in the past, the 1 series cameras were always meant for professionals, like sports- and photojournalists. It was and is by far the most rugged camera existing.
Was it ever meant to be a "Jack of all trades"?
Most pro tools are built for specific uses, and the R1 is a pro tool. For more MP? R5 II...

 

[David - Sydney]

I haven't tried it myself, but I wonder about automatic panoramic stitching software (e.g. PTGui) combined with a 40 fps burst (or less, probably) while moving the camera around. Just a thought...

PTgui/stitching software doesn't increase resolution in itself. It "joins" the images to make the canvas bigger after matching control points between images. The overall image will have a higher resolution as the canvas size increases but the pixel density doesn't change.

Pixel shift feature will increase resolution but Canon's (and other's) implementation has a lot to be desired besides a spec sheet tickbox. I haven't seen many people being positive about using it in the R5 after the firmware was released. Prone to anything moving of course but if shooting at 30fps in the R5ii or 40fps on R1 then it should minimise any movement.

Aligning multiple images and stacking in PS will reduce noise if needed but won't also wont' increase resolution.

 

[neuroanatomist]

PTgui/stitching software doesn't increase resolution in itself. It "joins" the images to make the canvas bigger after matching control points between images. The overall image will have a higher resolution as the canvas size increases but the pixel density doesn't change.

Obviously. That was what I was suggesting – a longer focal length and image stitching for a higher resolution final image compared to a single frame with a shorter focal length.

 

[vikingar]

I guess the logic is that so much detail was added to the world and everything in it during the 12 years between the 1D X and the R1 that while the 18 MP 1D X was basically a ‘do it all’ flagship, the 24 MP R1 isn’t.

My eyesight has gone from 20/20 to 20/30 over that 12 years, I suppose that’s why I’ve missed all the extra detail in the world that requires double the MP to capture. So sad.

Everytime I get new glasses it feels exactly like that happened.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Everytime I get new glasses it feels exactly like that happened.

You need new retinas with a higher MP (megaphotoreceptor) count.

 

[Ozarker]

Thanks for acknowledging that I'm right that unlike Sony and Nikon now and Canon in their film days, Canon currently has no true flagship.

You'll also note that I wasn't saying that not having a true flagship was a bad financial choice. Canon seems to think that's a good choice and they're surviving in a tough market. On the other hand, both Sony and Nikon disagree and are also surviving in that same tough market.

The question of whether having a true flagship body matters in the long run is something we'll find out only in the long run.

I'm just wondering how a high resolution camera (assuming 100mp) would "handle everything you could throw at it" as a flagship. It seems the sports shooters who shoot at high shutter speeds might balk. Either they'll have storage issues, transmission issues, slow shutter speeds...

To me, and I'm nobody of any consequence, it makes more sense to have two bodies. Why is there room for only one flagship? Hell, the USA has 11 aircraft carriers, each probably a "flagship". Flagship is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.

 

[Sporgon]

I'm just wondering how a high resolution camera (assuming 100mp) would "handle everything you could throw at it" as a flagship.

Personally I think that a 100mp FF camera sensor is somewhat self-defeating due to diffraction, and maybe Canon think so too.
As a long term 5DS user I can assure you that at f/16 diffraction degrades the resolution to the point where you are no better off than using a lesser system, unless your output is at the maximum size that your pixel count can natively manage, which of course it virtually never is.
F/16 isn’t a greatly used aperture, so the 50mp sensor is OK most of the time, but as the pixel count gets much higher the point at which diffraction has a practical effect will be seen at more commonly used apertures, especially for the likes of landscape, say f/11, which is a commonly used aperture in many areas of photography.
With crop sensors you are able to use wider apertures to achieve the same dof as equivalent FF, and so those sensors can stand a higher pixel density.

 

[EricN]

Yes. Companies did have flagship cameras even in the film days.

Because of the nature of film, there was no set resolution for individual camera models in the same way the digital cameras we are discussing have one dedicated sensor in each model. Your argument about what "flagship" means regarding resolution vs speed between film and digital isn't sensical because they are different in this respect.

 

[roby17269]

PTgui/stitching software doesn't increase resolution in itself. It "joins" the images to make the canvas bigger after matching control points between images. The overall image will have a higher resolution as the canvas size increases but the pixel density doesn't change.

Per se stitching does not increase pixel density, that's true.
But indirectly it can, in the sense that you can use a longer focal length and stich as opposed to a single shot with a wider fl. You can achieve the same framing, but in the first case you would have a higher pixel density on any given portion of the image. The downsides are, obviously, that you have to shoot more images and to spend time stitching them in post

 

[docsmith]

You’ve hit the nail on the head here regarding “high resolution”. Viewing on a good quality computer screen at 100%.
Only you are going to see that. Outside of this, when it comes to viewing the whole image, even on a very big display, or printing, again, even very large, the difference between say 20mp and 50 on FF is not as obvious, and I guess the reason for this is that 20mp itself is already high resolution when you consider our human attributes.
I can well understand why those employed professionally in many areas of photography don’t want more than 24mp because their images aren’t being judged solely by someone scrutinising then at 200% on a 5K monitor.

An interesting element of photography is being able to show something we see everyday differently. To “see” something differently than before. We have all sorts of tricks to do this, lighting, perspective, shutter speed (slow and fast), DoF to draw our focus, bokeh, etc.

In the great MP debate I think there are both tangible and psychological differences.

I fully admit I get a psychological rush when I pop into my R5 images at 100%. I am seeing different, details that are not readily apparent.

With the R1, I still see many of the same details, but they are less apparent.

That said, output is the equalizer. When I compare images at my standard outputs, not pixel peeping at 100%, I am hard pressed to see a difference between the R1 and R5.

When I’ve done comparative crops, I am usually down to <1% of the frame to maybe 2% of the frame before I really start noticing the difference.

Not a common use case. At least for me.

 

[MikeGalos]

Because of the nature of film, there was no set resolution for individual camera models in the same way the digital cameras we are discussing have one dedicated sensor in each model. Your argument about what "flagship" means regarding resolution vs speed between film and digital isn't sensical because they are different in this respect.

At the time, the flagship was the all-around, do anything professional ruggedness body. For those needing ultra high speed bursts Canon and Nikon made special high-speed bodies such as Canon's F-1 High Speed Motor Drive Camera and Nikon's F2H and F3H.