High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?

[Dragon]

How does it save money by putting in an AA-filter in a newly designed sensor? (Not the 5DSR and 5DS compromise but a completely new sensor in a new camera). Filters presumably cost money so is that expenditure negated by a saving elsewhere?

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I meant everyone else trying to save money by omitting the filter, not Canon adding it.

 

[koenkooi]

Nope, its an area function 1.6x1.6x32.3MP=82.7MP and there are some differing opinions re the MP count of the sensor since it is often describes as a 33MP sensor, but 32.3MP is the size of the images.

The pixels along the side are covered so they don’t see any light during exposure. They are used for things like setting the black level.
I believe these sides are outside the APS-C area, so they shouldn’t count when trying to scale up the sensor to FF.
You can see those pixels if you use something like RAWdigger.

@AlanF tends to use absolute pixel sizes in micrometers to compare sensors, like the 7D2 and 5Ds. It sidesteps the extra pixel issue

 

[GMCPhotographics]

RF 1200mm + 2x extender

It alway amuses me when Canon often says that you should not stack 2x tc’s and then releases a 1200mm lens that is basically a 600mm /f4 with an inbuilt 2x tc. Then says “oh and it’s fully compatible with a 2x tc”. Yep, that effectively makes a stacked pair of TC’s.
Look at the MFT charts for the RF 1200mm f8 L IS, they are pretty much the same as the RF 600mm f4 L IS with a 2x TC.

 

[Walrus]

You have missed the discussion on this we had here and is also on other sites. EFCS doesn’t affect the shot it is in but in a burst at lower fps, the mechanical closing of the shutter of one shot causes a vibration that affects the next shot on the R7.

Oh ok! Got it! As a single shot shooter I had never thought about that, makes sense.

 

[Del Paso]

Leica lenses don't fit my R5 and Zeiss lenses are MF . The RF 28mm pancake is excellent, but I don't see 28mm as particularly wide. The new lenses will likely be great (and expensive), but at this point they simply aren't there.

Well, I was thinking Leica body + lens...a bit jokingly.
But seriously, all leica M lenses from 35mm fit EOS R cameras, I often use them myself. Unfortunately, this isn't possible with wider ones,(magenta cast) unless you use an SL 2 + 6 bit coded adapter. Then, you can use the widest Leica or Zeiss ZM (for Leica!) WAs. from 15mm upwards.
But the very best and easiest solution will be to wait a few months for the RF WAs or TS lenses. Till then, with your 14-35, you have a very usable equipment!

 

[Quack]

I struggle to understand why anybody needs a zoom lens for the sake of framing. A good photographer would just choose the correct prime. Or zoom with their feet!

If it sells it sells.

I guess you never shoot landscapes where zooming with your feet might be possible 10% of the time. Unless you can walk on water, or through thick brush, ravines, mountains or other obstacles. Or even shooting flowers in a garden where you don't really want to trample the other flowers or trespass onto other people's property. Or shoot any subject that may move like a bird or animal. Oh, of course, you could tell that bird, "Hey don't fly away just yet, I need to move closer..oh darn..."

 

[Del Paso]

I guess you never shoot landscapes where zooming with your feet might be possible 10% of the time. Unless you can walk on water, or through thick brush, ravines, mountains or other obstacles. Or even shooting flowers in a garden where you don't really want to trample the other flowers or trespass onto other people's property. Or shoot any subject that may move like a bird or animal. Oh, of course, you could tell that bird, "Hey don't fly away just yet, I need to move closer..oh darn..."

And even cropping is nothing more than a compromise...

 

[scyrene]

It alway amuses me when Canon often says that you should not stack 2x tc’s and then releases a 1200mm lens that is basically a 600mm /f4 with an inbuilt 2x tc. Then says “oh and it’s fully compatible with a 2x tc”. Yep, that effectively makes a stacked pair of TC’s.
Look at the MFT charts for the RF 1200mm f8 L IS, they are pretty much the same as the RF 600mm f4 L IS with a 2x TC.

Sure, but you can't physically stack RF teleconverters (without resorting to extension tubes) so this is the only way to get that result.

 

[scyrene]

I guess you never shoot landscapes where zooming with your feet might be possible 10% of the time. Unless you can walk on water, or through thick brush, ravines, mountains or other obstacles. Or even shooting flowers in a garden where you don't really want to trample the other flowers or trespass onto other people's property. Or shoot any subject that may move like a bird or animal. Oh, of course, you could tell that bird, "Hey don't fly away just yet, I need to move closer..oh darn..."

Erm I think they were sarcastically parodying the reply they were quoting. Sheesh.

 

[YuengLinger]

Erm I think they were sarcastically parodying the reply they were quoting. Sheesh.

Yes, I thought the statement itself, even without the context, was clearly sarcasm in this age of wonder zooms!

I admit I still have fun poking a little fun at supposed photographers who get agitated by a feature or improvement they can't imagine being of use to themselves or others, fearful, I suppose, of added costs and reduced performance.

And, just between friends, I fret about reduced performance too as I age.

 

[Software2]

I had a IBM PC, booted from a 5 1/4 floppy!!

Oh, when I got my first 3.5 inch Mavica! Sure, you could drop the resolution and store more pictures on a floppy. But I cranked that puppy up to the max and got like 10-12 shots per disk. And it was absurd - nothing had the resolution to even see images that large. Certainly nothing that I had access to at the time. But decades later, boy am I glad I went for the highest quality images possible back then, even though I had to haul around a laptop to cycle through floppies out in the field.

These days I carry a stack of 2TB NVME SSDs to dump my photos to in the field. And I always try to shoot with the highest resolution I can, even if it's technically unnecessary for my current needs. I'm rendering stack shots right now that are taking me hours to render, and if I could have shot them at double the megapixels I'd happily do so, even though it might slow me down even more. Technology always improves, and what is computationally expensive now will be trivial eventually. But the photos I take are moments in time that will never happen again - why would I sacrifice quality for convenience when I'm using higher end gear?

 

[Quack]

Yes, I thought the statement itself, even without the context, was clearly sarcasm in this age of wonder zooms!

I admit I still have fun poking a little fun at supposed photographers who get agitated by a feature or improvement they can't imagine being of use to themselves or others, fearful, I suppose, of added costs and reduced performance.

And, just between friends, I fret about reduced performance too as I age.

My Apologies. There are people who, in all seriousness, say the same thing you sarcastically said. My bad.

 

[Del Paso]

Yes, I thought the statement itself, even without the context, was clearly sarcasm in this age of wonder zooms!

I admit I still have fun poking a little fun at supposed photographers who get agitated by a feature or improvement they can't imagine being of use to themselves or others, fearful, I suppose, of added costs and reduced performance.

And, just between friends, I fret about reduced performance too as I age.

Sorry, but I misunderstood you too...

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Sure, but you can't physically stack RF teleconverters (without resorting to extension tubes) so this is the only way to get that result.

Yes...and that's a very cynical bit of marketing / engineering from Canon. If Canon decide to do it...it's fine and ok. But it's not ok if we decide to do this and Canon have deliberately blocked us by the way they have engineered their 2X TC's from the EF mkIII onwards. The MkII stacked fine with either the 1.4x or the 2x.

 

[amorse]

40~50MP for mid high MP but maintaining fast CMOS is my preference. However, Canon needs to put a 60+MP, sub-100MP FF to grab some market share from a7Rx series. Sony has monopoly in that segment.

Any higher will end up the lens cannot resolve the MP. And I struggle to understand why so much MP is needed if is for the sake of cropping. That just means they are using wrong focal length.

I had a response to a thought similar to this earlier in the thread which seems to be deleted, but since I think it is relevant to your question, I thought I'd repeat it.

I shoot almost exclusively landscapes and want higher resolution for cropping. My desire/use case for this comes partly from shooting via open window airplanes. In my experience, you need a pretty fast shutter speed to manage any sort of turbulence or vibration from the plane and since I'm shooting generally near sunrise or sunset, light levels can be pretty low. However, since the subjects are always a long distance off, you can get away with a fast aperture without worrying about depth of field in most circumstances. The focal range for me is generally not wider than 24mm, but it can get into zooming a ways in. For me, this has meant that the 24-70 f/2.8 is my go to, but I may need to crop to get a bit further on the long end. Sometimes you need to crop a lot. Changing lenses would be the obvious solution here, but the reality is that the scene/composition changes pretty fast and changing lenses is just too slow. Any time I've tried to change lenses to address a longer focal length need, the plane has already moved too far for the composition and we'd need to circle back to try again. The alternative would be using two bodies each with a different lens, but again, even that can be a bit too slow (and obviously requires that you have two bodies on hand).

So for me, I've found the most effective way to handle this is to compose as best as you can at the long end and crop in as much as needed. I often use software to improve the up scaling to get up to sufficient size to print, but this oftentimes comes with some weird artifacts. With all this said, the release of the 24-105 f/2.8 could help really reduce how much I have to crop but I've yet to try it. Regardless, that's where cropping comes in for me with landscapes where a longer focal length just may not be readily available. I'm more than content to have extra resolution which will go underutilized for the majority of my photos in order to improve the output of that use case: I'd say my images from airplanes are probably my favourites in my portfolio. For what it's worth!

 

[David - Sydney]

So for me, I've found the most effective way to handle this is to compose as best as you can at the long end and crop in as much as needed. I often use software to improve the up scaling to get up to sufficient size to print, but this oftentimes comes with some weird artifacts. With all this said, the release of the 24-105 f/2.8 could help really reduce how much I have to crop but I've yet to try it. Regardless, that's where cropping comes in for me with landscapes where a longer focal length just may not be readily available. I'm more than content to have extra resolution which will go underutilized for the majority of my photos in order to improve the output of that use case: I'd say my images from airplanes are probably my favourites in my portfolio. For what it's worth!

I agree that my aerial images are some of my favourites! I use my R5+RF24-105/4 for the same reasons as you but I have been shooting during the day rather than sunrise/set. I don't feel that I need more megapixels especially as the images tend to be abstracts so noise isn't as much of an issue and Topaz denoise is pretty good if there is an issue. f4 is ok as well.
If the RF24-105/2.8 is much sharper than the RF24-105/4 then that would be good but you may be stopping down to f4 anyway if there is corner vignetting.

 

[scyrene]

Yes...and that's a very cynical bit of marketing / engineering from Canon. If Canon decide to do it...it's fine and ok. But it's not ok if we decide to do this and Canon have deliberately blocked us by the way they have engineered their 2X TC's from the EF mkIII onwards. The MkII stacked fine with either the 1.4x or the 2x.

And I miss being able to do that, but I can't imagine enough people did it that it affected the decision to redesign them.

 

[Del Paso]

And I miss being able to do that, but I can't imagine enough people did it that it affected the decision to redesign them.

The new optical design of Mk.III extenders was not a marketing, but an optical decision. So they could achieve a much better optical quality, at the cost of higher compatibility.
I don't think prioritizing quality was such a bad decision...

 

[Fischer]

I understand what you say: the amount of blur is the same (assuming the amount of shake is the same, meaning same user, same fl, same IBIS/ILIS systems, same shutter mechanism). But the blur is more visible because of higher resolution assuming same pixel-level magnification.
In practical terms, what matters to me is the latter part. If I crop because I need / can (with a high-mp camera) then I am more likely to see more shake-induced blur. Which matches my experience where, all else being equal, I see more blur with higher resolution sensors.
Even if there is no causal relation, what matters to me is the practical fact that higher-mp cameras require more discipline shooting them or accepting more visible blur.

This relies on another misunderstanding - that you can compare different size sensors without equalizing the viewing size first - looking at a high res picture and seeing more blur is not because there is more blur - you have just choosen to compare with a picture which in fact is different and cannot be compared. If the low res shot is viewed at the same viewing size the blur will be equally visible.

 

[Phil995511]

Canon has lost leadership to Sony for sensors. Sony and Nikon manufacture excellent lenses which are also beginning to seriously compete with Canon.

Canon betrayed the trust of its wildlife photographer customers by talking about the future launch of a 600 MM EF F4 DO before abandoning this project of which they had nevertheless developed a 100% functional prototype (I had chosen Canon for this future optics). After that, not satisfied with themselves, they once again betrayed the trust of all of their customers this time by wanting to purely and simply remove the EF range and by wanting to impose the RF format on us. The RF format which was not necessary, the only purpose of this format is to force us to change our entire range of cameras and lenses and lose a lot of money ;-(

I am disappointed, disgusted by their behavior. If they believe that it is a way of retaining their hard-won customers over time to force them to change all their equipment, at prices which have suddenly increased by more than 30%, they are wrong. greatly ;-( Sony not only occupies first place today in terms of technological innovations but they don\'t seem to make fun of their customers...