R5 @ 45MP is "real" ("fake" 150MP R5s?)

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

This rumor is marked CR1 which is just that, a rumor with no substance ...

There is no way of a 150MP sensor in an R5S/R3. It would make little sense to jump from 50MP of the current 5DSR to 150. Technological advancement is typically smooth but not as abrupt as this would suggest. No one would have the infrastructure to deal this this resolution at this point.

CR1 "This is a third-party rumor, I haven’t heard anything about this from my sources. So please take it with a grain of salt."

There is no credible information, just nothing to talk about.

Give us something tangible and we'll go crazy about.

N-VB said:

CR1 "This is a third-party rumor, I haven’t heard anything about this from my sources. So please take it with a grain of salt."

There is no credible information, just nothing to talk about.

Give us something tangible and we'll go crazy about.

Click to expand...

I know it's CR1 ... but the 5Ds line is now discontinued and a mirrorless successor should come soon and if the "unbelievable" 8K R5 is rea,l also an extreme 150MP camera could be in the road map ...

... moreover his 250MP and 120MP APS-H sensors are real andaavailable now ... just take a look at the videos to see what Canon can do today:


https://canon-cmos-sensors.com/canon-120mxs-cmos-sensor/

Canon decided (just few years ago) to start the production of sensors to outsource (just like the two above), probably to "imitate" Sony that produces sensors for smartphones (to make money), Canon also makes this very specialized sensors to make money, but mostly to make experience and reduce cost for their sensors line dedicated to their own cameras (this was told from Canon when they first decided to outsource specialized sensor).

So if they already have two very high resolution sensors in the market, they could use this experience to make a "medium format killer" 35mm 150MP sensor to replace the previous FF resolution king, it could be the same disruptive approach we see with the R5, as 8K looks too much and mostly unnecessary for most, but for sure some will take advantage of it, a FF with 150MP could also play the same game, too much resolution for most users, but some will benefit from it.

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

A 40MP sensor is plenty for me (even the 30MP will is fine).
If, and this is a big if, the R5 has IBIS and a pixel shift feature (like Olympus), you could get 160MP files - when you need it, but not have to deal with the larger files and the extra expense that a 150MP sensor would bring with it.

Not saying Canon shouldn’t make this, not saying no one doesn’t need that amount of resolution, just making another observation.

joenj said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

This rumor is marked CR1 which is just that, a rumor with no substance ...

There is no way of a 150MP sensor in an R5S/R3. It would make little sense to jump from 50MP of the current 5DSR to 150. Technological advancement is typically smooth but not as abrupt as this would suggest. No one would have the infrastructure to deal this this resolution at this point.

Click to expand...

When, 5 years ago, the 5Ds was announced, the jump was almost 2.5x times resolution compared to the 5DIII, so if the "new normal" R5 will be 45MP a 3+x jump in resolution to 150MP doesn't seem impossible.

If editing 8K video is( will be) possible for some, it's even easier to edit 150MP photos, as some photographers already do with 150MP (or 100MP) MF cameras , this should be the audience of such kind of camera.

NowHearThis said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

A 40MP sensor is plenty for me (even the 30MP will is fine).
If, and this is a big if, the R5 has IBIS and a pixel shift feature (like Olympus), you could get 160MP files - when you need it, but not have to deal with the larger files and the extra expense that a 150MP sensor would bring with it.

Not saying Canon shouldn’t make this, not saying no one doesn’t need that amount of resolution, just making another observation.

Click to expand...

I'm with you, I'm also more interested to the 45MP R5 (I assume it is at least 8192x5462pixels) than to a 150MP R5s ... but if the price difference will be the same as 5DIV vs 5Ds , a "backup" 150MP camera is not that bad

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

"Unnecessary" depends on what you want from a digital photography. If Canon released a 150mp FF R-Series camera this year they´d have my money. I prefer lots of MPs, the more the merrier.

Much as I want this, I highly doubt there´s anything to it. It is quite possible Canon (Sony, Nikon, etc...) are always testing several new sensors simultaneously, and it is equally possible there´s a very high MP sensor among them, however that´s still a far stretch from this sensor appearing in a camera on the market any time soon.

I remember rumors about a 70-80MP sensor from Sony some years ago, and what was the result? 42MP in the a7r II. 5-6 years and two generations later, we´re at 60MP.

That said, there´s a comment from Canonrumors which stuck with me: Someone wrote 150MP are not optional, but unavoidable and necessary. His point of reference was the drastic pace at which MPs increase in smart phones. he/she said, camera makers shouldn´t wonder what went wrong when smart phone cameras have 100+ MPs, while they´re stuck at 24.

So maybe that person turns out right after all.....

hjs_koeln said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

"Unnecessary" depends on what you want from a digital photography. If Canon released a 150mp FF R-Series camera this year they´d have my money. I prefer lots of MPs, the more the merrier.

Much as I want this, I highly doubt there´s anything to it. It is quite possible Canon (Sony, Nikon, etc...) are always testing several new sensors simultaneously, and it is equally possible there´s a very high MP sensor among them, however that´s still a far stretch from this sensor appearing in a camera on the market any time soon.

I remember rumors about a 70-80MP sensor from Sony some years ago, and what was the result? 42MP in the a7r II. 5-6 years and two generations later, we´re at 60MP.

That said, there´s a comment from Canonrumors which stuck with me: Someone wrote 150MP are not optional, but unavoidable and necessary. His point of reference was the drastic pace at which MPs increase in smart phones. he/she said, camera makers shouldn´t wonder what went wrong when smart phone cameras have 100+ MPs, while they´re stuck at 24.

So maybe that person turns out right after all.....

Click to expand...

I agree with your logic ... if this very hypothetical 150MP camera will exist and it's priced like the now RIP 5Ds I'm also interested, I think the R5 + R5s (or R3) could be the perfect couple of cameras for photographers that want both a backup (two cameras) and versatility speed/and video versus super high resolution.

GatanoII said:

NowHearThis said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

A 40MP sensor is plenty for me (even the 30MP will is fine).
If, and this is a big if, the R5 has IBIS and a pixel shift feature (like Olympus), you could get 160MP files - when you need it, but not have to deal with the larger files and the extra expense that a 150MP sensor would bring with it.

Not saying Canon shouldn’t make this, not saying no one doesn’t need that amount of resolution, just making another observation.

Click to expand...

I'm with you, I'm also more interested to the 45MP R5 (I assume it is at least 8192x5462pixels) than to a 150MP R5s ... but if the price difference will be the same as 5DIV vs 5Ds , a "backup" 150MP camera is not that bad

Click to expand...

Techradar.com is listing the R5 as having a ~40MP sensor, which is the minimum needed for 8K - a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor (that could record 8K) would have a size of 7680x5120 - this is 39.32MP or ~40MP since they’ll likely just round the resolution on the spec sheet.

NowHearThis said:

GatanoII said:

NowHearThis said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

A 40MP sensor is plenty for me (even the 30MP will is fine).
If, and this is a big if, the R5 has IBIS and a pixel shift feature (like Olympus), you could get 160MP files - when you need it, but not have to deal with the larger files and the extra expense that a 150MP sensor would bring with it.

Not saying Canon shouldn’t make this, not saying no one doesn’t need that amount of resolution, just making another observation.

Click to expand...

I'm with you, I'm also more interested to the 45MP R5 (I assume it is at least 8192x5462pixels) than to a 150MP R5s ... but if the price difference will be the same as 5DIV vs 5Ds , a "backup" 150MP camera is not that bad

Click to expand...

Techradar.com is listing the R5 as having a ~40MP sensor, which is the minimum needed for 8K - a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor (that could record 8K) would have a size of 7680x5120 - this is 39.32MP or ~40MP since they’ll likely just round the resolution on the spec sheet.

Click to expand...

DCI 8k is at least 8192 pixel wide (at 3:2 aspect ratio it is 45MP)... and I "trust" more Canon Rumors that states it's 45MP (CR2)

GatanoII said:

NowHearThis said:

GatanoII said:

NowHearThis said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

A 40MP sensor is plenty for me (even the 30MP will is fine).
If, and this is a big if, the R5 has IBIS and a pixel shift feature (like Olympus), you could get 160MP files - when you need it, but not have to deal with the larger files and the extra expense that a 150MP sensor would bring with it.

Not saying Canon shouldn’t make this, not saying no one doesn’t need that amount of resolution, just making another observation.

Click to expand...

I'm with you, I'm also more interested to the 45MP R5 (I assume it is at least 8192x5462pixels) than to a 150MP R5s ... but if the price difference will be the same as 5DIV vs 5Ds , a "backup" 150MP camera is not that bad

Click to expand...

Techradar.com is listing the R5 as having a ~40MP sensor, which is the minimum needed for 8K - a 3:2 aspect ratio sensor (that could record 8K) would have a size of 7680x5120 - this is 39.32MP or ~40MP since they’ll likely just round the resolution on the spec sheet.

Click to expand...

DCI 8k is at least 8192 pixel wide (at 3:2 aspect ratio it is 45MP)... and I "trust" more Canon Rumors that states it's 45MP (CR2)

Click to expand...

Haven’t heard much beyond 8K UHD (7680x4320), I’ll have to look up the CR article. None the less I’m not concerned about the resolution, if it’s 45 that’s fine, I think most are just hoping for 8K with no crop. (No rolling shutter would be wanted too, I’m sure.)

GatanoII said:

joenj said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

This rumor is marked CR1 which is just that, a rumor with no substance ...

There is no way of a 150MP sensor in an R5S/R3. It would make little sense to jump from 50MP of the current 5DSR to 150. Technological advancement is typically smooth but not as abrupt as this would suggest. No one would have the infrastructure to deal this this resolution at this point.

Click to expand...

When, 5 years ago, the 5Ds was announced, the jump was almost 2.5x times resolution compared to the 5DIII, so if the "new normal" R5 will be 45MP a 3+x jump in resolution to 150MP doesn't seem impossible.

If editing 8K video is( will be) possible for some, it's even easier to edit 150MP photos, as some photographers already do with 150MP (or 100MP) MF cameras , this should be the audience of such kind of camera.

Click to expand...

No, the jump was not 2.5x.

When the 5DS came out in 2015, the 5DIII was already 3 years old and shortly to be replaced (actually in 2016 with the 5DIV).

Therefore it is fair to say the jump was 1.7 i.e from 30 to 52.

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

I will take 150MP in a heartbeat. Some people always want to argue that resolution is unnecessary because they're thinking very old fashioned in terms of printers. Unfortunately printers have not improved in actual resolution in maybe 20 years. Additionally print sizes have not changed so resolution demands for prints are stagnant. 30 years ago an 8x10 was big. How is that still big when I could fit like six 8x10's onto my monitor? And yet, 16x20 is still rarely supported on home printers. So using prints as a guide for resolution is archaic.

The human eye resolves a lot of megapixels. Based on information from the web, I would guess that the full resolution of both eyes combined is in the 500 to 1000 megapixel range.

Monitors and televisions are going to evolve to take advantage of the huge resolution potential of the human eye. With 8k monitors coming out 45MP will be the bare minimum. How much is enough? The answer to that is probably a LOT more than the average person thinks.

I personally think that high resolution imagery is the future. In the next 10-15 years we'll be streaming 16k video on youtube and laughing about 4k resolution as having been "filmed with a potato".

Plus, there are currently cell phones with 30-100 megapixels. What am I supposed to tell my customers? That their cell phone is higher resolution than my camera? No thanks! I want to deliver ridiculously high quality imagery that no cell phone can touch. Regardless of how "unnecessary" it may seem to some people.

Why worry? I will talk when there will be an announcement.

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

Absolutly sure.

150Mp bayer sensor on FF: difraction limits

joenj said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

This rumor is marked CR1 which is just that, a rumor with no substance ...

There is no way of a 150MP sensor in an R5S/R3

Click to expand...

if you recall 2 or so years ago Canon had a press release about a 120 MP 35 mm dslr image sensor in a SLR camera prototype they said they planned to put in a consumer camera.

joenj said:

. It would make little sense to jump from 50MP of the current 5DSR to 150. Technological advancement is typically smooth but not as abrupt as this would suggest. No one would have the infrastructure to deal this this resolution at this point.

Click to expand...

It all depends on how close you are to the print and how old you are ;-)

--
My photos are at https://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

shawnphoto said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

I will take 150MP in a heartbeat. Some people always want to argue that resolution is unnecessary because they're thinking very old fashioned in terms of printers. Unfortunately printers have not improved in actual resolution in maybe 20 years. Additionally print sizes have not changed so resolution demands for prints are stagnant. 30 years ago an 8x10 was big. How is that still big when I could fit like six 8x10's onto my monitor? And yet, 16x20 is still rarely supported on home printers. So using prints as a guide for resolution is archaic.

The human eye resolves a lot of megapixels. Based on information from the web, I would guess that the full resolution of both eyes combined is in the 500 to 1000 megapixel range.

Monitors and televisions are going to evolve to take advantage of the huge resolution potential of the human eye. With 8k monitors coming out 45MP will be the bare minimum. How much is enough? The answer to that is probably a LOT more than the average person thinks.

I personally think that high resolution imagery is the future. In the next 10-15 years we'll be streaming 16k video on youtube and laughing about 4k resolution as having been "filmed with a potato".

Plus, there are currently cell phones with 30-100 megapixels. What am I supposed to tell my customers? That their cell phone is higher resolution than my camera? No thanks! I want to deliver ridiculously high quality imagery that no cell phone can touch. Regardless of how "unnecessary" it may seem to some people.

Click to expand...

While I agree with most of what you wrote, your assumption about the resolving power of the human is completely wrong. Visual physiology is a process completely different from what a camera does. It´s actually quite incomparable.

Just as a teaser: The human eye consists of 2 separate visual systems: One for space recognition, and one for detail, color and content. Both systems ore processed in different areas of the brain, and both systems result in very different types of information and resulting reaction to it.

Even if you try to limit yourself to what seems to resemble the sensor, meaning the retina and what goes on in there, you´ll run into problems.

Each eye has approx. 100 - 120 million rods, and 5-6 million cones in it´s retina. Rods and cones are photoreceptor cells and make up the first tier of neuronal processing in the retina. The next tier are the bipolar cells, the one after that ganglion cells. The nerve processes coming from ganglion cells eventually form the optic nerve.

In between those three tiers are horizontal and amacrine cells, about which little is known today. While those 3 tiers connect vertically, horizontal and amacrine cells connect horizontally, relaying impulses from one receptive field to other receptive fields. The horizontal connection improves contrast vision, among other things.

Here´s the catch: Each optic nerve consist of only 600.00 - 1,5 million fibers. Meaning there´s a conversion on a scale of 100:1 from photoreceptors to nerve fibers going on in the retina.

And now try to translate that into megapixels....

Most likely, the human eye can catch only a rather small number of megapixels (if there actually was a way to translate what the eye sees into megapixels), but the brain has an astounding ability to fill the gaps with content.

shawnphoto said:

GatanoII said:

but why no one is speaking of the rumor about the "fake"? 150MP R5s or R3?

no one interested in the successor of the now discontinued 5Ds and 5Dsr?

too good to be true or to much unnecessary resolution?

Click to expand...

I will take 150MP in a heartbeat. Some people always want to argue that resolution is unnecessary because they're thinking very old fashioned in terms of printers. Unfortunately printers have not improved in actual resolution in maybe 20 years. Additionally print sizes have not changed so resolution demands for prints are stagnant. 30 years ago an 8x10 was big. How is that still big when I could fit like six 8x10's onto my monitor? And yet, 16x20 is still rarely supported on home printers. So using prints as a guide for resolution is archaic.

The human eye resolves a lot of megapixels. Based on information from the web, I would guess that the full resolution of both eyes combined is in the 500 to 1000 megapixel range.

Monitors and televisions are going to evolve to take advantage of the huge resolution potential of the human eye. With 8k monitors coming out 45MP will be the bare minimum. How much is enough? The answer to that is probably a LOT more than the average person thinks.

I personally think that high resolution imagery is the future. In the next 10-15 years we'll be streaming 16k video on youtube and laughing about 4k resolution as having been "filmed with a potato".

Plus, there are currently cell phones with 30-100 megapixels. What am I supposed to tell my customers? That their cell phone is higher resolution than my camera? No thanks! I want to deliver ridiculously high quality imagery that no cell phone can touch. Regardless of how "unnecessary" it may seem to some people.

Click to expand...

Just a couple of comments. Six 8x10s at 300dpi = 14,400x18,000 pixels, which is one hell of a monitor!

Why not tell your customers the truth? Their phones have more MP but it's not the quantity but the quality that counts. Or maybe size matters more in your world?