30Mpx is the perfect size for sports shooting with a FF, IMO, after having used the 5D4 for years. It affords several things:
- Allows for cropping when shooting a bit loosely for the action
- Still allows for resampling down to combat noise and retain detail
- Affords much resolution for large prints for very critical action shots
- Great low light results at higher ISOs
I surely hope the R1 has better IQ than a sports/PJ body like the R3 or a1.
30MP was a good compromise in 2016, but now that goal has moved to 45-50MP.
EB-1 wrote:
I surely hope the R1 has better IQ than a sports/PJ body like the R3 or a1.
30MP was a good compromise in 2016, but now that goal has moved to 45-50MP.
EBH
What's wrong with the image quality on the R3? It has the lowest noise of pretty much any camera out there. Or did you just mean more pixels?
arbitrage wrote:
I don't know if you've shot the R3 but that has to be the nicest sized, integrated grip camera I've used since the 1DIV. And it is much better ergo than the 1DIV. I see no reason to make the body any larger than the R3. Just upgrade the card slots and the rest will be the sensor and FW. There is no point to make a larger body than the R3. It is as close to perfect as I've ever used (and I've used a lot of gripped bodies and bodies with grips).
I have not seen or (obviously!) used the R3. As a matter of fact, the only R camera I have used is the R itself.
I'm a bit strange about these things. I generally avoid going head over heels about new cameras and stuff, instead trying to get my rational mind about the facts about the things in preparation for the time when it will make sense to buy something. For me, it doesn't make sense to buy any Canon gear at the moment. The camera that I would want would be the theoretical high-MP "R5s," so I'll pay a lot more careful attention when that comes.
(At the same time, since a "R5s" purchase would likely be accompanied by a wholesale replacement of my existing EF lenses, some of which I'm already selling off. Given that this means a complete system replacement whether I get Canon or one of the other interesting competitors, I'll also be taking a serious look at non-Canon options at that time.)
I'm with you on the question of camera body size. I think the notion that super expensive high end cameras must be bigger makes no rational sense. I know the arguments about big lenses and all that, but having used cameras ranging in size from quite small to quite large... I'll take a smaller body over a large one with the same capabilities any day.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I have not seen or (obviously!) used the R3. As a matter of fact, the only R camera I have used is the R itself.
I'm a bit strange about these things. I generally avoid going head over heels about new cameras and stuff, instead trying to get my rational mind about the facts about the things in preparation for the time when it will make sense to buy something. For me, it doesn't make sense to buy any Canon gear at the moment. The camera that I would want would be the theoretical high-MP "R5s," so I'll pay a lot more careful attention when that comes.
(At the same time, since a "R5s" purchase would likely be accompanied by a wholesale replacement of my existing EF lenses, some of which I'm already selling off. Given that this means a complete system replacement whether I get Canon or one of the other interesting competitors, I'll also be taking a serious look at non-Canon options at that time.)
I'm with you on the question of camera body size. I think the notion that super expensive high end cameras must be bigger makes no rational sense. I know the arguments about big lenses and all that, but having used cameras ranging in size from quite small to quite large... I'll take a smaller body over a large one with the same capabilities any day.
And does it come up anywhere in that rational process that more resolution isn’t really worth it? Personally, while I like the ‘kick’ of zooming in on a high-res image, I don’t really see the point in practice, other than cropping.
The market is / has changed. Previously there was a lot of event photography and sports; now (even before the pandemic, but the pandemic completely made those genres disappear) those fields are not as viable as they were in so far as professional photography is concerned. Instead, manufactures place more focus on product & fashion photography & video and wealthy amateur wildlife photographers as the target for flagship cameras. This is seen in Sony (A1), Nikon (Z9) and maybe also Canon (the future R1). Since processors, computers are now more powerful and networks are faster, the high resolution cameras can now also be used for action subjects with less pain than in the past.
For portrait and fashion, vertical images are common and the vertical grip is an ergonomic advantage (for those who can put up with the weight). There is space for a larger battery in the grip and the 8K video capability causes more heat to be generated which is easier to manage in a physically larger body, so there is no overheating. Thus there are justifications and benefits from the larger body in these applications. Smaller high-resolution camera bodies still continue to exist.
johnvanr wrote:
And does it come up anywhere in that rational process that more resolution isn’t really worth it? Personally, while I like the ‘kick’ of zooming in on a high-res image, I don’t really see the point in practice, other than cropping.
Agreed. If I don’t have to crop I’m just as happy to have a full frame 24MP image as I am a FF 50MP image. In fact I’d rather just have the 24MP image. I also feel that for action there are diminishing returns as we go higher and higher MPs even if I have to crop.
Cropping is why I like the 45-50MP cameras. I don’t have much desire for any more MPs.
Higher resolutions are more than just about cropping. There are other "advantages". For example, take an R7 image where it was shot identically on a 24Mpx FF at the same settings, the R7 after post processing and resampling to match the FF resolution will be nearly identical in IQ.
Resolution serves an "equalization" purpose in addition to cropability.
Then yes, there is that nice ability sometimes to be able to drill into an image file and see things you didn't notice. That is nice for busy landscape or streetscape photos. It is great to be able to do a full landscape from a tower over a bustling city, and then later have the resolution to drill around and see things you never noticed later. Love watching the kids look through old vacation shots and peering around the frame on a big monitor and noticing things they didn't even see in person.
Resolution serves a nice "digital zoom and see detail"pedestrian experience as well (mentioned earlier).
Just think of the price that could be demanded for a wall mural if you could do shot over a busy area of Italy at high resolutions, and that could be replicated in that detail at a high end Italian restaurant. People would be able to get up close and see all kinds of detail vs the older style of 50-100dpi wall murals viewed at 10 feet out. That is happening today in fact at some establishments.
Resolution provides "additional tools" to the professional shooter's arsenal of revenue products.
johnvanr wrote:
And does it come up anywhere in that rational process that more resolution isn’t really worth it? Personally, while I like the ‘kick’ of zooming in on a high-res image, I don’t really see the point in practice, other than cropping.
There is a short answer to that question and a long answer. The short answer is that it depends. It may make little or no difference to many people (and, in some cases, the downsides outweigh the potential pluses), but it does make a difference in my photography. (I make large prints on a 44" Epson printer.)
TeamSpeed wrote:
Then yes, there is that nice ability sometimes to be able to drill into an image file and see things you didn't notice. That is nice for busy landscape or streetscape photos. It is great to be able to do a full landscape from a tower over a bustling city, and then later have the resolution to drill around and see things you never noticed later. Love watching the kids look through old vacation shots and peering around the frame on a big monitor and noticing things they didn't even see in person.
Photo stitiching has been possible for years and when done with lower MP cameras (under the right conditions) it can give superior results to a single shot with a higher MP camera. It can even be done with focus-stacking.
99% of the people buying cameras do not make large prints.
Imagemaster wrote:
99% of the people buying cameras do not make large prints.
The same is true of most features of modern cameras: 99% of people buying cameras don't need 40fps, don't photograph birds in flight at dusk, don't share images outside of social media and email, do not print at all, don't need interchangeable lenses, never sell/license photographs, or many other things that are important or critical to some of us.
The idea that something is a wasted feature if only a small percentage of users "need" it leads to a place that most of us would find pretty disappointing. High-end cameras are not designed just for the theoretical "average" user — they are designed to cover the range of needs of a wide range of users.
Surely you don't propose that camera companies should only produce cameras that satisfy the needs of those in the 50th percentile of all camera buyers!
In addition, 99% of those "people buying cameras" are not going to purchase such a high MP camera. There are plenty of other options for that "99%" from the same companies making the high-res cameras, and these range from high-end, lower-MP cameras optimized for speed right on down through all-in-one cameras built for consumer generalists. The high-end cameras comprise only a small percentage of camera sales.
If all else is equal — and it tends to remain so as pixel density increases — there is little harm in increasing the number of MP in order to provide a capability that some of us need. If you don't want it, the solution is simple: get something else.
Imagemaster wrote:
Photo stitiching has been possible for years and when done with lower MP cameras (under the right conditions) it can give superior results to a single shot with a higher MP camera. It can even be done with focus-stacking.
99% of the people buying cameras do not make large prints.
Once again your comments do not negate the accuracy or logic of my reply. Also, stitching of photos doesn’t work with dynamic scenes without all kinds of issues in the seams of the final image. Finally, stitching a high resolution series will yield better results than with low resolution series, so once again there is the advantage of high resolution.
There are only a couple of disadvantages with high resolution and that is storage/processing power needed to store and work with high resolution, and also these can interfere with buffer sizes and burst rates. In all other situations, a high resolution file will be superior.
arbitrage wrote:
I don't know if you've shot the R3 but that has to be the nicest sized, integrated grip camera I've used since the 1DIV. And it is much better ergo than the 1DIV. I see no reason to make the body any larger than the R3. Just upgrade the card slots and the rest will be the sensor and FW. There is no point to make a larger body than the R3. It is as close to perfect as I've ever used (and I've used a lot of gripped bodies and bodies with grips).
Super high MP like 70+ will come in an R5 type body....Show more →
I liked the R3 fit in my hand but didn't love it. It was a hair too small for me and left my pinky on and weird crease on the bottom unless I purposely repositioned my hand. But that aside, the ergos are great. Everything else fell in to place very well. The weight was also super surprising.
As far as price, I believe that Canon have a purposeful price differentiation on the line spreading them out around 40%. If that holds true, the R1 will be back to the $8,000+ range. The only problem there is, matching the Z9 and A1 isn't going to cut it. They would have to bring something that can command that price.
I tend to think the next monster pixel body will be the 100MP unicorn they've been teasing for the last decade for bragging rights. I do think that will be the R5s, but a 100MP body could definitely command an $8,500 price tag.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
I tend to think the next monster pixel body will be the 100MP unicorn they've been teasing for the last decade for bragging rights. I do think that will be the R5s, but a 100MP body could definitely command an $8,500 price tag.
We'll see.
Indeed, we'll see. But I don't think a high MP replacement for the 5DsR priced at $8500 would be very successful. There are other alternatives for those looking for high MP that would make that a non-competitive price.
That's $2500 higher than the 100MP miniMF Fujifilm GFX 100s. It is thousands more than the high MP offerings from Sony and Nikon... which will also likely get updated to higher MP sensors going forward.
Far more likely it will be priced roughly in the range of the R5.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed, we'll see. But I don't think a high MP replacement for the 5DsR priced at $8500 would be very successful. There are other alternatives for those looking for high MP that would make that a non-competitive price.
That's $2500 higher than the 100MP miniMF Fujifilm GFX 100s. It is thousands more than the high MP offerings from Sony and Nikon... which will also likely get updated to higher MP sensors going forward.
Far more likely it will be priced roughly in the range of the R5.
Sorry, I didn't make that very clear. That probably should have read, my first guess for the 90MP+ body would be the R5s at a normal price (approx. $4,000), but I can see a scenario where the R1 is the one that gets the big pixel count in order to ask for that massive price.
Mike Jacks0n wrote:
Sorry, I didn't make that very clear. That probably should have read, my first guess for the 90MP+ body would be the R5s at a normal price (approx. $4,000), but I can see a scenario where the R1 is the one that gets the big pixel count in order to ask for that massive price.
So I think we're in agreement about the likelihood that the high MP camera will be a "R5s." I think that makes the most sense given the demise of the 1Ds series bodies back when Canon did split the 1-series into a fast fork and a high MP fork.
The high-MP version of the 5-series has been a decent success for Canon, and I don't see them shrinking that market by more than doubling the price of their high MP offering.
FWIW, as I sit tight, watching and waiting to see what Canon will do with their highest-MP offering (and when they'll do it), I'm also tracking options from other manufacturers. That's a bit unusual for me, as I'm generally not at all a fan of the "switcher" mentality. But given that the RF lenses have been updated along with the introduction of the R cameras, and long-term thinking would have me moving to RF lenses if I went with a R camera... it seems like a time to consider all options.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Once again your comments do not negate the accuracy or logic of my reply. Also, stitching of photos doesn’t work with dynamic scenes without all kinds of issues in the seams of the final image. Finally, stitching a high resolution series will yield better results than with low resolution series, so once again there is the advantage of high resolution.
There are only a couple of disadvantages with high resolution and that is storage/processing power needed to store and work with high resolution, and also these can interfere with buffer sizes and burst rates. In all other situations, a high resolution file will be superior. ...Show more →
Once again, try reading what I wrote: (under the right conditions)
So where is the accuracy of you saying stitching does not work under the wrong conditions?
If anyone wants to keep buying every new camera that comes out with more MP, then go for it.
There are other "advantages". For example, take an R7 image where it was shot identically on a 24Mpx FF at the same settings, the R7 after post processing and resampling to match the FF resolution will be nearly identical in IQ. 
