R1 rumored to be 100 MP's

Wilt wrote in post #19431954
The Average Joe does not possess the skill set to accomplish what you can do without eye focus...the camera is left in factory configuration where a certain bunch of AF points are used to focus, they don't know how to shift that group around the frame...ergo the no-brain eye finding accomplishes what they cannot do because they do not know how to use their cameras to better effect. Like automatic transmissions in cars, most drivers do no have the brains to shift their transmissions to control speed while going down a long grade, so they ride their brakes and wear them out faster...same thing, different situation...no brains make the newer cameras better for them.
Of course, the above ignores the fact that there are photographers who do not really care about the technical side of photography, and base their actions on the creativity of shooting, and the appeal of eye focus for that group...not because of no-brains, but their simply orientation to other (not0technical) aspects of making photos.

Best example would be how iPhone & Android designed their Camera app to behave the way it does.

These two smartphones destroyed the consumer (1) point & shoot & (2) ILC markets.

A decade from now I would not be surprised if they will eat into the markets FF frame approaching the 1-Series Sony & Canon bodies. Fuji may deprecate the 1.6x crop MILC X mount in favor of the 0.79x crop MILC GF mount.

Other than Steve Jobs no one would ever guess that digital still camera market worldwide shipment volume would be below year 2000 levels. But here we are.

Per CIPA report I read 5 years ago, hence the poll on "What year were you born?", the growing market for buyers of ILCs are nearing or are in their retirement age and predominantly male. If they aren't photographing their loved ones like their grand kids they are photographing animals and birds.

Among bird photographers in the Philippines I am the youngest when I started.

That is why animal AF was marketed in 2020-onward.

- Canon
- Nikon
- Sony

When I saw that feature I took it as an indicator that the these brands are looking to expand to a growing market as iPhone & Android made the sub-$1,599 digital still camera market hostile to their products.

I am amazed by animal AF's claimed keeper rate by end users of the R3, R5, R7, Z9 & A1. Any tech that improves the possibility of a productive day with more than dozens of images that would merit more than 40+ Likes from POTN users is worth it.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19431896
Wrecking the entire EF-S thing.

That would depend on the pixel count of the APS-H. 50MP would have the same pixel density as the R7.

I didn't buy an R7 for the crop factor; I bought it for the pixel density and the expectation that it would be a little less noisy than the R5 cropped 1.6x.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19432168
.
I didn't buy an R7 for the crop factor; I bought it for the pixel density and the expectation that it would be a little less noisy than the R5 cropped 1.6x.
.

.
Those are solid reasons for choosing a body with a 1.6 crop sensor. . Much better than "it was cheaper" or "I thought it would work with smaller, lighter lenses".

Another advantage to the crop sensors, in my experience, is that you get deep corners and edges that are just as bright and well resolved as the center of the frame. . I absolutely hate the look of a vignette, and yet my full frame cameras, with some lenses, often have dim corners that give that awful vignette look. . I know there is software out there that will "correct" this, but I don't have any such software, and even if I did I doubt I would be able to figure out how to use it. . Plus, running an image through a separate editing program is a real hardship for me, from a workflow convenience standpoint.

Of course, that super bright and sharp in the corners and edges advantage is thrown away when people use the crop bodies with those little pissant EF-S lenses. . Use a crop body with a proper full frame lens and it works to great advantage with respect to deep corners and far edges of the frame being sharp and bright.

Even the 1.3 crop factor APS-H sensors are enough of a crop to give really bright, sharp corners. . The only time I ever struggle with ugly vignette is when using full frame sensors. . And that is a shame because there are so many other things about the full frame sensors that I really like.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19432188
.
Those are solid reasons for choosing a body with a 1.6 crop sensor. . Much better than "it was cheaper" or "I thought it would work with smaller, lighter lenses".

Another advantage to the crop sensors, in my experience, is that you get deep corners and edges that are just as bright and well resolved as the center of the frame. . I absolutely hate the look of a vignette, and yet my full frame cameras, with some lenses, often have dim corners that give that awful vignette look. . I know there is software out there that will "correct" this, but I don't have any such software, and even if I did I doubt I would be able to figure out how to use it. . Plus, running an image through a separate editing program is a real hardship for me, from a workflow convenience standpoint.

Of course, that super bright and sharp in the corners and edges advantage is thrown away when people use the crop bodies with those little pissant EF-S lenses. . Use a crop body with a proper full frame lens and it works to great advantage with respect to deep corners and far edges of the frame being sharp and bright.

Even the 1.3 crop factor APS-H sensors are enough of a crop to give really bright, sharp corners. . The only time I ever struggle with ugly vignette is when using full frame sensors. . And that is a shame because there are so many other things about the full frame sensors that I really like.

.

Sony did R&D on curved image sensors that would address vignetting at corners and even allow for larger image sensors without the penalty of larger lenses.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19432188
.
Those are solid reasons for choosing a body with a 1.6 crop sensor. . Much better than "it was cheaper" or "I thought it would work with smaller, lighter lenses".

Another advantage to the crop sensors, in my experience, is that you get deep corners and edges that are just as bright and well resolved as the center of the frame. . I absolutely hate the look of a vignette, and yet my full frame cameras, with some lenses, often have dim corners that give that awful vignette look. . I know there is software out there that will "correct" this, but I don't have any such software, and even if I did I doubt I would be able to figure out how to use it. . Plus, running an image through a separate editing program is a real hardship for me, from a workflow convenience standpoint.

Of course, that super bright and sharp in the corners and edges advantage is thrown away when people use the crop bodies with those little pissant EF-S lenses. . Use a crop body with a proper full frame lens and it works to great advantage with respect to deep corners and far edges of the frame being sharp and bright.

Even the 1.3 crop factor APS-H sensors are enough of a crop to give really bright, sharp corners. . The only time I ever struggle with ugly vignette is when using full frame sensors. . And that is a shame because there are so many other things about the full frame sensors that I really like.

.

Tom, would you mind telling us how you really feel about vignettes?

All this discussion about whether 100Megapixels will happen...yet yesterday I read about the ultimate sensor being (today!) a 3.2 Gigapixels

I suppose one has to be honest and say it is an ultralarge format sensor, not a puny 24mm x 36mm size 'miniature format' (what they called it back in the early 1960's) sensor...to be used for an astrological telescope. I wonder what its buffer write speed is like?!

Wilt wrote in post #19432287
All this discussion about whether 100Megapixels will happen...yet yesterday I read about the ultimate sensor being (today!) a 3.2 Gigapixels

I suppose one has to be honest and say it is an ultralarge format sensor, not a puny 24mm x 36mm size 'miniature format' (what they called it back in the early 1960's) sensor...to be used for an astrological telescope. I wonder what its buffer write speed is like?!

Wilt, you'll love Jack. He often talks about image sensors like that.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19432188
.
Those are solid reasons for choosing a body with a 1.6 crop sensor. . Much better than "it was cheaper" or "I thought it would work with smaller, lighter lenses".

Another advantage to the crop sensors, in my experience, is that you get deep corners and edges that are just as bright and well resolved as the center of the frame. . I absolutely hate the look of a vignette, and yet my full frame cameras, with some lenses, often have dim corners that give that awful vignette look. . I know there is software out there that will "correct" this, but I don't have any such software, and even if I did I doubt I would be able to figure out how to use it. . Plus, running an image through a separate editing program is a real hardship for me, from a workflow convenience standpoint.

Of course, that super bright and sharp in the corners and edges advantage is thrown away when people use the crop bodies with those little pissant EF-S lenses. . Use a crop body with a proper full frame lens and it works to great advantage with respect to deep corners and far edges of the frame being sharp and bright.

Even the 1.3 crop factor APS-H sensors are enough of a crop to give really bright, sharp corners. . The only time I ever struggle with ugly vignette is when using full frame sensors. . And that is a shame because there are so many other things about the full frame sensors that I really like.

.

I for one LIKE the vignette effect on full frame sensors. Im a wedding and portrait photographer by trade and I vignette everything for final product in post. Literally everything is vignetted. So that aspect does not bother me and probably others

As for crops- its all about the 1.6 reach factor. It turns all my lens for wildlife into better captured shots w/o cropping and it nets me results that I might not get with a full frame sensor. So I am excited about the R7 for these reasons and having the sensor being clean at 6400 is a big plus...12800 in good light is another plus for this R7.

That said- If I could use a full frame sensor to get the shot when shooting wide open with fast glass then that would always be my preference......nothin​g beats the look for portraiture and wildlife needs

umphotography wrote in post #19432455
I for one LIKE the vignette effect on full frame sensors. Im a wedding and portrait photographer by trade and I vignette everything for final product in post. Literally everything is vignetted. So that aspect does not bother me and probably others

As for crops- its all about the 1.6 reach factor. It turns all my lens for wildlife into better captured shots w/o cropping and it nets me results that I might not get with a full frame sensor. So I am excited about the R7 for these reasons and having the sensor being clean at 6400 is a big plus...12800 in good light is another plus for this R7.

That said- If I could use a full frame sensor to get the shot when shooting wide open with fast glass then that would always be my preference......nothin​g beats the look for portraiture and wildlife needs

1 feature I found interesting with RF FF bodies is their ability to simulate 1.6x crop in-camera via EVF.

umphotography wrote in post #19432455
As for crops- its all about the 1.6 reach factor.

No, that is wrong.

It would seem to be more about pixel density than crop factor?

I would have no need for a crop body that had the pixel density of the R6 (it would be an 8Mpx APS-C) even if it was the same or even cleaner at high ISO than the R6.

However having an APS-C (R7) that has the equivalent of an 85Mpx FF, and was only about 1 stop less in IQ perhaps, certainly is alluring. Until there is that same FF out there, then the APS-C loses its luster. If the R1 really does come out with something like 80-100Mpx and with basically the same Eye AF performance, very nearly the same burst rates, etc, then I would see almost no reason for the R7 existence at that point.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19432484
It would seem to be more about pixel density than crop factor?

I would have no need for a crop body that had the pixel density of the R6 (it would be an 8Mpx APS-C) even if it was the same or even cleaner at high ISO than the R6.

However having an APS-C (R7) that has the equivalent of an 85Mpx FF, and was only about 1 stop less in IQ perhaps, certainly is alluring. Until there is that same FF out there, then the APS-C loses its luster. If the R1 really does come out with something like 80-100Mpx and with basically the same Eye AF performance, very nearly the same burst rates, etc, then I would see almost no reason for the R7 existence at that point.

While I tend to agree with everything you just said- I really think the R7 is going to be a go too for most people. Economics will dictate. An R7 comes in at $1500 and you can bet that the R1 will probably be a 6K camera.....you can probably buy 4 R7's for the price of an R1.......I think the R7 is going to be with us for a long time

umphotography wrote in post #19432779
While I tend to agree with everything you just said- I really think the R7 is going to be a go too for most people. Economics will dictate. An R7 comes in at $1500 and you can bet that the R1 will probably be a 6K camera.....you can probably buy 4 R7's for the price of an R1.......I think the R7 is going to be with us for a long time

If the R1 is like an R3, I agree, it will have a very high price tag.

If it is like the R5, then it may be about 1/2 the price of an R3, around the cost of the R5. It will likely be feature-crippled though, like maybe burst rates artificially set at 10fps and maybe 15, 20 tops in ES, etc.

So for those that want more of a FF camera but need the cropping power of that kind of resolution, I suspect they might just get the R1 instead of an R7 and either the R6 or R5.

I still don't believe the rumors personally. It has been rumor fodder for something close to 2-3 years now that Canon was coming out with a 100Mpx camera. I think that is the only thing left that can draw clicks on the internet, we already have 30fps, good high ISO, eye AF, etc that everyone knows about, so the only real clickbait "draw" at this point is astronomical resolutions.

I remember this, but I think there were some others even older. The prophecy of Canon's 80-100Mpx cameras is pretty old now in internet years.

https://www.canonwatch​.com …-r-might-have-up-to-80mp/

Archibald wrote in post #19432476
No, that is wrong.

I agree.

For the vast majority of users it is about the cost.

Once your budget allows for sustained purchase of FF or larger image sensor bodies and lenses then we forget about what ~99% of all users considers 1st.

When I saw the MSRP of the 2022 EOS R7 I compared it to the 2014 EOS 7D Mark II that sold at higher than $1.5k.

People buying the RF system today are very fortunate with the value they are getting. Less unproductive shooting days if you know the fundamentals.

dolina wrote in post #19432794
.
I agree.

For the vast majority of users it is about the cost.
.

.
But a lot of people who buy 1.6 crop sensor cameras already have a few full frame cameras. . For many of us, it is not about cost at all, but rather about getting attributes that we can't get in the full frame models that we already own. . These attributes include pixel density as it relates to "pixels on target", and corner-to-corner brightness and sharpness.


.