75mp Rumored EOS R?

https://www.canonrumor​s.com …-75mp-on-the-horizon-cr2/

What do you think? Seems high to me, few people want the file sizes associated with so many megapixels. Most people are talking about dynamic range or ISO these days... Oh and then autofocus that predicts the future lol

We already have predictive focus, that is what phase detect AF on the higher end DSLRs do? I guess I am missing the context or humor behind that statement?

The rumor doesn't surprise me, I have always stated that Canon's next EOS R must be a 5DS equivalent to keep interest going in this new line. Canon did state that first there would be a lower end EOS R announced, under the current EOS R, then a higher end. This rumor is likely the higher end. We won't see a pro version for some time I feel.

APS-C EOS R (ala the M50, but not M series mounts, TBD)
Low End FF EOS R (TBD)
Current EOS R (Midrange 6D2/5D4 hybrid)
High Res EOS R (this rumor)
Pro EOS R (TBD)

Once the High Res one comes out, the 5DS series is Deprecated.
Once the APS C one comes out, the 7D and xxD series is Deprecated.
Once the Pro version is out, the 5D/1D series is Deprecated.

Deprecated = no major R&D and future DSLR announcements, but still support for existing models. This will occur starting in 2021.

The Rebel line will remain for quite some time until the APS-C mirrorless stabilizes with EFM APSC and RF APSC options that are more prevalent.

This is how I feel the line will move along in the near future (2019/2020).

Like the 5DS this would be a niche product announced for bragging rights and to keep commercial studios and landscape folks happy.

Like the 5DS it seems they will give it ~2x current sensor MP and sacrifice some high ISO IQ. Not an exciting development, for me, at all.

seems the rumor has changed fro 75mp to 50mp which is probably a bit more realistic ..

hahaha with all the tech advances it would not surprise me if we have AF that predicts the future

DigitalTuned wrote in post #18759571
hahaha with all the tech advances it would not surprise me if we have AF that predicts the future

I need a new sensor with a special "ticket" mode on the dial and after you take a shot with the lens cap on, the resulting image is the next winning set of lottery numbers. A much better use of future predictive technology!

ElTigreBlanco wrote in post #18759376
What do you think? Seems high to me, few people want the file sizes associated with so many megapixels. Most people are talking about dynamic range or ISO these days... Oh and then autofocus that predicts the future lol

.
I think that taking the same 35mm sensor size and packing more pixels into it isn't going to give us more actual resolution. . Why? . Primarily, because most lenses can't resolve to such a fine degree. . But also because atmospheric imperfections will limit actual resolving power when things are magnified so much. . Things like haze and dust and smog will keep each and every one of those pixels from being able to precisely resolve exactly what it is trying to resolve, unless we are taking pictures at extremely close distances.

If we put 75 MP or 100 MP into a large format sensor, or a true medium format sensor, then that would make a huge difference, and all of those pixels would actually be resolving fine details within the subject matter.


.

Having more resolution just means each pixel records a smaller section of the overall image. So haze, fog, etc doesn't have any impact on a 100Mpx vs 20Mpx sensor, each pixel from each will record either a smaller section or larger section of said haze, fog, etc.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18759609
Having more resolution just means each pixel records a smaller section of the overall image.

.
No, Cary. . Each pixel tries to record a smaller section of the scene. . But it can't record a smaller section, because of the haze, smog, dust particles, etc.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18759614
.
No, Cary. . Each pixel tries to record a smaller section of the scene. . But it can't record a smaller section, because of the haze, smog, dust particles, etc.

.

A pixel simply records whatever light luminosity/level is projected onto it after passing through a color filter, it doesn't "try" to do anything at all.

So a 10 x 10 grid of pixels means 1 pixel just records roughly 1/100th of whatever was projected, and a 5x5 means that one pixel records roughly 1/25th of whatever was projected over it.

Beyond that I am not following what you mean by "a pixel tries to do something but cannot". It will do what it always does, with whatever is projected across it from the optics.

AND

So if there is issue resolving detail from a scene, it is all due to the actual scene itself, and how well the lens manages to reproduce the outside 3D world onto a 35mm sized image projected onto a 2D sensor.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18759627
A pixel simply records whatever light luminosity/level is projected onto it after passing through a color filter, it doesn't "try" to do anything at all.

Beyond that I am not following what you mean by "a pixel tries to do something but cannot". It will do what it always does, with whatever is projected across it from the optics.

.
Ok, it is actually we, the photographers, who want our pixels to resolve the fine detail within our subject matter.

That is what I meant when I said that a pixel tries to resolve subject detail.. I thought that you would realize I was speaking in the figurative sense, and understand what I meant, but I guess that did not register with you.

Our pixels are our little helpers, our little messengers, working for us, trying to bring back all of the visual info that we send them out to gather. . When we are trying to do something, they are then trying to help us do it. . Our objective is their mission. . When I click the shutter, I send those little pixels out from my camera to go to the deer and get info on each and every hair .... then they return to the camera with all that info about how everything looked, and write it to the sensor. . So yeah, they actually do try to do something, and sometimes they can do it, and sometimes they cannot do it. . That's how it all works.

.

You are correct, I completely missed all the figurative content in the post I replied to below. I am still missing it, but it matters little I guess.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18759591
.
I think that taking the same 35mm sensor size and packing more pixels into it isn't going to give us more actual resolution. . Why? . Primarily, because most lenses can't resolve to such a fine degree. . But also because atmospheric imperfections will limit actual resolving power when things are magnified so much. . Things like haze and dust and smog will keep each and every one of those pixels from being able to precisely resolve exactly what it is trying to resolve, unless we are taking pictures at extremely close distances.

If we put 75 MP or 100 MP into a large format sensor, or a true medium format sensor, then that would make a huge difference, and all of those pixels would actually be resolving fine details within the subject matter.

.

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18759648
You are correct, I completely missed all the figurative content in the post I replied to below. I am still missing it, but it matters little I guess.

.
There wasn't "all that figurative content" in the post I wrote. . There was just one phrase that was figurative, and I never gave any clue that it was figurative. . You would have to "just get it".


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18759652
.

.
There wasn't "all that figurative content" in the post I wrote. . There was just one phrase that was figurative, and I never gave any clue that it was figurative. . You would have to "just get it".

.

That kind of clarity and precision always helps to avoid misunderstandings. Can’t see how anyone anyone could miss it.