New Canon R3 - how come?

[PeterAit]

Another caveat - Diffraction will frequently annihilate your resolution advantage.

I don't understand this. I know what diffraction is but what does it have to do with high MP? Thanks.

[PeterAit]

Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.

How does 50MP work 2x slower?

[chez]

How does 50MP work 2x slower?

Exactly. A1 is 50mp and it sure is not slow.

[Josh-H]

I agree with Josh that sports photographers do not need more than 24MP.
Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.
Cropping a 24mp image still provides enough quality for that platform.

In recent surveys its actually more like 99.999% of photographs taken never make it to a medium other than the internet. And 4MPX is enough for the internet given most images are posted in 2k or less and then compressed anyway.

There is an unusual subset of photographers here on LULA that still print (myself included) and that accounts for a large part of the 'give me more mpx'.

That said, I just uprezzed a 21 MPX Canon 1DS M K3 file to 55 inches on the long edge for a client using Topaz gigapixel and the results are truly amazing. Most of the time I am just printing 16" on the long edge on 13 x 19 inch paper though and 20mpx is more than enough for that for a 300 PPI print.

Returning to the R3 and the original topic - for Sports and wildlife photographers this is a pretty incredible tool. All the initial tests of its new AF system are that its pretty phenomenal at tracking and staying locked on. Personally, I am looking forward to testing one in November.

[Josh-H]

I don't understand this. I know what diffraction is but what does it have to do with high MP? Thanks.

In brief, the higher the MPX in a given sensor size (and lets talk full frame 35mm) the smaller the well size where the photons get captured. The smaller the well size, the harder it is for the photons to enter the well and thus the lower the signal to noise. Lower MPX sensors have better signal to noise ratios than higher MPX sensors. BSI sensors help a little with this, but ultimately you cant beat physics - smaller well sizes (higher MPX) = higher noise at a given ISO than a lower resolution sensor.

In terms of diffraction - the smaller the well size on the sensor the faster you run into diffraction. A 24 MPX sensor has much larger wells than a 50 MPX sensor so the 50MPX sensor will run into diffraction well before the 24 mpx sensor at a given f-stop.  As such, a 50 MPX sensor will be diffraction limited far sooner than a 24 MPX sensor. What does this mean?

It simply means, once you hit the diffraction limit on the 50 MPX sensor you loose your resolution advantage. Its not that the 50 MPX sensor will look worse than the 24 MPX, its just that it wont look any better; you loose the advantage of the extra MPX. Exactly where diffraction occurs is complicated as it depends on the lens used, the sensor design and atmospheric conditions. You can certainly see it clearly though if you take the time to test this.

To be clear, Im not stating the 24 MPX sensor is better - it isn't (and the 50 isn't better than the 24 as it depends on the lens used, the f-stop the image is shot at and the particles in the air between the lens and subject). This is simply the physics of it.

[KLaban]

I often shoot 1:1 and crop.

I'm grateful for all of my 46,000,000 pixels.

 

[Rajan Parrikar]

In terms of diffraction - the smaller the well size on the sensor the faster you run into diffraction. A 24 MPX sensor has much larger wells than a 50 MPX sensor so the 50MPX sensor will run into diffraction well before the 24 mpx sensor at a given f-stop.  As such, a 50 MPX sensor will be diffraction limited far sooner than a 24 MPX sensor. What does this mean?

Diffraction is an effect solely of the lens aperture. The pixel pitch does come into play in terms of image rendition. This link has a good discussion -

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

[bobfriedman]

Diffraction is an effect solely of the lens aperture. The pixel pitch does come into play in terms of image rendition. This link has a good discussion -

https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

not just the lens... due to the circle of confusion shown by the airy disk in that link, smaller photosites are less tolerant to diffraction effects (illustrated nicely in the linked example that shows aperture vs pixel size).   that is why I shoot wide open and focus stack for macros with my GFX 100s which has a 3.76 micron pixel pitch.

of course, for wildlife where I need at least f/8 most of the time, I prefer the larger photosites with the accompanying improved ISO performance which I need even on a good day to keep my shutter speed high.

[Guillermo Luijk]

The same caveats caused by diffraction on high density sensors can be said about any other parameter/phenomena affecting the sharpness of the image the optics project on the sensor:
- Diffraction through aperture used
- Motion blur through subject movement
- Handheld trepidation through exposure time/IS limitations
- Focus through not perfectly focused subject
- Image sharpness through lens resolution limitations (MTF)
- Loss of detail through an intrusive AA filter (this could paradoxically play to favour high density sensors since it's on them where the AA filter can be more safely removed)

All of them can contribute to close the gap in terms of real information captured between high and low density sensors.

The most important message here however is to make clear that high pixel count cameras will never produce lower detail images, being the opposite the general rule.

Regards

[Guillermo Luijk]

Right… sorry no time for kinder garden level conversations…

No Kindergarten at all, it's rather about you not grasping the final picture in professional mirrorless cameras:
- Sony: low res pure action (A9 II), all purpose (A1)
- Canon: low res pure action (R3), all purpose (R1)
- Nikon: all purpose (Z9)

Regards

[BernardLanguillier]

I agree with Josh that sports photographers do not need more than 24MP.
Why use 50MP if you can tell the same story with 24mp and 50 mp works 2x slower?
Speed is what counts and 99% of these photos only make it to the internet.
Cropping a 24mp image still provides enough quality for that platform.

This is a very photographer centric way to look at things that is IMHO not relevant in the tough competitive world we live in.

Photographers are in the business of selling images and are not acting in isolation. They have competitors attending the same events and taking similar pictures.

From the client's point of view, why would anyone buy a 24mp file if a 50mp file is available?

Are they going to do it to be nice with the photographers who choose Canon and cannot both get speed and resolution with the R3?

Not to mention all the value brought by cropping for many sports where action can be distant, such as soccer, baseball, track & fields, gymnastics,...

Canon UK officially commented that an R1 is coming. Even Canon appears to be trying hard not to sell the R3. For 1DxIi ot III owners better to buy bitcoins and to wake up from sleep mid 2023.

Cheers,
Bernard

[fdisilvestro]

There is an unusual subset of photographers here on LULA that still print (myself included) and that accounts for a large part of the 'give me more mpx'.

Think ahead, a few years from now, 8K monitors will be common and they will also ask for more mpx.

[Josh-H]

This is a very photographer centric way to look at things that is IMHO not relevant in the tough competitive world we live in.

Photographers are in the business of selling images and are not acting in isolation. They have competitors attending the same events and taking similar pictures.

From the client's point of view, why would anyone buy a 24mp file if a 50mp file is available?

Are they going to do it to be nice with the photographers who choose Canon and cannot both get speed and resolution with the R3?

Not to mention all the value brought by cropping for many sports where action can be distant, such as soccer, baseball, track & fields, gymnastics,...

Canon UK officially commented that an R1 is coming. Even Canon appears to be trying hard not to sell the R3. For 1DxIi ot III owners better to buy bitcoins and to wake up from sleep mid 2023.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.

I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.

Since bashing Canon is clearly in your DNA I wont bother even retorting to the rest of your post. It would be a waste of my time.

[alan_b]

Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.

I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.

It's not nonsense, it's just a different genre than you work in.  I'm regularly commissioned to produce large high quality prints that will be viewed up close.  These clients are very savvy on the whole image pipeline, have production experience and expectation of a certain quality finished product.

[KLaban]

Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.

I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.

Since bashing Canon is clearly in your DNA I wont bother even retorting to the rest of your post. It would be a waste of my time.

I agree with much you have said and have similar experiences. That said, I've been commissioned to produce files for prints up to 84 inches long side that are intended for close viewing. I'd simply rather have the MP than not.

Let's face it, it's very much a case of horses for courses.

[BernardLanguillier]

Bernard, this is just utter nonsense. In thirty years of being a professional photographer not once has a client EVER asked me for more MPX, or asked how many MPX a file is, or how many MPX was used to make the print - not once; not ever. And this is not just the case in my genre. My good friend who shoots F1 for a living has never been asked either! Clients just DONT care about resolution. The only people who care are photographers who believe more is better. It simply isn't; and more importantly, the paying client doesn't care.

I have many pro industry contacts with working photographers in the commercial space. Even they tell me clients dont care! Its not important to them. One very good friend who shoots commercial for a living has Canon and a high MPX Phase and offers the phase to clients as an upsell. He tells me fewer than 1 in a 100 clients want it, need it or care. So lets deal with the real world and recognise that its the photographer that cares - not the client.

Since bashing Canon is clearly in your DNA I wont bother even retorting to the rest of your post. It would be a waste of my time.

Great then. Why is Canon coming up with an R1?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Manoli]

Great then. Why is Canon coming up with an R1?

Possibly for a similar reason that Nikon produce a Z6 and a Z7, Leica produce an SL2 and an SL2-S, an M10 and an M-10R, and Sony ..., and Fuji and on and on...

Different uses, different requirements.

Having said that , it's totally beyond me why anyone would limit themselves to a 42/50MP box instead of buying into the new Fuji 100 ...
[/gently-stirring-the-pot-with-that-last-one]

Edit:
Do we have any reliable information on what the spec on the R1 sensor will be ?

[KLaban]

...Having said that , it's totally beyond me why anyone would limit themselves to a 42/50MP box instead of buying into the new Fuji 100 ...
[/gently-stirring-the-pot-with-that-last-one]...

Heft and girth, my friend, heft and girth...

;-)

[BernardLanguillier]

Possibly for a similar reason that Nikon produce a Z6 and a Z7, Leica produce an SL2 and an SL2-S, an M10 and an M-10R, and Sony ..., and Fuji and on and on...

Different uses, different requirements.

Since the D3x neither Canon nor Nikon have produced a non action focused full spec body. Are you saying the R1 is going to be a high res slow body?

I seriously doubt it. I believe the R1 will be the canon version of an a1/Z9 which is what the R3 should have been today had Canon been able to deliver.

Having said that , it's totally beyond me why anyone would limit themselves to a 42/50MP box instead of buying into the new Fuji 100 ...
[/gently-stirring-the-pot-with-that-last-one]

Because it's AF is pretty poor? :-)

I own one btw. It's nowhere near a Z7II AF wise.

Cheers,
Bernard

[kers]

I think it is about the photo and it contents, that people want it,
not about the amount of pixels...
So being able to make the photo is what counts... in many cases it is a phone.