Canon DSLR Rumors

Did Canon confirm the 45mp resolution of the Canon EOS R5 sensor?

As Canon News points out, it looks like Canon has confirmed the resolution of the Canon EOS R5 image sensor.

How did they do this?

Canon has specified in the latest EOS R5 information that the camera will shoot 8K DCI, which is 8192×4320. Since Canon has said that 8K recording uses the full width of the sensor, the sensor would be 8192 pixels wide. Canon sensors use a 3:2 aspect ratio, so that would mean the height of the sensor is 5461 pixels, which equals 44.7mp.

I’ve been reporting for quite some time that the image sensor would be 45mp, so this seems to back up those long-running rumors.

If the math is wrong, please let me know.

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,335
1,118
Turku, Finland
45MP is indeed what most people who could do the math have been predicting. I think it was more likely than not that the R5 would shoot DCI. However, there's one other alternative, just within the realms of possibility, that I haven't seen people talk about: a sensor whose native aspect ratio is wider than 3:2! That would require a larger than FF sensor to be able to crop FF 3:2 stills, and video (at least DCI) footage, then, would be "wider than FF" which some might even consider a feature.
 

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,189
2,195
OK, so what is the consensus here? If this body has crazy video specs, is there still a camp that thinks the R6 is the video body first rumored? I will buy into the RF system with a primarily stills body (I know, I know, it will still have video, Canon is not Sigma) But is one on the horizon? Until then, carry on and SWWYH.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
443
45MP is indeed what most people who could do the math have been predicting. I think it was more likely than not that the R5 would shoot DCI. However, there's one other alternative, just within the realms of possibility, that I haven't seen people talk about: a sensor whose native aspect ratio is wider than 3:2! That would require a larger than FF sensor to be able to crop FF 3:2 stills, and video (at least DCI) footage, then, would be "wider than FF" which some might even consider a feature.
The RF image circle couldn't cover it though, right?
 

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,113
805
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
OK, so what is the consensus here? If this body has crazy video specs, is there still a camp that thinks the R6 is the video body first rumored? I will buy into the RF system with a primarily stills body (I know, I know, it will still have video, Canon is not Sigma) But is one on the horizon? Until then, carry on and SWWYH.
Over the last couple months the R6 seemed less and less like the video centric piece and more and more like a really nice 6D replacement.
 

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,113
805
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
I dont see how Canon makes a video spec machine in an RF body that beats this thing.

I mean, what... a 1:1 pixel readout (12MP like the sony a7s) but with all the same specs otherwise as the R5? Why bother?

i think Canon intended this to be the absolutely everything camera. I dont know what else you Viably could cram into a dedicated video MILC body that the R5 doesnt already sport.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVPhoto

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,335
1,118
Turku, Finland
The RF image circle couldn't cover it though, right?
It could cover both a FF-width 19:10 crop and a FF 3:2 crop at the same time, but it would not cover the whole sensor area. But it wouldn't be supposed to cover the full area, the corners would be unused and/or masked. Note that "FF-width" would be wider than normal ILC "full-frame" video, while still fitting into the image circle, because a regular 16:9 or 19:10 crop from a 3:2 sensor is inherently tighter than what the image circle would permit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Sharlin

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 26, 2015
1,335
1,118
Turku, Finland
Over the last couple months the R6 seemed less and less like the video centric piece and more and more like a really nice 6D replacement.
Yeah, I don't think there's anything that points to the R6 being a video-oriented body. Not a sports-oriented one either, like some have speculated. And it's unlikely to be a 5D replacement in regard to ergonomics or build quality either.
 

slclick

Pinhole
Dec 17, 2013
4,189
2,195
Well the R is just a 5D4 with no mirror and (frankly) lesser ergonomics
Neither have impressed me enough to make the jump. Especially ergonomics with the R. *edit- correction, I am impressed by both cameras just not spend thousands impressed. Then there's adding $140 for an L Plate for any body I get (has to have a QD connection)
 
Last edited:

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,113
805
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
Yeah, I don't think there's anything that points to the R6 being a video-oriented body. Not a sports-oriented one either, like some have speculated. And it's unlikely to be a 5D replacement in regard to ergonomics or build quality either.
Well the R5 is the 5D replacement. With a smaller lighter body, the R6 feels more like a 6D but with SOME of the nice video specs of the R5, like FF 4K but probably not up to 120fps and maybe without DPAF in the higher frame rates. Still a VERY nice looking FF camera for what I assume will be around $1500 with IBIS.
 

Juangrande

EOS 90D
Mar 6, 2017
102
134
I dont see how Canon makes a video spec machine in an RF body that beats this thing.

I mean, what... a 1:1 pixel readout (12MP like the sony a7s) but with all the same specs otherwise as the R5? Why bother?

i think Canon intended this to be the absolutely everything camera. I dont know what else you Viably could cram into a dedicated video MILC body that the R5 doesnt already sport.
The one feature I care about most but isn’t available yet. That is the ability to sync strobes at any shutter speed. For those of us who mix ambient with strobes (especially outdoor sunlight) and want to shoot fast prime lenses thus would be the biggest game changer. For me everything else is secondary. They say a global shutter which is possible with mirrorless bodies could be made to do this eventually. From what I understand it’s useful for those who shoot video too to prevent rolling shutter but I don’t shoot video so not sure.
 

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,113
805
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
The one feature I care about most but isn’t available yet. That is the ability to sync strobes at any shutter speed. For those of use who mix ambient (especially outdoor sunlight) and want to shoot fast prime lenses thus would be the biggest game changer. For me everything else is noise. They say a global shutter which is possible with mirrorless bodies could be made to do this eventually. From what I understand it’s useful for those who shoot video too to prevent rolling shutter but I don’t shoot video so not sure.
I understand the sync speed issue. Yes, global shutter would also be of tremendous value in video, but the I think the biggest issue is the amount of power and in turn, heat, that would entail. At least for video. Global shutter for
Video you usually see in dedicated video bodies which tend to be much bigger and can more easily dissipate the heat. I dont think there are global shutter video MILC bodies out there as of yet. As far as stills go, isnt that what X-Sync is for? There is way to high speed sync if you have the right stove that can talk to your camera to do it. It basically fires a multistrobe to align with your rolling shutter readout (i think is how that works)