The Canon EOS ‘R5s’ may be in the hands of testers [CR2]

[Chig]

If my math is right, the crop mode on a 90 megapixel camera would still give you 34 megapixels to work with That would be insane for wildlife. The R5 has already been lifechanging for me in its ability to be both a great full frame 45mp camera and a great 17mp crop sensor, but that would still be more resolution than a friggin' 5D mark IV even when you crop in to 1.6x...

Canon could use a downsized version of this in the rumoured R7 aps-c camera to give 34mp with high frame rates and priced similar to the R6 or hopefully a bit cheaper , this would be my dream replacement for my 7D mark ii

 

[Chig]

There’s your 7D Mark ii replacement, folks.

I’d rather have an aps-c version with 34mp and hopefully slightly cheaper than the R6 but similar specs

 

[Chig]

A 34 mp crop with 10 fps would be a far better option for birding than an R7 in my opinion (Contingent on the autofocus speed and accuracy of course) and with the R series you can set the body to crop to 1.6, so there should be no need to worry about all that extra data slowing things up.

I disagree especially as this will be priced higher the R5
An R7 with a 34mp sensor and similar specs to the R6 would be a perfect replacement for the 7D ii and hopefully priced about USD 2000

 

[Richard CR]

Canon could use a downsized version of this in the rumoured R7 aps-c camera to give 34mp with high frame rates and priced similar to the R6 or hopefully a bit cheaper , this would be my dream replacement for my 7D mark ii

actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.

say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.

That is oh I don't know.. probably a 15K lens if Canon ever made it. You essentially have a built in .6x focal reducer every time you slap a lens on a camera. Even better at times for framing as well, because you can switch in between 1x and 1.6x

You may be changed 2K more for a camera body, but you gain far more versatility when it comes to lenses.

Say canon makes / re-makes the 200-400F4L for the RF mount. That becomes a 200mm to 560mm F4L. Pretty freaking nice. You basically turn a 2x 10K lens into a 3x 20K lens for 2K more and still have the premier optical quality of the 2x lens.

While reach is nice, don't forget the versatility that you lose with it as well.

 

[Fischer]

I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?

Seems we have been here so many times before. 5DS/R was "far too much", "impossible to hand hold", "bad high iso" (all points proven false). R5 almost the same MPIX as the 5DS/R and suddenly no one complains - in stead they praise the extra resolution and detail and clean images. Now 80-90 MPIX is suddenly "too much". How many here are still shooting 4 MPIX?

 

[Chig]

actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.

say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.

That is oh I don't know.. probably a 15K lens if Canon ever made it. You essentially have a built in .6x focal reducer every time you slap a lens on a camera. Even better at times for framing as well, because you can switch in between 1x and 1.6x

You may be changed 2K more for a camera body, but you gain far more versatility when it comes to lenses.

Say canon makes / re-makes the 200-400F4L for the RF mount. That becomes a 200mm to 560mm F4L. Pretty freaking nice. You basically turn a 2x 10K lens into a 3x 20K lens for 2K more and still have the premier optical quality of the 2x lens.

While reach is nice, don't forget the versatility that you lose with it as well.

Well the other approach is to use a RF-ef speed booster on a R7 aps-c camera to give you wide angle FF capacity as well as reach when using EF lenses
I’m not convinced that Canon’s ridiculously overpriced RF lenses offer much improvement over their EF versions : eg the RF100-500 is just under twice the price of the EF100-400 mark ii and only very modest gains in performance So personally I just want a crop sensor version of the R5 to use with an EF100-400 lens plus 1,4x and 2x extenders for my Birds in Flight obsession
I couldn’t care less about wide angle performance or video

 

[Fischer]

Is it ?

I run two 5DSs because after getting the first one I always want two identical cameras. However I'm beginning to think maybe I should have got a 5DIV.

The high mp, ultra high resolution crammed into a FF size sensor can cause problems. Diffraction becomes an issue at some practical apertures on the 5DS, with the resolution / definition falling off a cliff after f/11 on standardish focal lengths. Shoot the 5DS with a good quality lens and a solid tripod in the f/4 - f/5.6 region and the results at full output size are stunningly good, but shoot at f/13 and it's a different story with the full size image looking like you've applied a huge amount of luminous noise reduction. I'm not sure at what aperture a 90mp sensor is going to have the same problem, but if it's into the f/8 region then that really is going to impinge on practically when aiming for the full technical quality the camera is theoretically capable of. For those that think a very high mp camera suffering from severe diffraction is going to be better than a diffraction free 'low' mp one when downsampled, I can assure you it isn't. So TS-E lenses on standby for landscapes with the FF 90mp camera.

A rare, valid concern for high-megapix shooting.

My own take on this is that there may be an ultimate purely optical trade-off where we need to shoot a wider focal range lens to get ultrasharp DOF in certain situations. Maybe focus stacking will be the way to solve this (when applicable). However, on a day-to-day basis on lower F-stops we will enjoy the full advantage of all those MPIX. I for one can hardly wait for a high MPIX R. I have not shot the R5 but use the R along side the 5DS/R - but based on the many reviews it seems the R5 has taken care of many of the downsides of the R while improving further on the advantages of mirrorless shooting and introducing key features such as IBIS. Good times with great choices ahead.

 

[Fischer]

I doubt that--it would then be more expensive than the 1 series, which is supposed to be the "king" or flagship. (The 1 series is actually worse for my purposes than the R5...I'm always happy to find myself preferring the less expensive item for reasons other than the price!)

2-400 USD more than the R5 - just like the 5DS/R was a little more expensive than the 5DIV.

 

[AlanF]

This is a simple geometric issue, the more pixels you have on a sensor, the smaller the angle each pixels covers, therefore, when an object moves while you take a picture, the more pixles you have on the sensor, the more pixles will be effected by the same move. For example, if your object moves in one degree per second, and you have 10 pixels per degree, you will get a "still" image if you take the image in less than 1/10 of a second, if you have 100, then you needd to be faster than 1/100 of a second. if you have 1000 and so on. So when a bird fly or move (as they uauly do) the more pixels you have, the shorter the time needed to get a "still" of them is needed (remember that you take those pictures hand held, so you also needs to account for your own movement at the same time). While birds tend to move much fater, than eventually, you won't be able to have a "still" image of them flying cause once you have so many pixels, the spees you will need to capture them will be beyond 1/8000 of a second.

The geometrical constraints described will not give you a worse image from a high resolution sensor than from a lower resolution when they are both output to the same size. What it does mean is that you may not get the full or even any advantage of the higher density sensor if the conditions are not right. If the conditions are right - good lighting, high shutter speed for a moving subject or good tripod for a static at low speeds, and a good wide lens, the higher resolution sensor will give better images that can be used at larger output size or greater cropping. Whether it will be of any advantage to you personally, that is another matter.

 

[Fischer]

Magazine covers are dimensionally small and their absolute numbers are declining, so I don't think they're a good measure of what resolution is appropriate.

When you think in 2D, a 90MP image is just over twice the size of a 20MP image in width and height which would give fabulous croppability.

If you look at older photo-sharing sites where the majority of pictures are in the 4-8 MPIX range you will jump at the chance to get a 90 MPIX camera before its too late.

 

[Joules]

What I'd also love to see Canon do is also allow higher FPS with the crop-sensor mode, it would be sweet if a 90mp camera could do 20+ FPS when in a 34mp crop mode. I know Canon hasn't done something like that yet though, and I don't blame them if their goal is to not muddy the waters about which specs are available when.

Somebody probably has already told that to you, but:

The M6 II does 14 FPS 32 MP mechanical and has a 30 FPS 18 MP electronic crop mode (which even saves pictures from before you press the release). So they have absolutely done this already and honestly I am surprised we didn't get that on the R5. The next M body will certainly have it as well if it is the rumored higher end one.

 

[keithcooper]

Good to see so many of the 2003 arguments about the 11MP of the 1Ds repurposed for 2020... ;-)


Have we had 'outresolving lenses' mentioned yet?

 

[Joules]

Good to see so many of the 2003 arguments about the 11MP of the 1Ds repurposed for 2020... ;-)


Have we had 'outresolving lenses' mentioned yet?

Don't think so.

To spice it up with something new, we also didn't get overheating yet 90 MP high FPS will give those blistering CFexpress cards a nice work out.

 

[Todd]

Everyone is talking about the specs of the camera bodies, but Canon has done a superb job improving their lens lineup with so many high quality RF lenses. I wonder how many MP the new lenses can resolve?

 

[Jasonmc89]

I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?

Get an R6 then. Different cameras for different needs.

 

[Hector1970]

Hopefully it’s buffer will be able to cope with the file size. My 5DSR is very slow. If you take a number of shots together you have to wait a few seconds to see them on the screen. This can be frustrating at times. I just hope if they produce such a high mp camera that it can cope. It just needs a reasonable FPS that it can easily cope with. Crop mode that can be visualised through the eyepiece would be useful to check focusing.They should just leave the video at 4K.

 

[docsmith]

I like options.

 

[docsmith]

So, just thinking about this a bit more, when the 5Ds/sR came out, the ISO was limited. I've always thought that it was limited as Canon's file size increases with increasing ISO. Using the R5 as the basis here at ISO 100, the 45 MP RAW files are 51.6 MP (using TDP review as reference), ISO 12,800 the file size is 66.4 MP, and ISO 102,400 the file size is 79 MP.

I suspect that FPS decreases with increasing ISO, but I have not seen that confirmed. But, assuming that the R5 can do 20 fps at ISO 12,800, then the throughput it can handle is 1,328 MB/sec. Playing with the math, if the 90 MB (I still suspect this is the 82.5 MP scaled up from the 90D/M6 II) file size is ~1.5x the resolution size in MP, that would be 135 MB per image at ISO 12,800. Divide 1,328/135 and we are looking at just under 10 fps.

If this had 10 fps with mechanical shutter and say the ability to go faster in crop mode maybe CRAW, limit it to ISO 12,800, and that is a heckuva camera. For those concerned about file size (which includes me, to an extent) CRAW is impressive.

I would have to do some mental gymnastics as to why I (personally) would need this many MP as I am very happy with the 30 MP on my 5DIV. But, still...I like options.

 

[analoggrotto]

Have we had 'outresolving lenses' mentioned yet?

That one is a classic tho!

 

[jolyonralph]

I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?

Then don't buy one! And don't waste your time complaining about something you don't need but others do.