We haven’t forgotten about the Canon EOS R1, and you probably haven’t either [CR2]

Jan 22, 2012
4,474
1,330
It is not just the noise, but at high ISO most high resolution cameras including the R5 have that colour shift. Either the whole photo turns to green or magenta or - and that is much worse - that colour shift only happens in the dark areas that you try to recover. The special thing about the R3 is that it keeps the colours at high ISO even in the shadows and the blacks also stay black for much longer, while you have to darken the blacks in post, if you use a higher resolution camera.
This video compares low light capabilities or the R3 and R5:

This screenshot from the video shows the bad chromatic noise of the R5 at ISO 12.800:
View attachment 205720
Look, how much cleaner the R3 is. Scaling down does not help getting rid of the R5 noise.
FANTASTIC videos. Great photographer. Lovely model. :) The question still remains: Di the R5 have more noise because of the higher MP or is there more to the story!?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,099
12,863
All opinions are personal. A market research company will evaluate how many of these opinions are there and if they need to address these collective opinions in their marketing assessment reports which will help the manufacturers design and price their products. In other words, if one person wants something, perhaps more do. The question would be how many such people there are.
Obviously Canon regularly conducts market research, and I presume they act on such research (based on their manifest success in the ILC market).

That doesn’t explain why people on this forum persist in arguing that their personal opinion is representative of some significant fraction of the market. Given the typical characteristics of forum members here and the litany of instances where such arguments were proven false by history, it’s unlikely to be true. Still, that doesn’t seem to stop people from making themselves look foolish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
FANTASTIC videos. Great photographer. Lovely model. :) The question still remains: Di the R5 have more noise because of the higher MP or is there more to the story!?
So far it is Canon's only stacked BSI sensor. If they bring a high megapixel stacked BSI sensor, we will know how much diffrence that makes. However there are certain kind of noise like that large pattern colour noise that gets worse when pixels gets smaller. The smaller a pixel is, the more it has to be amplified and at some point the quality "falls apart" as the video phrases it. So while that high frequency pixel level noise is less visible when pixels get smaller at the same print out size, that low frequency noise will always stay visible.

The R3 also is better than the R6 at high ISO. That can only be explained by the new sensor technology. We might have to wait for another year to learn how good a stacked BSI sensor is in a high megapixel camera.

However the Hasselblad X2D already does great at high ISO, although it also has quite small pixels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
Very possible that the video features are making cameras more expensive. However, the number of people who want to buy just a still camera maybe be miniscuile.
I don't disagree with that. But, my question regards just how sophisticated those video features need to be and what are the additional costs of achieving the high-end video features. With the R5 we saw one of the downsides of offering high-end video (overheating). In my opinion (and yes, it is just my opinion) the R5 would have been just as popular without the high resolution video features.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,474
1,330
Obviously Canon regularly conducts market research, and I presume they act on such research (based on their manifest success in the ILC market).

That doesn’t explain why people on this forum persist in arguing that their personal opinion is representative of some significant fraction of the market. Given the typical characteristics of forum members here and the litany of instances where such arguments were proven false by history, it’s unlikely to be true. Still, that doesn’t seem to stop people from making themselves look foolish.
Agree. Except there may be a better word than 'foolish' to describe this kind of thinking. 'Confused' perhaps? :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,474
1,330
I don't disagree with that. But, my question regards just how sophisticated those video features need to be and what are the additional costs of achieving the high-end video features. With the R5 we saw one of the downsides of offering high-end video (overheating). In my opinion (and yes, it is just my opinion) the R5 would have been just as popular without the high resolution video features.
No buddy, I got the R5 for the fantastic 8k video. And with the intense competition, companies need to up the game all around. I believe: If Canon felt that a still camera without video would have a market, they would make it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps (likely) not. (I would immediately buy a still-only retro type of body but that wish will never come true.)
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
Market research will probably say that McDonald's has the best food, because they sell more food than most other restaurant chains. Market research might say that K-pop is great music and that the Marvel movies are great cinema. The masses also buy overpriced s**t like an iPhone.

I wonder how much YouTube influences the decisions for video. It is an important platform, but is has a great bias for video, as all YouTuber create videos and most want video in their cameras. So when a camera comes without video or with "only" 1080p, they complain a lot.

Would we even have mirrorless cameras if it wasn't for video?

I wish Canon would at least give us the option of buying a camera without video. Leaving a feature away can't be very expensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
It's only wasted if you don't use it. The number of scenarios where it would be useful are huge, and the technology is available. Most of the arguments against are effectively boiling down to "we don't do it that way". Instead of worrying about the technology, put yourself in more of a growth mindset and think what you could use that feature for. Perhaps you took a landscape shot and later realised it might have been cool as a portrait. Maybe you lined up perfectly and it still came out wonky. Instead of cropping you keep full resolution and just rotate a little. Maybe photos don't actually need to be rectangular at all, eyes certainly don't work that way.
Would it be possible to take 2 shots? one vertical, one horizontal?
Also even using both vertical or horizontal there is still considerable loss of pixels as I stated before.
Photos do not need to be any shape, I have used a toilet seat as a frame. Ovals were popular in Victorian times through about the 1920's.
That said I doubt in my lifetime will I see Michael's stocking round frames etc.
And a custom frame would be expensive.
Then your monitor for social media would need to be round or again a loss of use for a large portion of the screen.
And round cell phones? That will be interesting.
 
Upvote 0
Please consider R5. It may just work great for your needs. It works great for me.
Oh, I absolutely have considered that one. It's a great allround camera, from what I have seen. However there are a number of boxes that it doesn't check for me, that the R3 does check:
- Battery life is significantly less, and would require at least a battery grip to compensate (I come from DSLR with practically infinite battery life)
- FPS is inconsistent based on battery levels, exacerbating the above shortcoming
- Without a battery grip, the grip is smaller than the DSLR grip I'm used to (I'd prefer bigger rather than smaller)
- If adding a grip, the R5 becomes heavier than the R3
- R5 is bitrate limited at higher shutter speeds & using electronic shutter
- Electronic shutter suffers from rolling shutter
- Low light performance slightly falls behind the R3, even when downscaled to 24MPx

And then there's some of the nice-to-have features that the R3 does have, like higher shutter speeds and the eye control AF.

I'm awaiting the R1 official specs to know whether it would be a better alternative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

jam05

R5, C70
Mar 12, 2019
916
584
I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.

The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!
The newer stacked sensor of the R3 has more dynamic range than the older CMOS sensor in the R5. Leading to more shadow recovery and faster readout and thus better performance in ALL modes of processing.
 
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
No buddy, I got the R5 for the fantastic 8k video. And with the intense competition, companies need to up the game all around. I believe: If Canon felt that a still camera without video would have a market, they would make it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps (likely) not. (I would immediately buy a still-only retro type of body but that wish will never come true.)
Yeah, but you may be making the same mistake others are by assuming your needs are representative. You are a professional filmmaker, so you had a reasonable need/desire for 8k. The unknown is what percentage of the market fits into that category.

It doesn't have to be a binary choice between no video and Hollywood style video features. I'm just speculating that there could be a middle ground that meets the needs of most video users without requiring costly, high-end features that are exclusively for video use.

You needed 8K, but I suspect that most users do not need 16K or 8K in order to film their kid's kindergarten graduation and share it on Facebook.

It seems to me that most technologies go through cycles of convergence followed by specialization. That is, someone develops a device can accomplish multiple tasks, but as the demands for each of those tasks increases, it becomes harder and harder for the all-in-one device to meet those demands. As a result, we start to see devices that specialize in doing one of the tasks better than the others and so we turn to purpose-built devices. The all-in-ones still exist, but no one expects them to work as well as the purpose-built models.

I am simply exploring the possibility that we may be reaching the point where it could be more economical to have purpose-built still cameras that forgo some, but not all, video features in order to emphasize the stills side without compromises and without added unnecessary costs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

mxwphoto

R6 and be there
Jun 20, 2013
201
281
Perhaps a lower resolution option doubling up pixels or combining 4 pixels.
That would be an interesting option.
If Canon does come out with an 80mpx sensor I would want to see quad bin 4-1 so you go down to a 20mpx file but with each group of pixels being able to take on greater dynamic range through dual or quad gain iso on the pixels. 18stops dynamic range with a 20mpx file anyone?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I’m fine with a smaller body. I’m not fine with overheating or limitations on shooting modes due to heat… not on a 1 series.

As an R3 owner I am the target audience for this camera: So here’s what would I like to see?

Global shutter… or really fast rolling shutter.

• Built in NDs. Canon, if you remove that mechanical shutter I hope you replace it with internal NDs. No mirrorless body has this and it is way overdue.

• Open gate video modes so we can take full advantage of those higher megapixels. All of your bodies NEED this feature for video.

• A tilt-flip articulating screen like the Panasonic s1h features… but larger and brighter.

• Built in support for wireless audio and time code… because innovation!

• I’m fine with built in cooling fan if fairly quiet…
Sounds like you want a cinema body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

domo_p1000

EOS-1D X MkIII | EOS-1D X MkII
CR Pro
Aug 22, 2013
56
67
I do not like the developement that more megapixels are now considered more premium or flagship than low megapixels. If you compare the R5 and the R3, you see how much better the R3 is in low light evne if you scale the R5 images down to the resolution of the R3. Is that just because of the stecked BSI sensor? I also hate that resolution decisions are taken with video in mind. So they might opt for 89.3 megapixels that are required for a 12K resolution, if I made the calculation right. Even for 8K a 12K oversampling would give good results, as it would basically use 9 pixels to get 4 pixels.

The "new ergonomics" sound scary. Please to not give us a tiny toy camera like that Sony A1 that still costs as much as a big camera!
This patent application for very new ergonomics was floating about 12 months ago: https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-...esign-with-integrated-grip-with-pass-through/
Generally, Canon has a good history where ergonomics is concerned, so if such a beast comes to fruition, it would be interesting to see its handling.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jan 22, 2012
4,474
1,330
Yeah, but you may be making the same mistake others are by assuming your needs are representative. You are a professional filmmaker, so you had a reasonable need/desire for 8k. The unknown is what percentage of the market fits into that category.

It doesn't have to be a binary choice between no video and Hollywood style video features. I'm just speculating that there could be a middle ground that meets the needs of most video users without requiring costly, high-end features that are exclusively for video use.

You needed 8K, but I suspect that most users do not need 16K or 8K in order to film their kid's kindergarten graduation and share it on Facebook.

It seems to me that most technologies go through cycles of convergence followed by specialization. That is, someone develops a device can accomplish multiple tasks, but as the demands for each of those tasks increases, it becomes harder and harder for the all-in-one device to meet those demands. As a result, we start to see devices that specialize in doing one of the tasks better than the others and so we turn to purpose-built devices. The all-in-ones still exist, but no one expects them to work as well as the purpose-built models.

I am simply exploring the possibility that we may be reaching the point where it could be more economical to have purpose-built still cameras that forgo some, but not all, video features in order to emphasize the stills side without compromises and without added unnecessary costs.
You make (as usual) a lot of good points. Here are my thoughts:
I am (every buyer or prospective buyer is) a representative of the market for sure! How big or small, 'they' will figure out and decide their path accordingly. R5 IS the middle ground (you can choose any resolution Full HD to 8k). If I need (like) 8k, I am sure that there are others as well! Btw FB is a bad example - that is taken over by cell phones. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
May 4, 2022
127
180
No buddy, I got the R5 for the fantastic 8k video. And with the intense competition, companies need to up the game all around. I believe: If Canon felt that a still camera without video would have a market, they would make it. Perhaps they will. Perhaps (likely) not. (I would immediately buy a still-only retro type of body but that wish will never come true.)
It's amazing how a thread gets twisted so quickly. Firstly, your R5 isn't an ultra high end body, it's a midrange and exactly the kind of device I originally suggested people buy when they can't or won't get a full video device. Secondly, liteally not one person on this thread has suggested Canon should make a photo only camera, just that those buying the ultra high end photo camera generally don't care about video as a feature. Those people are generally pro photographers. There's no reason Canon would make a camera without video, but for the 1Dx at $10k and the R1 at very likely $13k when it arrives it's unlikely many people want the compromise jack of all trades approach. Some obviously will, as the thread has shown, and I'm sure they will be happy with the video features included.
 
Upvote 0
Jan 27, 2020
826
1,796
It's only wasted if you don't use it. The number of scenarios where it would be useful are huge, and the technology is available. Most of the arguments against are effectively boiling down to "we don't do it that way". Instead of worrying about the technology, put yourself in more of a growth mindset and think what you could use that feature for. Perhaps you took a landscape shot and later realised it might have been cool as a portrait. Maybe you lined up perfectly and it still came out wonky. Instead of cropping you keep full resolution and just rotate a little. Maybe photos don't actually need to be rectangular at all, eyes certainly don't work that way.
I guess you missed the part where it was mentioned that sensors are cut from larger wafers. Square sensor = far fewer sensors that can be cut from a wafer. Far fewer sensors cut from a wafer = much higher cost. They don't do square because it is not worth it, not because it has always been done that way. I am sure that I have taken many landscape shots that looked better in portrait orientation. I cropped them. Works fine. Not going to pay extra $$$$ for your square sensor. Doubt many would.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0