Canon EOS R5 Mark II going to 60mp? [CR1]

[David - Sydney]

I’ll take 60MP into the mountains. The more cropping capabilities for critters the better. Also, I shoot a lot of video but 8K is overkill—wish there was a 4K RAW option.

4kHQ is the pixel binned 8k raw. A 4k raw option would mean a huge crop

 

[Frodo]

Canon RAW is never binned (except Magic Lantern which is not official).
Last time it was written that an R5s would be a separate model alongside the R5 II which would make way more sense.

My Canon G10 (or was it my G11) had pixel binning (jpg output) to improve high ISO noise.
I would love pixel binning to be an option in my R5 to reduce files sizes when resolution is not an issue.

 

[David - Sydney]

YES.

I cannot tell you how many times I wish I had that option. I shoot quite a bit of video of my baby; I do a fair amount in 8K, but I would prefer 4K in a majority of cases. I hate losing the RAW option though, so I shoot 8K way more often than I would like. Same with my nature videos that I take.

The R5 cannot record 8k raw except internally to the CFe Type B card.
The HDMI port would need to be upgraded to 2.1 to handle 8k raw and/or a 2nd USB-C port for direct recording (1st one remains for external power).
Alternatively, the Ninja V+ is the current option for 8k prores raw

 

[BBarn]

Spending time using the R5 and R6, and seeing how good the results from the R6 can be with today's PP software, I doubt Canon will make the case for me to consider an R5II. Especially when I consider how good the R6II appears to be. I'm not sure what Canon could offer in an R5II that would compel me to spend roughly $1400 over an R6II. More MP certainly wouldn't do it. Nor would faster sensor readout.

If Canon does use a new sensor in the R5II, I think do it should have a base ISO below 100.

 

[David - Sydney]

Most images are downsized for output. Given that smartphones have surpassed TVs for media consumption, most images are downsized a lot. That renders the improvement from more MP meaningless in many cases. Some people care more about technical image quality than artistic image quality. I think both are important, but personally I think artistic quality trumps technical quality.
The phone camera vs dedicated camera debate reminds me of the CD vs iPod/Zune/Rio debate.

The CD quality bit rate being the key spec for music back in the day but the availability of iPod music portability without skipping meant more than the poor initial sound quality

 

[David - Sydney]

I don’t think you’re ever going to see 40 FPS with a mechanical shutter.

I was a little confused why the 1DXiii's 16fps mechanical shutter wasn't brought across to the R3 which tops out at 12fps. Maybe Canon is keeping it for the R1.
Alternatively, it could be that it took about 8hrs of continuous shooting to hit the rated 500k actuation lifespan
A R5ii that can handle 14 bit raw at 12fps would certainly be an improvement over the current 12bit files.

 

[David - Sydney]

You simply cannot argue that resolution = quality. The image on the left (or top) is from a 24 MP RAW file, the image on the right (or bottom) is from a 48 MP RAW file. Which is higher quality?

View attachment 210257 View attachment 210258

How are you going with your underwater shooting?

 

[neuroanatomist]

How are you going with your underwater shooting?

Working through the DNGs now (not a fan of Adobe Camera Raw, but DxO doesn’t support the current iPhone’s RAWish files). The ‘example’ was an accidental shutter press that was already in the trash bin, lol. There are a few decent shots, at least as far as first attempts go. Unfortunately, the planned night dive didn’t happen (dive shop wasn’t running them).

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Most images are downsized for output.

"Most images in the world" is not the same as "most image I shoot and select for processing and displaying or printing".

Some people care more about technical image quality than artistic image quality. I think both are important, but personally I think artistic quality trumps technical quality.

Apples don't trump oranges. Until you prove that technical quality somehow affects and reduces artistic quality, that's a moot point.

Given the impact of diffraction, putting more MP into a full frame sensor is a diminishing return unless you can use a wide aperture (and that brings other limitations depending on the subject).

With or without diffraction, more pixels means more information and better resolution.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Do you mean "8k DCI"?

Yes, sorry, 8k DCI -> 44Mp in a 3:2 sensor.

 

[Aussie shooter]

If the R1 doesn't have that why would anyone buy it.

We got 40fps in the R6MKII and increased AF. TBH for anyone shooting moving subjects a stacked sensor is kind of a must. Really puts me off mirrorless, the AF is amazing but pointless if the images are warped.

With one hand giveth with another its taken away.

Plus the competition across the board are adding stacked sensors so Canon needs to follow suit.

Why would not having a stacked sensor put you off mirrorless for moving subjects? You do realize most mirrorless still have a mechanical shutter don't you? And they shoot pretty fast with it?

 

[Aussie shooter]

This is a good point. At what point does video or image quality exceed the ability of the human eye/brain to resolve? I would think in some scientific or engineering situations there are needs for microscopic resolution. But for the average wildlife photographer for say a 13 x 19 inch print or for web display, what would the optimal resolution be? Just curious, not arguing anyones point because I don't know. It may be strictly subjective. I agree with Neuro that "more" sells, just like in the old days of horse powered engines. But at what point do we as photogrpahers say I can't tell the difference between x and y resolution on my super duper monitor or printer even when cropping?

If people view my wildlife prints the way I intend them to be viewed (as a whole and not an inspection from 2 inches away) then ten mp is fine for a 13x19inch print. Even less wouldn't matter. If they are viewing from a few inches away then I am not overly concerned because they won't see the forest for the trees anyway and will not be appreciating my work as envisioned. However, having 60mp means I could take that ten mp from the perfect portion of the entire frame.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

TBH for anyone shooting moving subjects a stacked sensor is kind of a must

I do not find that to be true at all.
The R5 electronic shutter is plenty fast enough for most moving subjects.
Also, it only matters when you need a silent shutter.
Most sports do not require that and 12 FPS and 15 FPS are plenty fast.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Why would not having a stacked sensor put you off mirrorless for moving subjects? You do realize most mirrorless still have a mechanical shutter don't you? And they shoot pretty fast with it?

As much as I agree with you I still think the R1 needs one in order to separate itself and the R3 from the rest of the lineup.
Plus, the flagships of the main competition have one.
I do not think the R5 II needs one at all.
I also know that fans of the Z 8 will disagree with that.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

lets make higher mega pixel so the only lenses that will resolve it are 3000 usd or more. That will keep profits high.
or thats what we will tell everyone.

You do understand that this strategy has been in place for a while, right?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

In theory, maybe; in practice it's not so clear cut

In theory, everything works in practice.
In practice, everything works in theory.

-Yogi Berra

 

[EOS 4 Life]

For video, the A1 does not (cannot?) record 8k raw and only 8k via codecs. One of the reasons is that it doesn't use CFe type B cards

The main reason was the settlement Sony has with RED.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

4kHQ is the pixel binned 8k raw.

4KHQ is oversampled.
It reads 8K worth of data but saves it to a 4K file.

 

[neuroanatomist]

"Most images in the world" is not the same as "most image I shoot and select for processing and displaying or printing".

Fair enough. But if you’re downsampling to a few MP anyway (as I stated, 4K is only ~8 MP), then more MP don’t make a significant difference.

Apples don't trump oranges. Until you prove that technical quality somehow affects and reduces artistic quality, that's a moot point.

You seem to have missed the point. An image shot on a Phase One 150 MP camera at base ISO with a Rodenstock HR lens can still have crappy composition – technical excellence, poor quality. Award-winning images have been shot on older iPhones – excellent quality, technically weak.

Put another way, you can have a high quality image with good artistic and poor technical quality, but you can’t have a high quality image with poor artistic and good technical quality. Granted, it’s subjective…maybe you personally love looking at ISO 12233 charts or something like that.

With or without diffraction, more pixels means more information and better resolution.

Not true. It really depends on the optical system. For example, on one of my Zeiss research scopes with a 100x 1.4 NA oil objective, a VGA camera (0.3 MP) is sufficient to capture all of the available spatial resolution. You can put a 12 or a 60 MP camera on the system, but with that objective more pixels does not mean better resolution.

In the case of ILCs, more MP generally means more resolution, but as I stated it’s a diminishing return. Going from 45 to 60 MP is a 33% increase in MP count, but with some lens/aperture combinations that means a 1-2% increase in resolution. Technically, that’s ‘more’ but practically it’s completely meaningless.

 

[Aussie shooter]

As much as I agree with you I still think the R1 needs one in order to separate itself and the R3 from the rest of the lineup.
Plus, the flagships of the main competition have one.
I do not think the R5 II needs one at all.
I also know that fans of the Z 8 will disagree with that.

I totally agree the R1 will and should have one. I just don't see why not having one would be a deal breaker as you still have the capability to do everything a DSLR can do plus use an electronic shutter when it is suitable