Canon EOS R5 Mark II sensor resolution likely to stick at 45mp but with new AI features [CR2]

[neuroanatomist]

Now I see why, except the 1 series, no other DSLR got this feature.
Maybe the R5 II gets it?

Maybe, but I'm doubtful. The R3 didn't get AF point-linked spot metering. That could mean Canon has decided that the feature is no longer needed with MILCs at all, or it could mean that there are technical issues for it with MILCs that I'm not aware of. But I think more likely it just means that Canon made a decision that the feature is a 1-series only feature. Same with customizable frame rates and a host of other features that are limited to the 1-series (though the R3 got some of them, like AE and FE microadjustment).

Edit: the 5DIV had a 150,000 pixel metering sensor, so certainly it could have supported AF point-linked spot metering.

 

[neuroanatomist]

But if you have that spot meter linked to your AF point then that is what you will meter from, irrespective of what you think might be most important in the scene. It presumes that what you are focusing on will give the correct exposure. As you pointed out, this will often require the photographer to recognise how the subject sits in absorbing light and compensate accordingly. Hence my last statement of why I personally think Canon only offer this in the one series, as there’s a higher chance of those photographers understanding this.

Except pretty much all cameras have spot metering in the center, and an AF point in the center. If Canon really thought people couldn't handle spot metering, they'd remove it.

I had a decade of experience using AF-point linked spot metering on the 1D X. It's really about knowing when you want to spot meter, and if you do, I find it far more helpful to have that spot follow the AF point than stuck in the center of the image (where there's a lower probability that my subject will be placed).

 

[neuroanatomist]

It can be an option, which wouldn't hurt anybody. I don't know if 1 series DSLRs gave you an option with the linking.

Yes, it was an option on 1-series DSLRs. You could have spot metering in the center like all other cameras, or link it to the active AF point.

 

[amorse]

I'm just about to take ownership of a Tesla model 3 long range highland and it will be interesting to learn about a SW driven (pun included) car. Users are constantly demanding new or improved features (sounds familiar to R5 users ) from new iterations.

Why they can't include a head up display to improve the driving ergonomics is me but still the best package at this time. Quality out of the Shanghai factory is another unknown.

Not interested in advanced auto pilot let alone full self driving. Although not available for the 2024 model (yet), the Tesla Acceleration Boost SW download is a one time purchase. Clearly the car hardware is already capable although it isn't clear what are the downsides to battery or other hardware components by using it.

Yeah, Tesla is definitely an interesting one in this space as well. I’m really not sure how I feel about the software enabling upgrades, but I do fully understand why they do it. I guess with Tesla it’s a bit different - this has been their model from the start (I think?) and I’m not sure that we can argue they’ve taken a feature away and locked it behind a subscription service like other car manufacturers. Can we begrudge them for that sales model if it has always been that way, and that was the deal when you buy a Tesla? I guess with Canon, it really depends on how that subscription model would work. I’d be concerned if my old camera had more capabilities than a new camera unless I bought a subscription service. And I’d be really disappointed if I couldn’t buy at all without a subscription service. Time will tell I guess!

 

[koenkooi]

Yeah, Tesla is definitely an interesting one in this space as well. I’m really not sure how I feel about the software enabling upgrades, but I do fully understand why they do it. I guess with Tesla it’s a bit different - this has been their model from the start (I think?) and I’m not sure that we can argue they’ve taken a feature away and locked it behind a subscription service like other car manufacturers. Can we begrudge them for that sales model if it has always been that way, and that was the deal when you buy a Tesla? I guess with Canon, it really depends on how that subscription model would work. I’d be concerned if my old camera had more capabilities than a new camera unless I bought a subscription service. And I’d be really disappointed if I couldn’t buy at all without a subscription service. Time will tell I guess!

This is no different from IBM mainframes, if you wanted an extra processor, an IBM tech would come by to punch in the magic code and you’d have your extra processor functional!

 

[AlanF]

And what happens with your AF linked spot metering if the bird’s head and eye are black ? You have to compensate or you will over expose. You will know this, but many wishing for this feature seem to be under the impression it will guarantee their subject being correctly exposed.

You already have to be reasonably savvy to program the menu options. Those who aren't can leave the camera in auto mode.

 

[Del Paso]

And what happens with your AF linked spot metering if the bird’s head and eye are black ? You have to compensate or you will over expose. You will know this, but many wishing for this feature seem to be under the impression it will guarantee their subject being correctly exposed.

If your little birdie sits on a branch, light coming from behind, no matter whether its head is black or yellow, it most certainly will be underexposed with evaluative metering. Spot metering would surely help!

 

[Sporgon]

If your little birdie sits on a branch, light coming from behind, no matter whether its head is black or yellow, it most certainly will be underexposed with evaluative metering. Spot metering would surely help!

What happens if my little birdie with strong backlight is too small the fill the spot area ? I’d probably be more out that with matrix. Compensation required - that’s my point really. Your matrix metering is already linked to AF point, and I bet you’d now how much compensation to apply in that mode from experience and knowing your gear anyway.
I’m not saying matrix metering is the answer to every situation, far from it, but that a single spot meter reading can be misleading.
In reply to your earlier reply to my (contentious) post, the reason is that I’ve got forty years of experience in how dodgy a single spot reading can be, and I do use the centre spot metering in the 5D S sometimes, although generally to see the range in a scene rather than to set exposure from one reading.
I don’t just shoot landscapes, though that’s what I occasionally post here. For an individual subject, whether studio or outside I use my Sekonic incident meter if practical because then I have the exposure and no need to chimp or check, but incident readings aren’t ideal for landscape for instance, as an incident reading is effectively a spot meter reading of light falling on it, and landscapes often have more extremes of lighting.

 

[Del Paso]

What happens if my little birdie with strong backlight is too small the fill the spot area ? I’d probably be more out that with matrix. Compensation required - that’s my point really. Your matrix metering is already linked to AF point, and I bet you’d now how much compensation to apply in that mode from experience and knowing your gear anyway.
I’m not saying matrix metering is the answer to every situation, far from it, but that a single spot meter reading can be misleading.
In reply to your earlier reply to my (contentious) post, the reason is that I’ve got forty years of experience in how dodgy a single spot reading can be, and I do use the centre spot metering in the 5D S sometimes, although generally to see the range in a scene rather than to set exposure from one reading.
I don’t just shoot landscapes, though that’s what I occasionally post here. For an individual subject, whether studio or outside I use my Sekonic incident meter if practical because then I have the exposure and no need to chimp or check, but incident readings aren’t ideal for landscape for instance, as an incident reading is effectively a spot meter reading of light falling on it, and landscapes often have more extremes of lighting.

I understand what you say, but my 40+ years of experience led to a different conclusion. You prefer evaluative metering, I prefer selective .As long as we both are satisfied with the results, everything is fine!

 

[AlanF]

What happens if my little birdie with strong backlight is too small the fill the spot area ? I’d probably be more out that with matrix. Compensation required - that’s my point really. Your matrix metering is already linked to AF point, and I bet you’d now how much compensation to apply in that mode from experience and knowing your gear anyway.
I’m not saying matrix metering is the answer to every situation, far from it, but that a single spot meter reading can be misleading.
In reply to your earlier reply to my (contentious) post, the reason is that I’ve got forty years of experience in how dodgy a single spot reading can be, and I do use the centre spot metering in the 5D S sometimes, although generally to see the range in a scene rather than to set exposure from one reading.
I don’t just shoot landscapes, though that’s what I occasionally post here. For an individual subject, whether studio or outside I use my Sekonic incident meter if practical because then I have the exposure and no need to chimp or check, but incident readings aren’t ideal for landscape for instance, as an incident reading is effectively a spot meter reading of light falling on it, and landscapes often have more extremes of lighting.

Most of your 40 years of dodgy spot metering were presumably using an OVF. A major advantage of mirrorless is that you can get the right exposure through the viewfinder and the exposure compensation dial (or lens control ring set to compensation). You can see blown out highlights. Frankly, I can manage without auto exposure and usually do BIF etc in full manual.

 

[Juppeck]

I am not would buy a camera body twhere i need to pay for extras. I am not a video fan and do still image only. If i can decide me to get a body without video, i would do that. The menus are so overloaded an i think, that this could be save memory space in ROM and RAM.
The R5II comes with 45MP again - well, i don't need more as around 50MPixels. Previously i was a fan of more pixels, but the R5 had changed my mind. The sensor is so flexible and not so noisy, that i don't need to do much post processing. Especialy if i am on tour doing macro pictures. I crop the pictures to show the details and this is impossible if the sensor is too noisy. The resolution and sensivity of the R5 is ok for me.
So, the R5-II would be better, but this cam will not be a one for me, because i don't expect a game changer. Well, let us see, what canon will do for us.

 

[Sporgon]

Most of your 40 years of dodgy spot metering were presumably using an OVF. A major advantage of mirrorless is that you can get the right exposure through the viewfinder and the exposure compensation dial (or lens control ring set to compensation). You can see blown out highlights. Frankly, I can manage without auto exposure and usually do BIF etc in full manual.

But surely when discussing the relevance of spot meter linked to AF point the EVF works both ways; if it’s feed back is accurate enough to judge exposure correctly by eye why the need for AF linked spot meter when evaluative (that’s linked to AF point) will get you close enough and you’re going to compensate until you see the correct exposure anyway ?

 

[AlanF]

But surely when discussing the relevance of spot meter linked to AF point the EVF works both ways; if it’s feed back is accurate enough to judge exposure correctly by eye why the need for AF linked spot meter when evaluative (that’s linked to AF point) will get you close enough and you’re going to compensate until you see the correct exposure anyway ?

Belt and Braces! You have both a setting and an override. And also, I have different settings for different scenarios. Don’t you?

 

[Del Paso]

Most of your 40 years of dodgy spot metering were presumably using an OVF. A major advantage of mirrorless is that you can get the right exposure through the viewfinder and the exposure compensation dial (or lens control ring set to compensation). You can see blown out highlights. Frankly, I can manage without auto exposure and usually do BIF etc in full manual.

This is indeed a huge advantage of mirrorless, being able to see the effect of one's camera's settings. That is why the quality of the EVF is of utter importance, my major EOS R grief...
I don't remember when I ever used auto exposure settings, 99,99% manual setting (M).

 

[AlanF]

This is indeed a huge advantage of mirrorless, being able to see the effect of one's camera's settings. That is why the quality of the EVF is of utter importance, my major EOS R grief...
I don't remember when I ever used auto exposure settings, 99,99% manual setting (M).

I leave it set on auto so if I have to take a shot with no time for preparation I'll probably be in the right ballpark. If I have time, I'll underexpose birds with reflective plumage or beaks, which is crucial, and overexpose backlit ones. The R5 sensor has so much latitude for pushing RAW in post, that you can underexpose by 1 or 2 or even 3 stops and correct with no or little image detriment using the right RAW software.

 

[Sporgon]

Belt and Braces! You have both a setting and an override. And also, I have different settings for different scenarios. Don’t you?

Of course ! But I don’t see any evidence of no spot meter linked to AF point holding you back in anyway, and given your current camera bodies can’t be in your range of settings !

 

[AlanF]

Of course ! But I don’t see any evidence of no spot meter linked to AF point holding you back in anyway, and given your current camera bodies can’t be in your range of settings !

It is in my range of settings: I have spot meter linked to centre AF point as a setting in the R5 and R7 - that works when the BBF being used is set to centre AF point focus but not when I use the other BBF that is set to full sensor tracking. Very little holds me back, but many improvements make it easier and some increase the number of keepers.

 

[YuengLinger]

But surely when discussing the relevance of spot meter linked to AF point the EVF works both ways; if it’s feed back is accurate enough to judge exposure correctly by eye why the need for AF linked spot meter when evaluative (that’s linked to AF point) will get you close enough and you’re going to compensate until you see the correct exposure anyway ?

Speed is why I choose either spot or evaluative. If I'm out doing landscapes, evaluative works fast and is less jumpy than spot. For portraits, I'm going for light and shadow on the subject's face, and with spot, zeroing in on a more precise, localized exposure is very quick--but then I recompose.

Personally, once exposure is locked in with either mode, recomposing is so fast that I have never felt I'm missing anything by not having AF linked spot metering.

 

[AlanF]

Speed is why I choose either spot or evaluative. If I'm out doing landscapes, evaluative works fast and is less jumpy than spot. For portraits, I'm going for light and shadow on the subject's face, and with spot, zeroing in on a more precise, localized exposure is very quick--but then I recompose.

Personally, once exposure is locked in with either mode, recomposing is so fast that I have never felt I'm missing anything by not having AF linked spot metering.

@neuroanatomist used to point out that locking and recomposing changes the focal distance. It might not matter when you are still well within your depth of field between locked-on point and the final subject, but it can make a serious difference where there is minimal depth of field - just, for example, try that close up when photographing insects, it often blurs the image.

 

[neuroanatomist]

@neuroanatomist used to point out that locking and recomposing changes the focal distance. It might not matter when you are still well within your depth of field between locked-on point and the final subject, but it can make a serious difference where there is minimal depth of field - just, for example, try that close up when photographing insects, it often blurs the image.

AE lock is the way around that: meter > recompose > focus > shoot. Works fine with a subject posing for a portrait, not so much for a subject flying or running across the frame.