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

Dec 25, 2017
575
558
Well the R is just a 5D4 with no mirror and (frankly) lesser ergonomics
Indeed, its pretty much the same camera (same sensor, same quality...)
Only difference:
- touch bar bullshit instead of wheel
-- only one card slot
o bit smaller
o EVF
+ swivel screen
+ more modern video codec (though the rolling shutter is the same inaccaptable catastrophy)

In my opinion its super close to being the same camera. At least when we look at the features and image quality
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

IcyBergs

I have a Sony...TV
May 31, 2016
134
284
Quite a few stills shooters feeling neglected right now (myself among them) with all the video spec excitement at least until the R5 price is announced. Naturally, we stills folks immediately wonder if the R6 is going to be a viable alternative or not - at the latest rumored resolution (20mp) it might not be for many.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
I'm still wondering if the R6 is the video body. That said, I am still waiting on the XC MILC follow up.
Let's review. The R5 knocks it out of the park for all things video. So yes, the R6 will be the video body. /s


Seriously, It won't be, it will be the 6D equivalent.They have pretty much made it crystal clear they are following the dslr nomenclature. It will also be less expensive and what more people might buy. Unless of course, a lot of those people don't mind debt. I didn't say you, or you or you...I know everyone here is fabulously wealthy, will buy 3 R5's to complement their stable of 1DXlll bodies.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
Quite a few stills shooters feeling neglected right now (myself among them) with all the video spec excitement at least until the R5 price is announced. Naturally, we stills folks immediately wonder if the R6 is going to be a viable alternative or not - at the latest rumored resolution (20mp) it might not be for many.
I don't give a rats ass if I go from 22 mp on my 5D3 to 20 on something new if it gives me more of, well, everything except megapixels. Not getting hung up on the numbers here (stills guy going off!)
 
Upvote 0

PureClassA

Canon since age 5. The A1
CR Pro
Aug 15, 2014
2,124
827
Mandeville, LA
Shields-Photography.com
Indeed, its pretty much the same camera (same sensor, same quality...)
Only difference:
- touch bar bullshit instead of wheel
-- only one card slot
o bit smaller
o EVF
+ swivel screen
+ more modern video codec (though the rolling shutter is the same inaccaptable catastrophy)

In my opinion its super close to being the same camera. At least when we look at the features and image quality
I bought it for the video features and to replace my aging and damaged 5D3. I'm happy with it for what I needed. I still use my DX2 for most general shooting. I become very accustomed to that ergonomic set and balance
 
Upvote 0
Nov 12, 2016
910
615
Let's review. The R5 knocks it out of the park for all things video. So yes, the R6 will be the video body. /s


Seriously, It won't be, it will be the 6D equivalent.They have pretty much made it crystal clear they are following the dslr nomenclature. It will also be less expensive and what more people might buy. Unless of course, a lot of those people don't mind debt. I didn't say you, or you or you...I know everyone here is fabulously wealthy, will buy 3 R5's to complement their stable of 1DXlll bodies.
Yeah I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to play out this scheme in their heads that Canon is making one body for stills and one more for video. Despite what Sony may have done, Canon has never positioned their products this way, and I don't know why they would start now. Canon has many great Cinema cameras they will sell you if you want a "video centric" camera. Their stills cameras have always been primarily for stills but happen to also shoot video.
 
Upvote 0
There is clearly something wrong with the numbers ... The 8K resolution is 7680 × 4320, if you take 3:2 on the long side, you get 7680 × 5120, that is, 39.3 MP.


I believe DCI 8K is 8192 pixels wide, so using that as the long edge, then applying a 3:2 ratio for full frame sensor gets you to just a hair under 45MP.

Example:

8,192 / (3/2) = 5,461
8,192 x 5,461 = 44.74MP

[Not a video guy, so you might Google it to confirm...]

EDIT: Who needs Google? Craig has the DCI resolution right in the article for this thread (face-palm). :p
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Yeah I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to play out this scheme in their heads that Canon is making one body for stills and one more for video. Despite what Sony may have done, Canon has never positioned their products this way, and I don't know why they would start now. Canon has many great Cinema cameras they will sell you if you want a "video centric" camera. Their stills cameras have always been primarily for stills but happen to also shoot video.

To be fair, the 1DC was a DSLR that was video-centric. :p

Agreed, though, that the R5 and R6 segmentation is not about one being video-centric and the other stills-centric. As SLClick and others have said, the monikers communicate a similar segmentation and positioning as the EF-mounted 5D and 6D, respectively.

Price-wise, I've expected the R5 to be consistent with 5D pricing at $3,299-$3,499. The mind-blowing specs, though, have me wondering if they'll push it to $3,699 or even a little higher like they did the 5DS(R). I see $3,999 as a hard ceiling for the 5 series and would be surprised if the R5 even got close to it. Given the well-established positioning of the 5 series, along with the current global economic landscape, I'm still feeling confident it will be in the mid-$3K range (USD).

I know everyone is drooling over the video specs, but on the stills side, the R5 has me drooling, too:

> 45PM
> 12-20FPS
> Articulating Screen
> At least 5DIV, or better, ISO and DR performance

The announcement can't come soon enough for this stills shooter!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
As I ruminate a little more on pricing, another thought occurs to me: A good reason to keep the price in the traditional 5D range is the fact that those who might have been willing to pay $5K for the R5 will likely be even happier buying TWO R5 bodies at $3,499. I think the pricing sweet spot is one that is:

1) High enough to maximize ROI in as short a timeline as possible,
2) Low enough to still fit within the 5-Series market positioning, and
3) Low enough for the deeper pockets to buy a second body.

From comments on other threads, it seems like there are quite a few who would pay $4,500+ for the R5. Just seems to make sense that those might also be people whose use case would support needing another body.

It's better for Canon if pros buy two cheaper bodies for $7K than one body for $5K. No, they're not the primary market in this segment, but there will definitely be some who go that route, which is gravy that might make the lower price possible for everyone else.

Am I crazy?
 
Upvote 0

brad-man

Semi-Reactive Member
Jun 6, 2012
1,673
580
S Florida
Yeah I don't understand why everyone keeps trying to play out this scheme in their heads that Canon is making one body for stills and one more for video. Despite what Sony may have done, Canon has never positioned their products this way, and I don't know why they would start now. Canon has many great Cinema cameras they will sell you if you want a "video centric" camera. Their stills cameras have always been primarily for stills but happen to also shoot video.
What I find interesting is that the greater the video specs seem to be, the more some folks feel that it takes away from the R5 as a stills camera:

45mp full-frame CMOS sensor with Dual Pixel AF
5 stops with IBIS alone
7-8 stops of correction when used with in-lens stabilization
12fps mechanical, 20fps electronic
Dual card slots
Scroll wheel added to the back
I am assuming the performance of the sensor will equal that of the 5DIV

I mean really. Can't it be a great video camera and a bad-ass stills camera too? Why do some think they are mutually exclusive?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
What I find interesting is that the greater the video specs seem to be, the more some folks feel that it takes away from the R5 as a stills camera:

45mp full-frame CMOS sensor with Dual Pixel AF
5 stops with IBIS alone
7-8 stops of correction when used with in-lens stabilization
12fps mechanical, 20fps electronic
Dual card slots
Scroll wheel added to the back
I am assuming the performance of the sensor will equal that of the 5DIV

I mean really. Can't it be a great video camera and a bad-ass stills camera too? Why do some think they are mutually exclusive?
This is a good point.I think where you might get that idea from is some of us in the past always stated a hybrid camera body had the reputation as not being sold at a higher price just because it had a video feature. The logic, science and electronics behind this thinking were solid, for those cameras.

This is a very different beast. true, you can forego the video settings and menus even, especially by using the My Menu setting and dialing it in from there. However the R&D , software and hardware going into this is going to be a large portion of the cost. Retail pricing based upon standard ROI for Canon has got to figure that in, right Maths people? (I'm not one of you) So on the flipside, a body with little to no video function but with existing tech should be less expensive to recoup. I have no fantasy of a stills only Canon, just not one which is priced according to the set of features we're now seeing on the R5. I'm thinking how the 6Dll is a low light champ in an R body. Very simple, 5D to 6D with an R in the name. None of this Sony 12mp body bs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

joestopper

Rrr...
Feb 4, 2020
233
212
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.

Remains the question what lenses you would need to get exposure to the extreme left and right ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0