A high-megapixel EOS R camera is still on the roadmap [CR2]

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
1,598
565
The. market is changing rapidly. Good chance they reinvent themselves and break with past habits ...
Yeah, they are in an overdrive mode. It is absolutely and crystal clear at this stage. This has been communicated in a number of Canon interview where they confirmed. All available resources were allocated towards R project. RF is in focus, EF is a background. Once they have done with emergencies, they will adopt a proven moderate pace of development instead.
 

mppix

EOS T7i
Feb 13, 2018
98
63
I can see a lot of fine print on the video specs (especially when you're at 60 and 120fps) but for what matters to me, I don't see how you can nerf 45mp with a 12fps mechanical shutter. All I've ever really wanted was for my 5D4 to hit the speeds of a 7D2. Add in some electronic shutter capability for faster or silent shooting and I can deal with a little rolling shutter or AF asterisks, etc. That stuff is all gravy compared to what's out there.
Probably they nerf mechanical shutter somehow. Maybe they decrease fps if you pick a shutter speed below 1/12.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,226
4,108
...
Again at 1:1 90D also produces messy shadows, worse than 5DIV. If this is what new-gen Canon sensors are capable of, I'm concerned. They still haven't caught up with Nikon D810 from 2014.
That is a little unfair on the 90D sensor and Canon. Here is what Thom Hogan, the High Priest of Nikon (always worth a read for his unbiased and expert comments, one of my favourites) writes in his review of the Nikon Z50:
"Since I mentioned APS-C sensors in general here, it’s probably a good thing to tell you what I think the current state-of-the-art is (beginning of 2020). Number one at the moment—which will be a surprise to all the Sony worshippers—is the Canon 32mp sensor in their two latest APS-C cameras. The Sony 26mp sensor—without the Fujifilm modifications—would be a very close second. Both the Nikon 20mp and Sony 24mp sensors tend to look very similar and would be in a very close third place. "
My experience is that the Nikon 20 Mpx is very close to the Canon 32 Mpx, with the Canon winning at low iso <640, and the Nikon (and Canon 5DSR) at higher. This might be a fault with the DxO PL I use as it struggles with the luminance noise from the 90D at higher iso and so I use Noise Ninja to sacrifice some resolution when there is obtrusive noise. I've complained to DxO about it but they have shrugged it off. (They would, wouldn't they, MRD).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Architect1776

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
799
643
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
That is a little unfair on the 90D sensor and Canon.
Ok... I downloaded raw files from DPR at ISO 100, pushed the exposure +2 stops and cropped the monotonic grey-ish area. It's all viewed 1:1 with no downscaling. We're just looking at the luminosity noise at 1:1 so crop sensor or FF doesn't matter.
Left to right: 5Ds, 5DIV and 90D.
As you can see, 5DIV beats them all, 90D is better than 5Ds but not on par with 5DIV.
That's why I'm concerned, 90D was released 3 years after 5DIV and there's no improvement. Yes the pixel density is higher in 90D, but if the high-res RS has pixel density close to 90D and the same design, we'll get performance like in the image below (#3).

Yes I know I know! It's only one parameter. And all three have different pixel density. Just food for thought.

1580898998223.png
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,226
4,108
Ok... I downloaded raw files from DPR at ISO 100, pushed the exposure +2 stops and cropped the monotonic grey-ish area. It's all viewed 1:1 with no downscaling. We're just looking at the luminosity noise at 1:1 so crop sensor or FF doesn't matter.
Left to right: 5Ds, 5DIV and 90D.
As you can see, 5DIV beats them all, 90D is better than 5Ds but not on par with 5DIV.
That's why I'm concerned, 90D was released 3 years after 5DIV and there's no improvement. Yes the pixel density is higher in 90D, but if the high-res RS has pixel density close to 90D and the same design, we'll get performance like in the image below (#3).

Yes I know I know! It's only one parameter. And all three have different pixel density. Just food for thought.

View attachment 188549
Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If it's viewed 1:1 with no downscaling, does that mean you are looking at the same number of pixels for all of them? If that is so, then the 5DIV with its larger pixels must win by a real margin. If they are all viewed at the same output size, I would expect it to be much closer but with a small advantage to the 5DIV because of edge effects as the 5DIV has a truly excellent sensor. Sony's sensor act in a similar way with the lower res 7DRIII slightly better than the newer 7DRIV.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Architect1776

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
799
643
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If it's viewed 1:1 with no downscaling, does that mean you are looking at the same number of pixels for all of them? If that is so, then the 5DIV with its larger pixels must win by a real margin. If they are all viewed at the same output size, I would expect it to be much closer but with a small advantage to the 5DIV because of edge effects as the 5DIV has a truly excellent sensor. Sony's sensor act in a similar way with the lower res 7DRIII slightly better than the newer 7DRIV.
Yes, roughly the same number of pixels, I might have cropped them a bit imprecise. But it's a 1:1 view. The area you see was pushed +2 stops, it was quite dark in the original scene.

I've added Nikon D850 with its 46Mp sensor, now there go 5Ds, 5DIV, 90D, D850
You can see how Nikon with Sony sensor at 45.7Mp performs the same as 5DIV at 30.4Mp (even slightly better). That's what I'd like to see in the future R5. The high-res RS in question will likely perform worse at 1:1 but probably it'd be ideal if does least slightly better than 90D.

1580900887082.png
 

yeahright

EOS T7i
Aug 28, 2014
51
25
Yes, roughly the same number of pixels, I might have cropped them a bit imprecise. But it's a 1:1 view. The area you see was pushed +2 stops, it was quite dark in the original scene.

I've added Nikon D850 with its 46Mp sensor, now there go 5Ds, 5DIV, 90D, D850
You can see how Nikon with Sony sensor at 45.7Mp performs the same as 5DIV at 30.4Mp (even slightly better). That's what I'd like to see in the future R5. The high-res RS in question will likely perform worse at 1:1 but probably it'd be ideal if does least slightly better than 90D.

View attachment 188551
There is no point in a 1:1 (i.e. 1 sensor pixel = 1 screen pixel) comparison when you want to judge noise performance. Sensors of the same generation of technology but different pixel density will unsurprisingly have more noise if the pixel density is higher. But that doesn't make them worse performers. If you wanted to compare sensor performance, you'd have to compare images from equally sized areas on the sensor (therefore gathering an equal amount of light), and also resample each image to the same number of pixels.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
799
643
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
There is no point in a 1:1 (i.e. 1 sensor pixel = 1 screen pixel) comparison when you want to judge noise performance. Sensors of the same generation of technology but different pixel density will unsurprisingly have more noise if the pixel density is higher. But that doesn't make them worse performers. If you wanted to compare sensor performance, you'd have to compare images from equally sized areas on the sensor (therefore gathering an equal amount of light), and also resample each image to the same number of pixels.
It's true in general and you can do such a comparison at DPReview, if you like, by clicking the Comp button.

But I did kinda grey card test at 1:1. It also has a value as it shows usability of the full sized raw files. If I buy a high-res camera, I want to know how the images will look like full sized, it's useful for postprocessing, cropping, printing large. In lightroom, I work with full sized raw files, not resampled.

Also, as you can see, there are examples of the sensors with higher pixel densities - 90D and D850 - perform better than 5Ds and 5DIV respectively.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,461
108
66
I know they have been doing well on the RF lenses but until I see it for myself and the reviews validate it, I simply do not care if Canon does a high res camera. I simply don't trust them. The 5DS has 50 megapixels and when it first came out people were excited. But the ISO on that camera is what, 6400? And you don't even want to go near that max for noise. To me they could do 70 megapixels they could do 80. Doesn't matter. The real question is how does the sensor handle noise? How is the dynamic range? Because megapixels alone as a criteria is absolutely foolish.
Your points are only partially correct. I assume you dont own the camera?
In low light the 5DS doesn't shine in fact the 6D MKII does a much better job. However your missing the point of the camera which is all about resolution. I use the 5DS exclusively for portraiture with a mix of daylight and strobes. Im lucky enough to own the 5DS, EOS R, 6D MKII and use the 5D MKIV as well as the 1D X MKII that my company own. So why would I not use the 5D MKIV or the EOS R? Because I can crop & enlarge with the 5DS with better end results when Im setting the camera to ISO100. Cameras are tools, like all tools some are better at a certain jobs than others. I find the 6D MKII works well for me for landscapes, I like using the EOS R as a walk-around camera and if I want an "all-rounder" I use the 5D MKIV.
This is exactly the same in my day job where we rent a number of different digital movie cameras & lens combinations to provide different looks.

Why push a camera to where its weaknesses are? Better to exploit the strong points which equally applies to lenses or accessories. If you think and act positively rather than negatively I think your find your photography will greatly improve.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,461
108
66
Ok... I downloaded raw files from DPR at ISO 100, pushed the exposure +2 stops and cropped the monotonic grey-ish area. It's all viewed 1:1 with no downscaling. We're just looking at the luminosity noise at 1:1 so crop sensor or FF doesn't matter.
Left to right: 5Ds, 5DIV and 90D.
As you can see, 5DIV beats them all, 90D is better than 5Ds but not on par with 5DIV.
That's why I'm concerned, 90D was released 3 years after 5DIV and there's no improvement. Yes the pixel density is higher in 90D, but if the high-res RS has pixel density close to 90D and the same design, we'll get performance like in the image below (#3).

Yes I know I know! It's only one parameter. And all three have different pixel density. Just food for thought.

View attachment 188549
Jesus, go and shoot something tests like this are pointless
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,461
108
66
That's a bold statement so I highlighted in bold the points where Canon wasn't the leader and actually followed someone else's innovations or trends.
Adding video to a DSLR was something new, but DPAF is something very specific to Canon and it didn't change the 'decades of behaviour', and changing mounts isn't something Canon did first.

Your obviously sarcastic statement may in fact be (mostly) true. Only that I don't think Canon is really doomed.
Apple is generally not the leader but I know what balance sheet I would prefer, same with Canon over Nikon.
 

scyrene

EOS 5D MK IV
Dec 4, 2013
2,615
564
UK
www.flickr.com
Tripod landscape shooters still want low noise and good dynamic range. The more pixels Canon puts into this beast, the more I worry about the noise and overall performance. Time will tell but the 45Mp one may happen to be a sweeter spot for landscapes, especially low light/astroscapes.
Here we go again. More pixels only means more noise on a pixel level, not an image level. And there's no such thing as a sweet spot, unless you're talking just about your own needs (in which case fair enough).

That wasn't magnification, that was viewing 1:1. You can click on Comp button and see similar results, slightly imroved for 5Ds because of downscaling.
If you are viewing photos from two sensors of the same size with different resolutions at 100% you are magnifying one more than another. Because the pixels on the higher density sensor are physically smaller. This is pretty basic!
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
799
643
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Here we go again. More pixels only means more noise on a pixel level, not an image level. And there's no such thing as a sweet spot, unless you're talking just about your own needs (in which case fair enough).
Of course I was talking about my own needs!

If you are viewing photos from two sensors of the same size with different resolutions at 100% you are magnifying one more than another. Because the pixels on the higher density sensor are physically smaller. This is pretty basic!
I've already explained in one of the following messages, we were talking about different 'magnifications'.
 

riker

5D4
Jan 19, 2015
80
29
riker.hu
I don't think we will ever see an EOS 3 "equivalent" DSLR/MILC. Canon is just refusing to produce such a camera which is an overall winner with high resolution, very good AF, high FPS etc. It should have higher resolution than R5 and/or higher FPS than R5 and/or better AF than R5 plus some other extra features which the R5 doesn't have. They just don't allow a camera to be clearly better than 5D/R5. If you want resolution (5DS), u lose FPS, DR, video features or whatever. For many years (12-15?) the structure of product lines is not a pyramid anymore, the top has been smashed and 5D - 5DS - 1DX are differentiated horizontally. 3D just doesn't fit. If they eventually do create one, it will not resemble to the original EOS 3 heritage/position.
 
Last edited:

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
6,226
4,108
Looks like I'm not going to shoot until next week, so having fun here instead!
The tests are from DPReview so I don't think they're pointless btw, I just extracted some samples to check what I wanted to check.
If you are comparing noise on a pixel basis then the test are pointless to the extent that unless there are radical differences between the sensors, the larger pixels must win, with some exceptions, over the iso range, depending on the iso. At base iso, circuitry noise can dominate as photon flux is so high and a poor FF can be beaten by an APS-C. At higher isos, the S/N of a pixel depends the number of photons hitting and hence on the square root of its area and so an APS-C has a S/N 1.6x lower than that of FF. The earlier Canon sensors were weak at low iso, but from the 5DIV and 80D, they have been very good. The 90D is very good at base iso, and does as well as can reasonably be expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,398
638
5Ds does not have IBIS
I'm sure IBIS will be a usefull to have feature, but not having it is not exactly the end of the world.
IBIS - assuming it works as expected - would be nice but I do not have an issue with my 5DsR. I use big white lenses with IS. Up to now I have used my 400DOII at 1/160 handheld and the result was excellent. I had even forgotten to chenge it afterwards for sometim but even so I got some keepers. And the ones that showed movement were from the treecreeper and not me.