Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[ahsanford]

As a dedicated landscape photographer I'd really go for medium format for very large prints. If you have 50 MP on a 33mm x 44mm sensor, which is currently the standard of (small) digital medium format, you can work with f = 10+ stops to get a big depth of field without losing to much information due to diffraction blur (I know about what I am talking, I am a physicist). Of course, you can re-sharpen such a softness , but this comes with growing artifacts.

There are techniques for getting around diffraction (focus stacking your compositions comes to mind), but I'm sure they must be trouble with wind, water, long exposures, etc.

If you are a dedicated landscaper, I would imagine its a case of migrating to MF or just bringing your glass to a new mount. If you all you need is a sensor, go put great glass on a great sensor.

Adapting to the A7R4 rather than migrating to MF would certainly be the practical half-step towards what you need. Moving to MF (in comparison) is a financial cliff, and some of those companies are not on robust financial ground. I'd hate to invest in a platform that isn't around before too long.

- A

 

[dtaylor]

As a dedicated landscape photographer I'd really go for medium format for very large prints. If you have 50 MP on a 33mm x 44mm sensor, which is currently the standard of (small) digital medium format, you can work with f = 10+ stops to get a big depth of field without losing to much information due to diffraction blur (I know about what I am talking, I am a physicist). Of course, you can re-sharpen such a softness , but this comes with growing artifacts.

Diffraction blur does not impact any format more than another for the same FoV and DoF. (Note that I said FoV and DoF, not focal length and aperture.) A tilt lens is how you can traditionally achieve greater DoF without a diffraction penalty. So when comparing two formats strictly based on DoF you're looking at availability of tilt lenses, not sensor size. Large format's huge advantage here is that most cameras by nature allow tilt, which is why people attach MF backs to view cameras.

 

[Ozarker]

I've printed 52 inch long-edge with 12MP images and they look great.

Do they though?

For home use (viewing distance limited) I have printed 20x30 from 5D Mark III output. Maybe I could have gone bigger and they would have looked good. I don't know. From my old XSi (12mp) the photos were not that great at 20x30. Even from the 5D mark III, I think 40x60 would have been really pushing it for IQ. 28' long would require a lot of stitching of many images if you ask me.

 

[per.farny]

As a dedicated landscape photographer I'd really go for medium format for very large prints. If you have 50 MP on a 33mm x 44mm sensor, which is currently the standard of (small) digital medium format, you can work with f = 10+ stops to get a big depth of field without losing too much information due to diffraction blur (I know about what I am talking, I am a physicist). Of course, you can re-sharpen such a softness , but this comes with growing artifacts.

Good point. That said, given my investment in Canon glass and satisfaction with their bodies all up over the years, it'd be nice if they could just put out a higher MP model with great DR

 

[slclick]

Of course it does! Much like resolution, fps, etc. more is better. Pushing limits is a good thing.

Every stop of IS is one less notch of ISO you need to crank up for low light or one less aperture stop towards wide open you have to use when shooting without a tripod.

Take a handheld nightscape of (say) a city skyline or church interior with a 2.8 zoom. Do you really want to take that at ISO 6400 f/2.8 with just IS when you could take that same shot at ISO 400 f/2.8 (for better DR, noise, etc.) or ISO 6400 f/11 (for sunstars, more working field) now that you have IBIS?

If you are slammed up against the limits of your circumstance in how/when/what you shoot and you can't turn up the lights or use a tripod, IS is certifiable gold -- provided your subect isn't moving.

- A

I'd love to hear more about how Olympus says the rotation of the Earth limits the amount of stops of stabilization can be added.

 

[sulla]

Do they though?

Oh yes, they do, if shot properly. I found prints from my 5D1 (13 MP) very acceptable in A0 (47x33", 1m²), had them in exhibits without a thought. Albeit, you should refrain from cropping too heavily in post, but then, I said "shot properly".
You don't approach such prints with a loupe, do you?

 

[Shakey]

About time canon
2020 is gonna be a good year

and for the boomers that don’tthink mirrorless is the future well...

Great. Now that you know the "future" can you please pass on any lottery numbers that you can for see

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Right, and when you amplify the signal and keep the noise the same, SNR goes up.

The noise is the part of the signal you amplify. You can't selectively amplify wanted but not unwanted signal (noise).

Maybe you mean the read noise only happens after analog amplification (gain) and before ADC? It's not like that by definition of the read noise as it happens in all circuits before amplification. What part of read noise happens after amplification and before ADC I don't know, perhaps not to much.
But anyway this process can't reduce the read noise, it can only increase it because at least part of it will be amplified. Signal to noise ratio may be improved though.

However back to the original question, larger pixels have better DR given other factors are the same and I don't think you were able to disprove it.

It's less noisy because read noise is reduced - exactly what I've been telling you all along.

As above, the read noise can't be reduced by increasing ISO. Relative to signal noise potentially can be. But in terms of DR, that effect will be small because DR drops 1 stop every time you multiply ISO by 2.

 

[justaCanonuser]

There are techniques for getting around diffraction (focus stacking your compositions comes to mind), but I'm sure they must be trouble with wind, water, long exposures, etc.

If you are a dedicated landscaper, I would imagine its a case of migrating to MF or just bringing your glass to a new mount. If you all you need is a sensor, go put great glass on a great sensor.

Adapting to the A7R4 rather than migrating to MF would certainly be the practical half-step towards what you need. Moving to MF (in comparison) is a financial cliff, and some of those companies are not on robust financial ground. I'd hate to invest in a platform that isn't around before too long.

- A

Focus stacking surely is possible, but really only in very static settings. Great glass will not solve the basic problem caused by physics: the fact that light has a wave nature (a particle one also) and therefore tends to run around the edges of small apertures - just like water waves coming through a tight opening in a harbour surrounded by quay walls. This causes image points, that are theoretically needle pin sharp according to the simple geometrical optics model, to blossom out to small discs, so-called Airy discs. As soon as such an Airy disc is bigger than a sensor pixel, the image starts to soften. The smaller a pixel is, the early happens that, what means that may already have to stick to low numberf-stop ranges with extremely high MP 35mm sensors, if you want to utilize their maximum resolution. No lens can save you from that effect. You can only try to get some visually (!) sharper looking result by digital post-processing, but this cannot recover lost information. You can find this problem in many classic photography textbooks btw, but most of them are forgotten today.

No, I am no dedicated landscape photographer, I meant I would go for digital medium format if I would be one. In fact, I prefer to use my medium format film camera when I plan to go for landscape only. With its huge 6cm x 6cm image area I can shoot at f=22 on a tripod without caring about any visible diffraction blur - even with a very fine grained film. But that's aside this thread here... let's return to Canon's latest and very thrilling statements

 

[ahsanford]

Good point. That said, given my investment in Canon glass and satisfaction with their bodies all up over the years, it'd be nice if they could just put out a higher MP model with great DR

...even if it has so many pixels you have to shoot everything in the f/4 to f/5.6 range to put them to good use?

I'm not a (pro) landscaper and I'm not a physicist, so I ask the team: there comes a point with even the best glass in the world and highest res sensor, stopping down too far can diminish your final resolution, correct?

Maybe I'm not articulating this correctly -- I'll try this: Say I'm shooting f/11 or f/14 for some seaside landscape shot. If I want to shoot stopped down like that, I'm eventually going to hit some 'sharpness asymptote' where more pixels behind that lens won't get much sharper... right?

Educate me, I mean it.

- A

 

[justaCanonuser]

Oh yes, they do, if shot properly. I found prints from my 5D1 (13 MP) very acceptable in A0 (47x33", 1m²), had them in exhibits without a thought. Albeit, you should refrain from cropping too heavily in post, but then, I said "shot properly".
You don't approach such prints with a loupe, do you?

That's great to read, and that's exactly what always is stunning for me. Wen my wife makes big prints of their images shot with their old 12 MP crop and FF Nikons, the results show amazingly rich details, you can see every tiny bit like fine wool hairs etc. High MP numbers are really overrated, at least if you don't to crop heavily. That's why I am personally very exited about the rumors that Canon's R6 will only have 20 MP, I really hope for a low-light beast. My 20 MP 5D3 is now 8 years old and old tech. A new camera should be much less noisy, offer a huge leap in low-light IQ - and dynamic range, of course, in all ISO's.

 

[SteB1]

I thought the 8K RAW meant these were the usual fantasy specifications. Now they are CR3 without this part. These specs are just about in the realm of the possible. The IS if true would be as good if not better Olympus IBIS, which is the best. What to make of it. We'll soon find out. Certainly Canon has big plans from the lenses it's been churning out for the RF mount. So maybe they're really going to push the boat out and throw everything but the kitchen sink in.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Good point. That said, given my investment in Canon glass and satisfaction with their bodies all up over the years, it'd be nice if they could just put out a higher MP model with great DR

What I really love about Canon's prosumer/pro gear is its rugged quality. I do a lot of wildlife, and my gear always worked. My wife's comparable Nikon gear caused much more trouble, in fact the most reliable parts are not from Nikon but e.g. from Sigma

 

[reefroamer]

But crop RF in a mainstream (read: not 7D) userbase demands smaller/inexpensive crop image circle RF lenses, like what Sony and Nikon are doing: one mount to rule them all, but you don't need $1000+ to buy two non-L RF lenses for the soccer moms/dads to shoot your family vaca.

Do you think they'll really migrate everything to RF? Because if they do, EF-M isn't really needed anymore.

Knowing this, they *could* migrate all Rebel types to EF-M and not bring Rebel products or crop image circles lenses into RF, but they still might sneak the 90D or 7D with a crop-sensored RF body. Let 90D and 7D folks grumble about lens prices and glass their sensor will never see, but keep Rebel folks in very tidy little EF-M ecosystem. Might that work?

- A

My guess is there will be a top-to-bottom range of RF bodies and lenses in a complete range of prices. Full-frame economies of scale will drive crop sensor cameras and lenses out of all but special-case markets such as EOS M, which has a size-weight/value proposition appeal that can’t yet be replicated with bigger sensors. I predict you’ll see low-end RF bodies kitted with inexpensive RF zoom lenses well under $1,000 within 12 months. Of course, I could be completely wrong. It’s happened before.

 

[dtaylor]

With its huge 6cm x 6cm image area I can shoot at f=22 on a tripod without caring about any visible diffraction blur - even with a very fine grained film.

Once again: diffraction does not affect one format more than another for the same FoV and DoF. You'll note that the "diffraction may become visible" apertures are roughly equivalent between 35mm and 645 in terms of DoF. As an example, for a subject at 10ft they are 3.78ft to infinity vs 4.02ft to infinity. The small difference is only because focal lengths and aperture stops are not absolutely matched for the difference in format size. (f-stops are typically available in 1/2 or 1/3 increments, and lenses aren't offered in fractions of a mm focal length.)

f/22 on 6x6 would be equivalent to roughly f/13 on 35mm, and at a resolution of 50mp both would show roughly the same minor diffraction effects. If you're fighting diffraction your options are stacking or tilt. Larger formats don't help.

 

[Aaron Lozano]

In what area of photography is 45MP considered low? Are you trying to make wall sized prints or what.

I usually stack pictures for extra detail. Can get files of up to 1GP in size (the normal is between 100 to 150MP) the larger the amount of MP the better for my preference.

If I can get the same detail with half the amount of pictures, I'm a happy camper.

 

[amorse]

For home use (viewing distance limited) I have printed 20x30 from 5D Mark III output. Maybe I could have gone bigger and they would have looked good. I don't know. From my old XSi (12mp) the photos were not that great at 20x30. Even from the 5D mark III, I think 40x60 would have been really pushing it for IQ. 28' long would require a lot of stitching of many images if you ask me.

I just ordered a 20x30 metal print of the below image from my 5DIV, but the image was cropped in to ~23 or 25mp. I had wanted to go bigger but just wasn't confident that it would show as well as I had wanted. It's definitely not uncommon for me to print at 24x36 or even bigger so I'm certainly keen for more resolution. How this comes out will no doubt influence whether or not I think 45MP is enough for my uses!

 

[transpo1]

If those features are true, it might bring me back to Canon. Top attractive features are:

4K 60p (with little to no crop)
4K 120p (also 1080 120p with no crop is a must)
Scroll wheel added back

If accurate, I'd buy this body and adapt all my underused EF lenses. May even sell my Fuji

 

[jedy]

MirrorlessRumors claim to have legit specs for a EOS-R6. Looks like a 6D successor. Canon really need to start releasing some non-L glass if they want to sell this camera. I doubt many EOS-R6 buyers would be in the market for expensive-L glass. We’re hearing lots about cameras but nothing on decent, affordable non-L glass - nifty fifty?

Conflicting Canon rumors solved....there is indeed a second EOS-R camera with no 8K and lower resolution sensor named EOS-R6! - mirrorlessrumors

As you may know days ago I told you trusted sources said the EOS-R camera they knew about had no 8K and a lower resolutions sensor. CR reported that the EOS-RS (later named EOS-R5) had 8K and a high resolution camera. So I thought CR rumor was wrong….but the mystery is officially solved! This...

www.mirrorlessrumors.com

 

[Viggo]

My guess is that a 50 f1.4 medium priced will come along sooner rather than later with the R5 or R6.