Help with choosing R5 or R6

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,312
129
Friends. I will buy either of the upcoming R5 or R6. I would like to buy the high migapix R5 but I keep reading that high megapixel camera needs higher shutter speed for a sharp picture. With lens stabilization now built-in, should I still worry about this? I like to shoot low light moments. Thank you for any advice! :)
 
Jan 31, 2020
5
4
That sounds like a great Idea, HeavyPiper.
I would guess that based on sensor resolution (and name) a R6 might become the best low light body available, like EOS 6D was, when it came 7 years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM and sanj

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,312
129
I guess my question stems from many comments I have read that hi Mpx cameras being bad for low light is a myth.
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,312
129
Hi Mpx is of course not the only criteria for me to buy a camera, but I am focusing just on that in this question. :)
 

CanonFanBoy

O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,557
2,369
Irving, Texas
Hi Mpx is of course not the only criteria for me to buy a camera, but I am focusing just on that in this question. :)
Hi Sanj. I have experience with IBIS on my Olympus M4/3 camera. It is not a high megapixel camera, but I can tell you that the IBIS works very well. I would not get a high mp camera without it. I might get an R5 right as the Mark II gets announced some day. Without IBIS, I would not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
Friends. I will buy either of the upcoming R5 or R6. I would like to buy the high migapix R5 but I keep reading that high megapixel camera needs higher shutter speed for a sharp picture. With lens stabilization now built-in, should I still worry about this? I like to shoot low light moments. Thank you for any advice! :)
From my own experience in both 'sharp images' and low light performance, generation for generation, it comes down to output size. A higher mp camera has a greater output size, so any imperfections are magnified.

The 5DS is actually a very good low light camera - as long as you compare it in output size equal to that of other lower mp cameras that have a reputation for good low light performance. Apart from higher ISO performance I find that quantum efficiency is important and all these latest generation cameras are about equal in this respect anyway. With an equivalent QE of about 11% that's why film is pretty poor in low light I assume.

To maximise the image quality potential of higher mp cameras then yes I find speeds or camera stability have to be greatly improved. But again, like for like, if say a 5DS and a 5D have equal amount of movement, if you reduce the output size of the 5DS to that of the 5D then they are as sharp as each other. On higher mp sensors I find zero movement really helps with colour fidelity.

If the specs for the R5 and R6 are accurate I'd go for the 5 without a doubt if it was affordable.

Hope that helps.
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,312
129
From my own experience in both 'sharp images' and low light performance, generation for generation, it comes down to output size. A higher mp camera has a greater output size, so any imperfections are magnified.

The 5DS is actually a very good low light camera - as long as you compare it in output size equal to that of other lower mp cameras that have a reputation for good low light performance. Apart from higher ISO performance I find that quantum efficiency is important and all these latest generation cameras are about equal in this respect anyway. With an equivalent QE of about 11% that's why film is pretty poor in low light I assume.

To maximise the image quality potential of higher mp cameras then yes I find speeds or camera stability have to be greatly improved. But again, like for like, if say a 5DS and a 5D have equal amount of movement, if you reduce the output size of the 5DS to that of the 5D then they are as sharp as each other. On higher mp sensors I find zero movement really helps with colour fidelity.

If the specs for the R5 and R6 are accurate I'd go for the 5 without a doubt if it was affordable.

Hope that helps.
Thank you Sporgon for this great reply. This brings up another question: Are high mp cameras worse at higher ISO compared to cameras with lower MP? Yes, this is what I am trying to find out. :)
 

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
Thank you Sporgon for this great reply. This brings up another question: Are high mp cameras worse at higher ISO compared to cameras with lower MP? Yes, this is what I am trying to find out. :)
I am no technical wizard and my answers are only what I have found from my own experiences, but the answer to your question is yes and no, which is why there is so much debate and confusion over the internet. Smaller pixels gather less light, so higher mp cameras are worse at this point. However lower mp cameras have a smaller output size, higher mp a larger output size. Interpolate down those higher numbers of less efficient pixels to the same number of pixels as the lower mp camera and you finish with the same performance in output quality terms.

Putting it another way, if you print out a very high iso image from at 5DIV at native resolution, so 28" across at 240 dpi, and also print the same image from the 5DS at native resolution and at the same high iso, so this picture will be 36" across, the 5DIV will show better ISO performance. However reduce the 5DS image down to the same size as the 5DIV, down from 36" to 28", and the quality of the picture will be the same.

Or to sum it up: in theory yes, in practice no.
 

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
686
289
For stills, there might not be big differences, except the file sizes and a more powerful PC needed to edit these. Moreover, these files contain lots of information and there are different techniques to reduce the noise effectively (in the older days, not only the sensors were inferior, but the software as well)

Advantages of the lower MP: cleaner view in the EVF, there will be a noticeable difference in video (sharper, less noisy in FF mode, no moire patterns, but worse rolling shutter), and also for using the silent mode for stills. The AF system is also going to be different (more AF points on the higher-megapixel model but faster readout on the lower sensor MP might be able to do more AF calculations and the low-light sensitivity might be better).

Of course it is worth mentioning that Nokishita Camera hasn't tweeted anything on these cameras yet, which is an account that only posts reliable leaks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

unfocused

EOS 1D MK II
Jul 20, 2010
5,274
1,899
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Sporgon’s answers are great. Implicit in his answers is the question of how you intend to use the final image. Print or web. Large prints viewed close up or small and medium size prints (8x10 or 11x17 for example)

Subject matters too, as absolute sharpness may be less important for portraits or even wildlife than for landscapes or macro.
 

sanj

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 22, 2012
3,312
129
Sporgon’s answers are great. Implicit in his answers is the question of how you intend to use the final image. Print or web. Large prints viewed close up or small and medium size prints (8x10 or 11x17 for example)

Subject matters too, as absolute sharpness may be less important for portraits or even wildlife than for landscapes or macro.
What is "absolute sharpness"? Thank you kindly.
 

jd7

EOS 7D MK II
Feb 3, 2013
782
151
I am no technical wizard and my answers are only what I have found from my own experiences, but the answer to your question is yes and no, which is why there is so much debate and confusion over the internet. Smaller pixels gather less light, so higher mp cameras are worse at this point. However lower mp cameras have a smaller output size, higher mp a larger output size. Interpolate down those higher numbers of less efficient pixels to the same number of pixels as the lower mp camera and you finish with the same performance in output quality terms.

Putting it another way, if you print out a very high iso image from at 5DIV at native resolution, so 28" across at 240 dpi, and also print the same image from the 5DS at native resolution and at the same high iso, so this picture will be 36" across, the 5DIV will show better ISO performance. However reduce the 5DS image down to the same size as the 5DIV, down from 36" to 28", and the quality of the picture will be the same.

Or to sum it up: in theory yes, in practice no.
FWIW, my simplistic understanding is it works this way.

Smaller pixels gather less light, but the important thing is the total light gathered by the sensor. So, the amount of light per pixel isn't necessarily the key.

Larger pixels have a greater full well capacity. When shooting in good light (so generally low ISO), the greater full well capacity can help because it allows a greater range of results (subtley of tones) than a small pixel which should become full/saturated sooner. On the other hand, a smaller pixel is going to gather less light in a given amount of time, so in the end again, it's not as simple as saying a larger pixel is necessarily better. It depends on how big the difference is between the small and large pixels.

Where a difference comes is that larger pixels potentially mean a greater light-gathering area on the sensor. Each pixel has a "wall", and small pixels mean more pixels for a given size sensor, which means more "walls". Assuming the walls are the same width, more of the sensor is lost to non-light-gathering walls. So, if the pixels have the same QE, the overall sensor QE for the sensor with small pixels is lower than the overall sensor QE for the sensor with large pixels. When there is plenty of light (so assume low ISO), the slightly lower QE doesn't matter. As light level drops though (think higher ISO), the difference in QE starts to become more significant.

Incidentally, I understand this is essentially why BSI sensor designs are regarded as better than the older designs, ie BSI moves some components off the sensor surface which is used for light gathering, so allows the light gathering areas to be larger while the physical size of the sensor stays the same.

However, as Sporgon has said, you have to take into account output size too. As you reduce output size, differences becomes harder to pick. As you increase output size, differences get easier to see. But as you increase output size, the lower resolution sensor starts to hit its limit before the higher resolution sensor, so even if it started with any advantage, it ends up having to fight a slightly different issue once output size gets large enough.

If anyone has a better understanding than me, I'm all ears!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: sanj and Sporgon