Are 400mp stills coming to the Canon EOS R5?

[entoman]

scratching my head on a couple of posts about autofocus improvements.. the autofocus on the R5 is miles ahead of my previous SLRs.

Tests by many reviewers have it on par top tier Sony and Nikon..

maybe there is something else at play like the settings you use or the lens you use or the conditions you use it in? Maybe try higher shutter speed? I was initially frustrated with some of the behaviours on my Sigma 150-600 on the R5 .. but you have to remember the more you zoom and the more you move the more things get blurry esp when you pixel peep a high megapixel camera.. you need to up your shutter speed quite a bit. Autofocus is also slower on 3rd party EF lenses adapted (though still work for me). High megapixel cameras are less forgiving when you make errors, hence all the tools to improve your odds (IBIS, IS, AI autofocus etc)

my real world experience has not had any issues with autofocus with fast moving animals, people, jets, cars etc.

<edit> adding what is normally a very difficult thing to keep in a focus.. zoomed in (highly cropped) bird in flight in dense branches.. yet check out the eyes, in focus.
View attachment 208046

I'm the first to admit that I have difficulties in this area.

I've experimented a great deal with AF settings on my R5 - I've tried a myriad of combinations of "cases", AF zones and other AF-related settings. The problem I have is nothing to do with shutter speeds, it's simply that the camera often fails to lock on to birds in flight, even when they are quite large in the frame, and often jumps to trees etc in the background.

With slow-moving birds it's easy to get the eye-AF to lock on and track, even when the bird is quite distant, if the background is uncluttered. But when the background is fussy and close behind the subject, I'm not having much sucess.

So how about sharing all the AF settings that you used on the shot you posted?

 

[entoman]

What fraction of those driving big pickup trucks with powerful engines actually need them for work or tow a trailer or boat? Likely a minority, but having all that engine power appeals to some buyers.

400 MEGAPIXELS!!!!!

Oh gosh, I'd better install the firmware as soon as it's released, and then I can run around telling the whole world that my super-duper R5 can shoot monster files that no other camera can match! WOW!

 

[D Prime]

maybe stills macro?

You need a pretty specialized setup to do macro at >45MP; diffraction makes it really, really hard. 400MP at 1:1 is basically impossible -- you need something like an optically perfect f/1.3 1:1 macro lens and a ton of focus stacking.

Even focused at infinity, you need a just about flawless f/2.6 lens to hit 400MP. In practice, with real lenses focused on something at a reasonable distance, you'd need closer to f/2 to get that much real resolution. I am totally a resolution fiend (I love being able to zoom in to see extremely fine details), but 200MP is about the limit of what I could use.

R5 probably doesn't have enough processing power to output 200MP RAWs

9 shots means 9 separate 45MP RAWs, just like exposure bracketing gives you several RAWs. I don't know if there will even be an in-camera superres option; the A7R III, for example, just wrote the RAWs with enough metadata that Sony's PC software could do the actual superres.

 

[entoman]

9 shots means 9 separate 45MP RAWs, just like exposure bracketing gives you several RAWs. I don't know if there will even be an in-camera superres option; the A7R III, for example, just wrote the RAWs with enough metadata that Sony's PC software could do the actual superres.

Yes, I was referring to in-camera output, rather than compositing with computer software. I should have been clearer.

 

[Michael Clark]

Secondly, consider what percentage of those commercial photographers actually have a need or even a desire to produce images with such high resolution,, and don't forget that this will be restricted to tripod-mounted photography.

Now also consider the vast amount of computer power and storage required by both the photographer, and by the printers.

Pretty much all commercial photography is already restricted to tripod-mounted (or other extremely stable structure-mounted) cameras. Anything done handheld uses such short duration strobes that pixel shift would not be applicable at all.

No one remotely cares about large file sizes in commercial photography. Storage cost is a negligible portion of total cost for a $10M ad campaign, or even a $10K one.

 

[Maximilian]

It's just one example of why some people want more MP. I specifically tweeted this morning that it likely wouldn't work for lightning but it would be nice if it did. I have no idea how fast it will shoot the 9 frames. If they can do it within something like half a second, it absolutely would work. Bolts often hang around longer than you would think.

I‘d wait until the Details of that function come out.
From other cameras that provide Pixel shift I haven‘t heard that it could be used for dynamic but for static scenarios only.

And if you read my initial post again you could probably recognize that I am not saying 400 MP are BS.
I only said that it is not for me.
And I said that more people think they would need such a feature than there are who really need it.

 

[snappy604]

I'm the first to admit that I have difficulties in this area.

I've experimented a great deal with AF settings on my R5 - I've tried a myriad of combinations of "cases", AF zones and other AF-related settings. The problem I have is nothing to do with shutter speeds, it's simply that the camera often fails to lock on to birds in flight, even when they are quite large in the frame, and often jumps to trees etc in the background.

With slow-moving birds it's easy to get the eye-AF to lock on and track, even when the bird is quite distant, if the background is uncluttered. But when the background is fussy and close behind the subject, I'm not having much sucess.

So how about sharing all the AF settings that you used on the shot you posted?

Canon R5
Sigma 150-600C with adapter.. that one is at 293mm
1/2000s F5.6 IS800 EV0 (note should use more like F8 as the more you zoom in the narrower the depth of field.. its fine to shoot at higher ISOs)
this was handheld, panning.

For menu settings some random ones:
RAW only
Mechanical shutter (though fine with electronic, but it can warp when panning)
Image review: off
Auto ISO max 12800 limit
Eye Detection: Enabled
Eco mode: off

AF Operation: SERVO AF
AF Method: AF [[]]
Subject: Animals
Eye Detection: Enable
Continuous AF: disable
Focus Guide: On
AF assist beam: off
SERVO AF mode: CASE 2 with tracking sensitivity set to lowest value (-2) and Accel/decel set to max (+2)
Switching Tracked Subjects: 0 (vs default of 1, locks on better)
Lens Drive when AF unavail: off
Initial Servo AF pt for [[]]: Initial AF pt set for [[]] (small square centred)

these settings were after some research, however it isn't a magical fix for all situations.. This also required me to start tracking prior to that eagle going into the trees and burst shots while panning it in a situation where it was moving side to side vs towards/away from you.

What you described is small birds which change direction quick and go into busy areas.. its near impossible with any of the brands from what I can tell and more to do with technique vs the hardware.

One big difference is using a NATIVE canon zoom as they tend to snap focus and track much faster than my sigma.. There is a reason they are expensive. With the Sigma I get range and it's cheap, but not as good for those truly edge cases.

<edit> I also had both Sigma Optical Stabilization and IBIS.. I suspect IBIS works better with Native RF vs with 3rd parties it can't coordinate with. Hence native being better likely (don't have one so can't compare)

 

[michilumin]

I have my doubts .... And if so, this is gonna come with some heavy caveats. Good to have another tool in the toolbox I suppose, but hopefully there's more 'big' to this 'big update' than just that. Not going to wishlist, because there's no point. Just hope it also includes some of the fw level improvements that have gone into the more recent EOS Rx bodies, but being with Canon since the D30, they've always been weird about this stuff in practice.

 

[Antono Refa]

The addition of 400MP pixel-shift might appeal to perhaps one buyer in every million?

And to one in how many buyers does 8K video appeal?

Seems to me Canon added 8K video to the R5 as testing ground, and to get video editing software developers going, for when it releases a pro cinema camera with 8K video.

Better sensor performance (reduced noise) with RAW in low light/high ISO.

For that Canon would need a new sensor, in contrast to a firmware upgrade.

 

[angelisland]

What would this feature be used for? Is it for printing large billboards of static subjects? I wonder how many Mega Bytes the RAW files will be. Since Canon are adding new features the R5 II must be quite some time away yet.

Here in San Francisco, there are large billboards printed from iPhone images, and they look as good as any of the rest of the billboards. ;-). No need for 400mp for that.

 

[entoman]

And to one in how many buyers does 8K video appeal?

Seems to me Canon added 8K video to the R5 as testing ground, and to get video editing software developers going, for when it releases a pro cinema camera with 8K video.

That's another pint that I've made before - I'd be very surprised indeed if more than a tiny fraction of R5 users, shoot 8K. Like a lot of things (Including 200MP...), it's more of a marketing tool than a practical tool. Many people will try it once, just because it's there, but never use it again. It's like having a supercar or superbike that looks cool and can exceed 200mph, but few will ever take then over 100mph.

8K was added to the R5 in the short term as a marketing tool (bragging rights for users), but also as a testing ground before putting it in a pro camera (R1). Canon clearly realises that in a few years time we'll all be viewing on 8K monitors and TVs, but right now, the number of people viewing in 8K is tiny.

For that Canon would need a new sensor, in contrast to a firmware upgrade.

I disagree. There is already noise-reduction "baked in" to RAW files, i.e. in the camera firmware. New more efficient firmware could further reduce noise without impacting detail sharpness. You only have to look at software like DeepPrime to see that RAW files can have noise virtually eliminated. It will take a few years before camera processors using AI are powerful enough to deal with it at that level, but there's certainly room for improvement.

 

[LDS]

consider the ratio of amateurs : professionals who buy the R5. It's widely accepted that the vast majority of purchasers of high-end gear are amateur enthusiasts. Neither of us know the exact figure, but my guess is that pros make up less than 2% of R5 buyers.

Do you have any data to back your figures? Otherwise it's just guessing. High-end gear ends in the hands of a lot of professionals who need reliable equipment and won't work with consumer grade cameras. It is true they are less keen to jump on the latest camera without a good reason, like deep-pockets amateurs do, but it also true Canon has to give them good reasons to switch to newer models. A studio photographer may ignore happily how many fps a camera has, or if its AF can detect trains. But this are also the photographers who could produce really large images maybe printed on some of the Canon large high-end printers. If Canon with a relatively small investment in a firmware able to exploit IBIS to deliver such kind of images, could entice not a small number to switch.

and don't forget that this will be restricted to tripod-mounted photography.

A lot of photography is actually made with the camera on a sturdy tripod and head.

Now also consider the vast amount of computer power and storage required by both the photographer, and by the printers.

Taking into account it wouldn't be used for every image, I don't really see the issue - today hardware is fully up to the task. I have panos which are easily in tthe 150-200MB range and I can process them easily - and they are made with a 5D3. I think I could easily make them 2-3 times that size with an R5. Hope buying high-end cameras leave enough money in the pockets to buy the needed hardware to process the images

that the output will only be JPEG/HEIF

In this case it would become a gimmick. A long busy time won't be an issue for this kind of photography - but I believe it won't take so long. For a single image, the buffer could be large enough. After all, it's just 9 images - the buffer how many can hold at high fps?

 

[Del Paso]

I'll have to check with IBM how quickly they could deliver their Summit supercomputer...

 

[Antono Refa]

Firstly, consider the ratio of amateurs : professionals who buy the R5. It's widely accepted that the vast majority of purchasers of high-end gear are amateur enthusiasts. Neither of us know the exact figure, but my guess is that pros make up less than 2% of R5 buyers.

Secondly, consider what percentage of those commercial photographers actually have a need or even a desire to produce images with such high resolution,, and don't forget that this will be restricted to tripod-mounted photography.

Now also consider the vast amount of computer power and storage required by both the photographer, and by the printers.

While I may have exaggerated a bit, I don't think my "one in a million" is far from the truth.

As for user-selectable final resolutions, I think it will be a simple choice between 45MP and 200MP, and nothing in between. I also think there's a strong possibility that the output will only be JPEG/HEIF, as the R5 probably doesn't have enough processing power to output 200MP RAWs, and would need a huge buffer ( or a VERY long busy" time).

Art photography would be a market.

My sister is a painter. Every so often, she has a pro photographer shoot her paintings. Static flat object, tripod, controlled lighting, and the time it takes the camera to take the extra photos is negligible. If the firmware would allow moving the sensor to align photo-sites of different colors to get better color reproduction, that makes the R5 that much more attractive compared to Sigma Foveon and medium format cameras.

It would make the same 45MP photos, no need for better lenses. It would produce four times the amount of photos, but would save time on color interpolation and handling moire, so it wouldn't necessarily take 4 times as long to process the images.

And, finally, target audience is probably small, but the price of firmware development is probably low enough for the extra sales to make a profit.

 

[LDS]

Here in San Francisco, there are large billboards printed from iPhone images,

Yes, they say so, then maybe it is discovered the image was actually shot with an Hasselblad. Jokes aside, street billboards are designed to be seen at a large distance - the actual resolution doesn't need to be high. But there are large images that are designed to be seen at close distance.

 

[Dragon]

400 MP is an interesting number. Seems like the only way to get to that high a number would be to take advantage of the DPAF split pixels (R5 really has 90 MP) along with pixel shift and some serious processing. Interested to see if the processing is done in camera or only in DPP and if the result is only a JPEG or something with 14-16 bits per pixel. If it works well, this will make the 85mm f/1.2 a must-have for some folks as that is just about the only lens with enough acuity to pull that off. Effective pixel pitch is just under 2 microns which puts DLA at about f/1.6, so you need a lens that is stunningly sharp at f/1.8. Seems like a great plan to move a bunch of those golden 85mm f/1.2s .

 

[Antono Refa]

8K was added to the R5 in the short term as a marketing tool (bragging rights for users), but also as a testing ground before putting it in a pro camera (R1). Canon clearly realises that in a few years time we'll all be viewing on 8K monitors and TVs, but right now, the number of people viewing in 8K is tiny.

Yep.

I disagree. There is already noise-reduction "baked in" to RAW files, i.e. in the camera firmware. New more efficient firmware could further reduce noise without impacting detail sharpness. You only have to look at software like DeepPrime to see that RAW files can have noise virtually eliminated. It will take a few years before camera processors using AI are powerful enough to deal with it at that level, but there's certainly room for improvement.

Computers are going to have more resources than cameras (computing power, RAM, power from wall vs battery), which means at any given time, software like DeepPrime can do better than cameras.

 

[Gazwas]

Pretty much all commercial photography is already restricted to tripod-mounted (or other extremely stable structure-mounted) cameras. Anything done handheld uses such short duration strobes that pixel shift would not be applicable at all.

No one remotely cares about large file sizes in commercial photography. Storage cost is a negligible portion of total cost for a $10M ad campaign, or even a $10K one.

Most commercial photographers who shoot static subjects like product, food, interiors , reproduction, with cameras firmly fixed to a tripod will 90% of the time also use flash.

I’m pretty sure this feature will not offer flash sync just like focus stacking in the R5.

 

[entoman]

Do you have any data to back your figures? Otherwise it's just guessing. High-end gear ends in the hands of a lot of professionals who need reliable equipment and won't work with consumer grade cameras. It is true they are less keen to jump on the latest camera without a good reason, like deep-pockets amateurs do, but it also true Canon has to give them good reasons to switch to newer models. A studio photographer may ignore happily how many fps a camera has, or if its AF can detect trains. But this are also the photographers who could produce really large images maybe printed on some of the Canon large high-end printers. If Canon with a relatively small investment in a firmware able to exploit IBIS to deliver such kind of images, could entice not a small number to switch.

Yes of course it's guessing, but I reckon it's a pretty accurate guess.

A lot of photography is actually made with the camera on a sturdy tripod and head.

Really? You believe that? How much is "a lot"? Do you have data to back that up? I'd guess maybe 1%...

Taking into account it wouldn't be used for every image, I don't really see the issue - today hardware is fully up to the task. I have panos which are easily in tthe 150-200MB range and I can process them easily - and they are made with a 5D3. I think I could easily make them 2-3 times that size with an R5. Hope buying high-end cameras leave enough money in the pockets to buy the needed hardware to process the images

Come on, people often complain that even 50MP is "too much" and that there is "no need for more than 20MP". There are a huge amount of people still using 5 or even 10 year old computers. The issue, as you note, is that when people spend a lot of money on cameras and lenses - and often yet more money on travel so they can access their chosen subjects, they have little left over to upgrade their computer system to cope with monster files.

In this case it would become a gimmick. A long busy time won't be an issue for this kind of photography - but I believe it won't take so long. For a single image, the buffer could be large enough. After all, it's just 9 images - the buffer how many can hold at high fps?

Yes, that's a good point.

 

[entoman]

Yep.

Computers are going to have more resources than cameras (computing power, RAM, power from wall vs battery), which means at any given time, software like DeepPrime can do better than cameras.

Agreed. The point I'm making is that it is still nevertheless possible to reduce RAW noise with better in-camera algorithms.