Are 400mp stills coming to the Canon EOS R5?

[David - Sydney]

Even at 1/500, I find my tripod mounted moon shots are much sharper than my handheld ones. So while you can get an acceptable image of the moon handheld, you can get an even better one with the same camera and lens mounted on a tripod using mirror lockup and a wired remote release cable.

I was happy with my handheld shots during the eclipse

 

[vjlex]

These are the screenshots of the R5 Specifications from the Canon Europe page before it was changed. Keep in mind that it was most likely a draft, so probably all the details weren't finalized. But the more specific information such as the feature name, resolution, etc. are more than likely final.

 

[longtallkarl]

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.

I would use it for rephotographing medium and large format negatives. In my current setup, I use a 5DSr, which yields about 2500 ppi for medium format, and only 1500 ppi for 4x5. For 35mm, this set up is fantastic, getting me about 5500ppi 'scans' which really captures all the info in the neg or slide. Getting medium and large format scans closer to that mark would be a significant improvement.

 

[[email protected]]

The issue with landscape is moving branches/leaf. It will be interesting to see
For waterfalls and seascapes, you are taking longer exposures to blur the water but the wind blows the stuff you don't want moving.

I've seen different manufacturers treat the issue differently. I have fingers crossed for the Panasonic method, where areas that experienced movement are mapped out by the processing and replaced by the corresponding region of a single subframe. It worked really well for moving water, and OK for moving leaves. The others seemed to just attempt to mash things together, and it got weird, especially with human movement. Sony simply reported that it wouldn't work and all your subframes were useless.

 

[roby17269]

For every time I've heard "20 MP is enough" and "30/40/50MP is too much" I've heard "I'd like 60/80/100 MP" dozens of times.

Very true, my experience as well... maybe it's the type of photographers I have more interactions with (fashion), but in any case I would be wary of making generalizations.

Consider also... if you don't like "too many" mps, there's plenty of 20/24mp cameras to choose from. I you like "a lot" of mps (>45), the selection dwindles considerably.

I also do not understand the hostility against a feature that (assuming it will actually be deployed in the next R5 firmware) will need to be activated by the user deliberately. Whoever doesn't need nor want it can simply ignore it. It reminds me of countless threads on DPR (RIP) that asked for a still only camera. Like you're forced to take videos with hybrid cameras.
Moreover Sony and others have it so it's an easy way for Canon to rob the competition of an USP.

 

[Gazwas]

Yes, but the types of strobe those folks use have longer durations and could conceivably benefit from pixel shift in one of two ways:

Take the frames so fast that they are all captured during the "fat" part of the strobe's discharge curve.

Or

Leverage the fixed camera and subject to take each frame after an interval long enough to allow the strobes to fully cycle.

Considering Canon do not allow flash sync with its focus stacking feature I’m sure it will be the same with pixel shift (same with Sony) so there won‘t be any ‘fat‘“ part of the flash discharge curve or any intervals between flash triggering.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Considering Canon do not allow flash sync with its focus stacking feature I’m sure it will be the same with pixel shift (same with Sony) so there won‘t be any ‘fat‘“ part of the flash discharge curve or any intervals between flash triggering.

I agree that will be true for the R5. Since the R3 can use flash with full electronic shutter, including with focus stacking, I suspect if Canon adds pixel shift to the R3 it will support flash.

 

[kten]

I know it isn't needed in general photography especially when printing considerations aren't niche but there is more to large res than just detail and cropping. From tabletop and ad folks I've spoken to the medium format super high res need is less about final output being high res at high print detail as no-one is viewing billboards from 1foot away so the delivery formats are NOT printed at crazy detail. More for workflow reasons where downsampling helps avoid problems or give better result for the delivery format images.

Things like moire considerations but capturing enough detail and so on means this could be very useful to them especially considering the cameras that are usually used for that are often quirky and don't just work like gp photo gear does and can be glitchy and unresponsive or clunky at times and AF and usability is nowhere near as reliable. Not that I've personally used the likes of phaseones or hassys high end bodies like that but those I know who own or rent them because they have to mention they can be finnicky and thus they reach for their regular 35mm kit for general use.

 

[SteveC]

they have little left over to upgrade their computer system to cope with monster files.

The good news is this can often be a cheap upgrade--at least for the storage--since it doesn't entail junking the whole computer system. Check out hard drive prices on B&H, and see that at least for desktop-sized (3 1/2 inch) drives you can approach $25 USD per terabyte. (There's simply no reason to buy less than a terabyte in that kind of hard drive.) External storage exists too (but might be noticeably slower).

If you're processing the photos, well, that's RAM and that's often a cheap upgrade too. In this case, though, it's possible a sufficiently old computer won't support a RAM upgrade past a certain size.

 

[Hector1970]

I’ll use that pixel shift. I love detail even if it’s not apparent in print. I will enjoy zooming in in detail. I’m sure for a lot of people it will be the equivalent to 8k for me (complete overkill). I thinkPixel shift is a good option to add. It gives the R5 further longevity. It’s a great camera. I’ve been very impressed with it. As I don’t use video overheating was never an issue. Sure there are some improvements Canon could make to autofocus and wake up time but they find it difficult to make huge improvements.

 

[scyrene]

A few observations.

I find it a little funny/odd that so much discussion has concerned the why. This is a feature competitors have offered for a while - what do people use it for on those bodies? And that in itself is enough justification imo, keeping up with the Joneses.

Second, interesting point re IBIS being unavailable during this, but what about ILIS? Would it be safest to disable all stabilisation or the reverse?

Finally if this is jpeg only - maybe they're testing the water/ironing out bugs/reserving a better mark II for future bodies.

 

[entoman]

The good news is this can often be a cheap upgrade--at least for the storage--since it doesn't entail junking the whole computer system. Check out hard drive prices on B&H, and see that at least for desktop-sized (3 1/2 inch) drives you can approach $25 USD per terabyte. (There's simply no reason to buy less than a terabyte in that kind of hard drive.) External storage exists too (but might be noticeably slower).

If you're processing the photos, well, that's RAM and that's often a cheap upgrade too. In this case, though, it's possible a sufficiently old computer won't support a RAM upgrade past a certain size.

Not so easy when you use an iMac, I'm afraid.

 

[entoman]

I find it a little funny/odd that so much discussion has concerned the why. This is a feature competitors have offered for a while - what do people use it for on those bodies? And that in itself is enough justification imo, keeping up with the Joneses.

Absolutely, once one brand has a new feature, all the rest have to follow, for fear of being seen as outdated, regardless of whether the feature actually has real practical value for the majority of users.

Finally if this is jpeg only - maybe they're testing the water/ironing out bugs/reserving a better mark II for future bodies.

There will probably be 2 options: in-camera compositing with output as JPEG/HEIF, or 9 individual (RAW) files that need to be composited on the computer. It's quite likely, IMO that both options will be available, but in-camera compositing with output as RAWs is extremely unlikely.

 

[SteveC]

Not so easy when you use an iMac, I'm afraid.

Ah, so locked into that ecosystem...you pay the price.

 

[entoman]

Ah, so locked into that ecosystem...you pay the price.

Well I won't provoke a apple/windows debate (I actually have 2 iMacs, plus a Windows PC and a Windows laptop) so I'll just say that I'm very glad that I made the decision 10 years ago to switch to iMacs for my photography, despite the user-upgrading difficulties

 

[ISv]

Not the number of MP I'd like to have...

But great for all those (thinking they're) needing it

It's not about the MP, it's about the resolution. How much it will improve the final IQ - we will see if/when it happens.

 

[ISv]

Years ago, one of the so-called super-resolution techniques was based on natural hand movement.
So, in principle, the information from the lens' IS circuit can be re-used for a 'hand-made pixel-shift".

I think you’re way off base. The addition of 400 MP pixel-shift will appeal to broad swath of buyers. Granted, most of them don’t need it and likely won’t even use it after trying it out once or twice. But it will have strong appeal.

Lets the evolution works! The wrong branches will be death by natural way. And I remember the times when such a things like MP or Dynamic range were questioned (and the always increasing MP are still questioned ).

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Nine is what you get with one centered image, one click up, two clicks up, one click down, two clicks down, one click left, two clicks left, one click right, and two clicks right.

So nine is not made of a 3x3 grid, but instead a "+" shaped set of photos?

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It's not about the MP, it's about the resolution. How much it will improve the final IQ - we will see if/when it happens.

It will be interesting to see what it looks like oversampled back to 45 MP.

 

[skrubol]

So nine is not made of a 3x3 grid, but instead a "+" shaped set of photos?

I think a 3x3 grid is much more likely than a + shape.
As others have mentioned, if this is only over one pixel area it will give 400MP of data, but not 9x more resolution than the original 45MP. It will be somewhat like a sensor with an overly strong antialiasing filter. Also I think you'll see almost 0 additional color resolution because your data is still going to be clusters of individual colors.
Very strong parallels between this and crazy MP cameras in Samsung (and others I'm sure) phones. They don't have a standard Bayer filter. The last generation, 108MP sensor had a 3x3 pixel bayer filter. So each square of the color filter covered 9 pixels. This makes their pixel binning (to 12MP) much easier, as they can just connect a group of pixels that are all touching, together to read out one color. Not sure how aggressive the AA filter is on these, but I'd expect it to be closer to 12MP of resolving power than 108MP. Current version of that is even more extreme with a 4x4 grid for 200MPix natively binned to 12.5MP.
There are also some parallels to how most consumer 4k/UHD projectors (and many early 1080p rear-projection TV's) work. TI calls it XPR for DLP (often referred to as wobulation back in the 1080p days.) They're mostly 1080P imaging chips that are moved around either just diagonally for pseudo-4k or in a square for less-pseudo-but-still-kind-of-pseudo-4k. Fill factor is quite high on the original 1080P image, so quite a lot of overlap, so not true 4k image. A side benefit of this, at least on DLP, is reduction of screen door effect. A sharply focused DLP projector can exhibit quite high contrast black lines in between pixels (at least when viewed ridiculously closely.) With pixel shifting, the black lines are just at 50% brightness, so the effect is significantly diminished.