Are two cameras going to replace the Canon EOS R5? [CR]

[bbasiaga]

My (perhaps unpopular) opinion is the high MP body has not come because there just really isn't much demand for it. Sony has a couple that are higher than the 5DS/R, and medium format ones do as well. But the ISO and speed needs seem to reign supreme. And we are only recently getting to the point where we can have both decent ISO performance ala the R5 and speed. So the gate may open soon.

Output formats have not really advanced - 6k displays are still rare, and it'll be a long time until it moves beyond that in common use. Had they, then it may have pushed the MP race faster. Lacking that, there are a lot of folks on the forums that want more MP, but clearly the media and pro markets that drive the big sales haven't asked for it yet. The technology to get the speed, deal with the data etc. may finally be overtaking the challenge of higher res sensor, which means they may get here before the output formats/end uses really demand it.

-Brian

 

[robinlee]

Below is what I like Canon to improve on the new R5 Mark 2.

1. BSI sensor, 45mp is enough for me.
2. R3 AF with improved AI and subject detection.
3. Improved battery capacity.
4. Improved buffer.
5. Z9 like articulating screen (unlikely).
6. No black out EVF.
7. ES shutter sound.
8. Pre-capture.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I still hope they will sooner or later find a practical way to put two or more sensors into the same camera. Having to buy and carry two cameras just because of the different sensors is very annoying.

 

[keithcooper]

Hmm... Just as I was seriously thinking of ditching Canon for some aspects of my work ;-)

I'm fortunate in that video,AF performance, frames per second, buffer, EVF blackout, shutter sound and face/object detection have negligible impact on this decision [YMMV it would seem from current comments ;-) ]

Short video on why Nikon/Fuji/Canon are in the running, but Sony need not apply ;-)

 

[neuroanatomist]

I still hope they will sooner or later find a practical way to put two or more sensors into the same camera. Having to buy and carry two cameras just because of the different sensors is very annoying.

The number of people who want/need to carry two ILCs is small. The fraction of those whose need is not based on redundancy or the ability to use different lenses without slowing down to change them is very small.

I highly doubt that any major ILC manufacturer is even looking for a way to put two sensors in the same body. The closest you're going to get is the modular approach that Ricoh took with the GXR.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I still hope they will sooner or later find a practical way to put two or more sensors into the same camera. Having to buy and carry two cameras just because of the different sensors is very annoying.

I guess most people who need two cameras, NEED to have two lenses mounted at the same time e.g. press photographers who might be working with a 24-70mm and 70-200mm at the same time. I never heard of anybody who needs two different kinds of sensors.

In terms of resolution, a 61 MP FF sensor would give you an approximately 23, 24 MP in crop mode. Would that help with your two sensors needs?
If you indeed need one low-light monster of sensor with extremely good ISO performance and one with high MP count, you'll need to get two cameras...

 

[Exploreshootshare]

I still hope they will sooner or later find a practical way to put two or more sensors into the same camera. Having to buy and carry two cameras just because of the different sensors is very annoying.

I´d guess, in order to accomplish that one would need the ability to actually move the sensors around in the housing of the camera. With all the electronics connected and IBIS as well, that seems like it is physically impossible. At best, it would be extremely easy to break such an application and it wouldn't be a sturdy camera at all.

 

[SwissFrank]

A high-megapixel camera - likely for studios - makes no business sense at this point and they can cede that niche market to the medium format makers, who do it so well.

Will Sony and Nikon likewise suddenly stop increasing MP? All three companies race up to the current levels, and never hold back, then all three just suddenly stop at the current level? It's possible I guess. But there's a huge number of shooters who would like more MP and few of them are going to make the huge leap to medium format. It costs so much in part because of the huge image circle and in part because of the extremely low production runs.

My tests of many of the current RF lenses show that they are probably a LOT higher resolution than 45MP, so how would you explain why Canon even bothers with such high resolution lenses if they're not going to eventually make sensors that can use this resolution?

 

[entoman]

The number of people who want/need to carry two ILCs is small. The fraction of those whose need is not based on redundancy or the ability to use different lenses without slowing down to change them is very small.

I highly doubt that any major ILC manufacturer is even looking for a way to put two sensors in the same body. The closest you're going to get is the modular approach that Ricoh took with the GXR.

I think, or at least hope, that @Skyscraperfan had his tongue very firmly in his cheek when he asked for 2 sensors in one camera

 

[AlanF]

My tests of many of the current RF lenses show that they are probably a LOT higher resolution than 45MP, so how would you explain why Canon even bothers with such high resolution lenses if they're not going to eventually make sensors that can use this resolution?

Your tests just show that the lenses are resolving enough to separate out chart lines at the particular distances you have your charts away from the camera. A better lens will resolve charts further away than a poorer lens, just as a higher resolution sensor will over a lower resolution. Or, putting it mathematically, the MTF of the system is the product of the MTFs of the lens and sensors and to maximise the resolution of the system you have to optimise both the resolution of the sensor and the resolution of the lens. Canon isn't designing a top lens just to fit the resolution of a sensor, it is designing it to improve the resolution of the image for all sensors.

 

[xrazor2005]

I hope this is true. I have a 5DS and a refurbished 5DSR that I picked up last year. I have been waiting for the replacement before I commit to mirrorless (RF Mount). Since I will replace my lenses anyway I have been looking at Sony 61mp and Fuji GFX. It would make sense since I don't need all the Video capability (8K) that the R5 offers. I just hope this is not smoke from Canon to keep customers from jumping ship. If Sony came out with a 100+ MP camera I may break out the lifeboat.

 

[entoman]

Will Sony and Nikon likewise suddenly stop increasing MP? All three companies race up to the current levels, and never hold back, then all three just suddenly stop at the current level? It's possible I guess.

Not as straightforward as that.

All the manufacturers are within a whisker of each other as far as sensor development is concerned, so it's *very* likely that at any given time they'll be offering similar resolutions.

Furthermore, there are lots of constraints on how high MP can go, such as:

do the manufacturers have processors that are fast enough?
can the sensors be manufactured with sufficiently high yield rates?
will the image quality and DR be good enough at moderate to high ISO?
is the cost of producing cameras with such sensors too high to generate sufficient sales?
will the cameras be limited to very low burst speeds?
is there enough demand from consumers?
will post-processing software grid to a halt, making huge files impractical?

And another consideration:

For just how much longer will it actually be necessary or desirable for sensors to have high resolution. Within a very short space of time, AI tech could make them redundant, as it will be possible to artificially generate high resolutions and incredible sharpness from lower resolution sensors. Take a look at Gigapixel etc. The tech doesn't even need to be in-camera - it could be in the manufacturer's proprietary desktop apps, and could be batch processed.

 

[peters]

I don't get it, how some more or less slightly different camera types is a good thing in a shrinking market. We have already R3 and R8 as numbers, which we never had in the best DSLR time. (1D,5D,5DSR,6D (7D))


45MP is the way for 8K video, so a replacement with 60 or what megapixels has a crop or something a videographer not want....

Jeah, but a photographer would want this, the main target group of the R5
So it would make sense.

 

[AlanF]

And another consideration:

For just how much longer will it actually be necessary or desirable for sensors to have high resolution. Within a very short space of time, AI tech could make them redundant, as it will be possible to artificially generate high resolutions and incredible sharpness from lower resolution sensors. Take a look at Gigapixel etc. The tech doesn't even need to be in-camera - it could be in the manufacturer's proprietary desktop apps, and could be batch processed.

By the same arguments, AI will remove the need for telephoto lenses as well. So, in future an Android or iPhone with AI will cover all photographic needs.

 

[sanj]

I still hope they will sooner or later find a practical way to put two or more sensors into the same camera. Having to buy and carry two cameras just because of the different sensors is very annoying.

Why would you need two sensors? We can already shoot small RAW, Full RAW, Crop, Non cropped, JPEG in very many sizes and 'quality settings'. I do not understand why a second sensor when these options are already available...?

 

[sanj]

I await R52. Yum.

 

[sanj]

Below is what I like Canon to improve on the new R5 Mark 2.

1. BSI sensor, 45mp is enough for me.
2. R3 AF with improved AI and subject detection.
3. Improved battery capacity.
4. Improved buffer.
5. Z9 like articulating screen (unlikely).
6. No black out EVF.
7. ES shutter sound.
8. Pre-capture.

I wonder how the battery capacity will increase.

 

[Quackator]

The R5 is a fine camera, not much need to update it.
The R5C however came with a few very serious design flaws that need to be adressed.

Most important is the lack of a barrel plug power terminal like that on the C70.
Powering via USB-C loses the ability to control the camera via Ronin RS3 Pro gimbals.
Add insult to injury: The camera has bluetooth - but not in video mode.
No way to REC start/stop via Bluetooth on the gimbal.
One can assign a button to switch between EVF and LCD in photo mode,
but not in video mode.
Micro-HDMI plug - oh, please!
REC709 Canon style like on the C70 would also be nice.
Recording directly to SSD via USB-C the same, would be very welcomed.

 

[AlanF]

Why would you need two sensors? We can already shoot small RAW, Full RAW, Crop, Non cropped, JPEG in very many sizes and 'quality settings'. I do not understand why a second sensor when these options are already available...?

One facing backwards for selfies.

 

[peters]

How about a cheaper R5 with like 32MP for those who cant afford the R5II and RS or whatever its called. Make it a photo only camera for many of us who do not want video? Price it around $3099. I know. Keep dreaming…

R6 could be interesting for you.

Leavin video features out doesnt realy mean it would be cheaper. The opposite may be true. Without video features they would sell less of these units since its less interesting for many people. This could drive the price up, not down.
The development would be easier, yes - but the tech (sensor with fast readout speed and fast buffer and cardslots) is allready anyway in the camera. So no reason to leave video features out ; )