Canon EOS R5 Mark II going to 60mp? [CR1]

[neuroanatomist]

I switched it on recently with my R8 out of curiosity. Suprisingly, it's very good. Pretty much like a standard Raw file but with the benefits of halving my storage, doubled my buffer and images take far less time loading off teh card onto my PC. Editing time seems quicker too and I'm really not seeing any downsides to the benefits. I like it a lot, it's certainly not mRAW / sRAW of yesteryear.

Personally, I don’t see the point in throwing away image data unless there is a need. For me, the point of shooting RAW is to have all of those data available for post-processing, and lossy compression defeats the purpose.

I have no need to rush through image processing, so a few extra seconds to copy files or a few extra fractions of seconds to open an image are not a reasonable justification for me to discard data. If I start running into buffer issues on my R3 I would switch to cRAW, but that hasn’t happened yet. It’s not going to happen with my R8, since I’m usually in single shot anyway.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You save twice the space with the R5! I really like cRAW. The large files on the 5DSR used to annoy me. I back-up on DropBox, and saving space is a boon there as well.

I believe you save twice the space with any .CR3 file, but my 24 MP files are much smaller to start with. Since my backups are to a 20 TB local NAS and to 5 TB HDDs for offsite storage, storage there isn’t limiting. The only real limit is my onboard laptop storage (1 TB SSD), but I only keep the most recent 5 years of RAW files there.

 

[Kit.]

Personally, I don’t see the point in throwing away image data unless there is a need. For me, the point of shooting RAW is to have all of those data available for post-processing, and lossy compression defeats the purpose.

Personally, I don't need that "genuine" shot noise recorded by the sensor in the lower bits of the high-magnitude signal. Maybe someone can find the use for it as an entropy source; for my photographic purposes, though, replacing it with pseudo-randomly generated noise in post is absolutely fine.

 

[unfocused]

…The only real limit is my onboard laptop storage (1 TB SSD), but I only keep the most recent 5 years of RAW files there.

I think that’s the key. If you can get five years of shooting on 1 TB you probably don’t need cRAW.

 

[koenkooi]

I think that’s the key. If you can get five years of shooting on 1 TB you probably don’t need cRAW.

And don't forget, DxO and LR noise reduction will give you a DNG, which is 200+ MiB for R5 CR3s.

I'm currently at 1.6TB for 20 years worth of shots, but the first 10 years where JPEG and I converted a few thousand EOS-M + zoom lens CR2s to lossy DNGs. cRAW and aggressive culling dropped the amount of storage from "Hey, I just bought an R5, it has 20fps" 200GiB/year to about 100GiB/year.
Using an R8 with cRAW for family outtings is going to have an impact on this years usage as well, the external 4TB ssd will hopefully last the next 5+ years.

So while I don't need cRAW, it makes enough of a quality of life difference for me: larger buffer for natural light macro, less time spent waiting on ingesting files, very hard to fill cards to capacity and faster loading times in LR (although Adobe seems to have fixed this recently).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Personally, I don't need that "genuine" shot noise recorded by the sensor in the lower bits of the high-magnitude signal. Maybe someone can find the use for it as an entropy source; for my photographic purposes, though, replacing it with pseudo-randomly generated noise in post is absolutely fine.

It's more about the "genuine" detail on the lower bits of low magnitude signal. As Canon put it, "There may potentially be more noise in shadows when increasing brightness during post processing." Granted, they say 'may potentially' with the corollary that there may be no discernible difference. However, I remember from the DRone Wars of past years how important it was (to some) to be able to lift shadows with impunity, and Canon was criticized (mostly by SoNikon trolls) for noise and lost detail when pushing the shadows slider to the right. You probably remember when DPR came up with the up to 6-stops shadow lifting tool for their studio scene (presumably because they wanted a new hammer for Canon-bashing). Eventually, Canon's updated sensor designs addressed the 'problem', and Canon users could routinely lift shadows by a few stops when needed. Enter C-RAW, which may reduce the ability to do what SoNikon users demanded from Canon for years.

I'm sure most people who use cRAW are happy with it, and honestly it does seem like a very useful format. But for me, it's a solution for a problem I don't have so if there's even a potential downside (which there is, according to Canon) then I see no point in using it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And don't forget, DxO and LR noise reduction will give you a DNG, which is 200+ MiB for R5 CR3s.

Ouch. I don't use LR, so my RAW files are just the native size plus a tiny DxO sidecar file. I did have to use Adobe Camera Raw recently for iPhone 14 Pro 'raw' files from underwater photography, and that experience left me wishing DxO supported Apple's ProRAW (it's not really RAW, but DxO lets you adjust JPGs and even has profiles for some Canon lenses in jpg format, so I don't get their reluctance to support ProRAW).

 

[scyrene]

The shutter is silent with full electronic, although there may be other sounds (auto focus acquisition beep, fake shutter sound if available). Personally, I love the silent mode on the R3 – it’s great for indoor events, I have the toggle assigned to the video/stills switch so I can turn it on with one thumb press and there are no noises at all.

I can see the appeal for being unobtrusive but it's hard to judge how many shots you've taken in a burst, unless I'm missing something?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I can see the appeal for being unobtrusive but it's hard to judge how many shots you've taken in a burst, unless I'm missing something?

A white border around the EVF image flashes with each shutter actuation. It’s not distracting, but you definitely know when you take a shot and can tel the length of a burst.

 

[AlanF]

A white border around the EVF image flashes with each shutter actuation.

On both R3 and R8? I can't count at the rate of 10/s or faster so I just know by feel how long I have pressed.

 

[neuroanatomist]

On both R3 and R8? I can't count at the rate of 10/s or faster so I just know by feel how long I have pressed.

Probably not relevant for the R8, since about Silent Shooting the manual states, "Continuous shooting and flash photography are not available." I've only used mechanical (EFCS) on my R8, and that's probably all I'll ever use (similar to my position on cRAW, the point of RAW is to have all the available data, and electronic shutter on the R8 drops it from 14-bit to 12-bit RAW).

The R3 in silent mode does full burst rate of up to 30 fps, but flash isn't supported (which I usually forget until I mount a flash and then realize it's not recognized because I've left the toggle on silent mode).

 

[Kit.]

It's more about the "genuine" detail on the lower bits of low magnitude signal. As Canon put it, "There may potentially be more noise in shadows when increasing brightness during post processing."

I'm not sure this is how Canon put is. This is how TDP put it (attributing it to Canon), but still Bryan could not find any actual difference.

 

[The Professor]

Lol! 60mp!?! Actually i'm still very happy with 24mp. Does anyone really need 60mp?

Yes .. for us Bird and nature folks the more th better ,, I think the R5 was a major breakthrough for us ... it was a dream come true ...For other forms of photography I guess theR6II would be a great Camera ..or if you have money the R3 . An improvement in AF would be great since that feature was amazing for my use.Moving from an 5DSr ..with a meager 5 FPS .The R5 was a great camera for everyone but for me it was a miracle. I can't have enough MP... we crop, crop crop. Thanks

 

[roby17269]

Yes .. for us Bird and nature folks the more th better ,, I think the R5 was a major breakthrough for us ... it was a dream come true ...For other forms of photography I guess theR6II would be a great Camera ..or if you have money the R3 . An improvement in AF would be great since that feature was amazing for my use.Moving from an 5DSr ..with a meager 5 FPS .The R5 was a great camera for everyone but for me it was a miracle. I can't have enough MP... we crop, crop crop. Thanks

Agreed.

I will also add that more mp are always useful for fashion photographers too, which I know since this is my hobby (but I am serious and passionate about it so I strive to do it at professional-like levels).

Also agree that the R5 was a revelation for me too (coming from the 1D X) - I love it and use it (much more frequently than my MF digital back which is reserved for fashion shoots), but I'd be happy for more megapixels and better AF. Even for casual photography. Speed is not a major concern for me. My digital back does 1 frame per second tops. I would love it though if the next R5 had selectable frame rates in electronic shutter continuous.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I'm not sure this is how Canon put is. This is how TDP put it (attributing it to Canon), but still Bryan could not find any actual difference.

Agreed. But given the choice between throwing away data that I might not have needed anyway, and keeping it when the cost for doing so is zero (for my workflow), keeping the data makes more sense. Either way, cRAW is lossy...that is an unarguable fact. That doesn't mean that what's lost is important, but in the absense of knowing whether or not it would have been important in any particular situation, IMO it's better to have the data and not need it than not have it and not know what I missed.

It's a pretty simple pros and cons argument, and the arguments are same as with lossy compression methods in general. Smaller file size vs. loss of quality. The loss of quality is not usually noticeable with mild to moderate levels of compression. Not usually doesn't mean never under any circumstances. So if the larger file sizes are not a problem, the advantage of lossy compression is moot and it becomes a choice between an option with a disadvantage (data loss) vs an option with no disadvantage (again, for me). Easy choice.

 

[P-visie]

I’ve spent some time trying to find information from Canon about the impact of using C-Raw, but that is hard to find. An article from Canon Europe‘s infobank states “The DIGIC 8 processor enabled a .CR3 file format, with a C-RAW option that captures the same resolution but produces 35–55% smaller files, saving storage space on your memory card. (To do this, however, C-RAW uses lossy compression – that is, it discards some image information.”.
But the article does not give any details on the impact of the lossy compression when processing the image.

The article has a table with file formats and file sizes for the R5.

 

[AlanF]

I started a thread on CRAW nearly four years ago.
https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/threads/how-lossy-is-c-raw.37738/

@Kit. made a perceptive comment that may be coming true, but AI got in first:

I'm pretty sure in about 5 years the software will be able to learn kinematics and textures from the series of images and to use that to enhance (sharpen, denoise, remove motion blur etc.) individual frames.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

You seem to have missed the point. An image shot on a Phase One 150 MP camera at base ISO with a Rodenstock HR lens can still have crappy composition –

"It can" doesn't mean "it will". I'd argue that percentage of well composed shots is much higher from the Phase One cameras than from the phones.

Not true. It really depends on the optical system. For example, on one of my Zeiss research scopes with a 100x 1.4 NA oil objective, a VGA camera (0.3 MP) is sufficient to capture all of the available spatial resolution. You can put a 12 or a 60 MP camera on the system, but with that objective more pixels does not mean better resolution.

But I won't be buying a 60Mp full frame camera to mount a 100x 1.4 NA oil objective on it.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Personally, I don't need that "genuine" shot noise recorded by the sensor in the lower bits of the high-magnitude signal. Maybe someone can find the use for it as an entropy source; for my photographic purposes, though, replacing it with pseudo-randomly generated noise in post is absolutely fine.

12-bit images from the R5 are noticeable noisier and poorer quality than the 14-bit ones.
The difference becomes less prominent only from ISO 400-800.

 

[unfocused]

Agreed. But given the choice between throwing away data that I might not have needed anyway, and keeping it when the cost for doing so is zero (for my workflow), keeping the data makes more sense. Either way, cRAW is lossy...that is an unarguable fact. That doesn't mean that what's lost is important, but in the absense of knowing whether or not it would have been important in any particular situation, IMO it's better to have the data and not need it than not have it and not know what I missed.

It's a pretty simple pros and cons argument, and the arguments are same as with lossy compression methods in general. Smaller file size vs. loss of quality. The loss of quality is not usually noticeable with mild to moderate levels of compression. Not usually doesn't mean never under any circumstances. So if the larger file sizes are not a problem, the advantage of lossy compression is moot and it becomes a choice between an option with a disadvantage (data loss) vs an option with no disadvantage (again, for me). Easy choice.

Yes. It is a personal decision. As someone who has used RAW and cRAW side by side and processed probably several thousand images in cRAW, taken under virtually every imaginable lighting condition, with the R5, R3 and now the R7 as well, I have yet to identify any difference between the files. I started using cRAW for sports because I found it gave me a significant benefit by allowing more images to be taken before the buffer filled and clearing the buffer more quickly. Important considerations for action photography. It also had the side benefit of speeding up download times and conserving disk space on the cards.

Those benefits were/are important to me and since I've found no downside, I continue to use cRAW for personal and contractual work. It has become my default file format.

My advice is simple. If you've never had to wait for the buffer to clear, never had to stop shooting because the buffer was full and do not mind how long it takes to download files then you might as well continue to use RAW. If you think you might benefit from cRAW, then try it for yourself and see.