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

[David - Sydney]

As much as I agree with you I still think the R1 needs one in order to separate itself and the R3 from the rest of the lineup.
Plus, the flagships of the main competition have one.
I do not think the R5 II needs one at all.
I also know that fans of the Z 8 will disagree with that.

Currently the R5 is only 12 bit with electronic shutter, only 1 or 20fps and no flash sync.

I wouldn't have an issue for no mechanical shutter if:
- the raw files are all 14 bit
- no banding
EDIT: The R5 has "Flicker at a frequency other than 100Hz or 120Hz cannot be detected" so let's include the R8's HF anti-flicker feature in the R5ii.
- lower than 20fps options
- Flash sync to 1/200s would be essential.
- Artificial shutter sound would be nice.

A mechanical shutter would add cost of course... ideally the 16fps one from the 1DXiii

 

[David - Sydney]

The main reason was the settlement Sony has with RED.

Can you elaborate? Surely recording raw is raw and wouldn't infringe on any patent/copyright.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I still really love the size and performance of the 30mp of the 5DMKIV. I would like a spiritual successor to this, stacked and 40fps.

Perfect.

Yes, we all want a stacked sensor. Having 30-40fps electronic shutter is a bit pointless with out it.
Curiously, the R6II and R8 both out resolve the R and 5Div with less resolution, which really messes with the concept that more MP=more resolution.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, we all want a stacked sensor. Having 30-40fps electronic shutter is a bit pointless with out it.
Curiously, the R6II and R8 both out resolve the R and 5Div with less resolution, which really messes with the concept that more MP=more resolution.

The number of pixels, or more correctly, the square root of the number, sets the upper limit of the resolution of a sensor of a given size. Other factors, such as the AA-filter, Bayer etc lower the resolution from the theoretical maximum. All things being equal, the 30 Mpx of the 5DIV should have 11.8% more resolution than the 24 Mpx of the R8. But, the AA-filter of the 5DIV sensor is rather strong and negates its theoretical advantage, and all things are not equal. A new 30 Mpx sensor from Canon built to the design of the R8 sensor would outresolve the R8.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Can you elaborate? Surely recording raw is raw and wouldn't infringe on any patent/copyright.

RED CEO Jim Jannard Speaks About Their Lawsuit Against Sony Regarding RAW Compression

I mentioned that we might see a response on REDUser from the CEO of RED regarding the recent lawsuit against Sony, and that's exactly what we got earlier this morning. In the lawsuit, RED is claiming that Sony is infringing on patents related to REDCODE RAW compression, since Sony is also using...

nofilmschool.com

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Yes, we all want a stacked sensor. Having 30-40fps electronic shutter is a bit pointless with out it.

The FPS and rolling shutter aberrations have little to do with each other.
1 FPS would still have the same issue.
The 40 FPS on the R8 and R6 II are quite useful for most moving subjects because the speed of the rolling shutter is fairly quick.
It is the R7 and R10 that are problematic but that is made up by them both having 15 FPS mechanical.

People seem to have it in their minds that stacked = fast and nonstacked = slow.
It is just one factor in sensor speed.
Canon has cameras with nonstacked sensors that are quite capable.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

The FPS and rolling shutter aberrations have little to do with each other.
1 FPS would still have the same issue.
The 40 FPS on the R8 and R6 II are quite useful for most moving subjects because the speed of the rolling shutter is fairly quick.
It is the R7 and R10 that are problematic but that is made up by them both having 15 FPS mechanical.

People seem to have it in their minds that stacked = fast and nonstacked = slow.
It is just one factor in sensor speed.
Canon has cameras with nonstacked sensors that are quite capable.

They do to the photographer.
From a feature point of view, a photographer is going to want to shoot at 40fps with fast moving subject (like a bird in flight). No one in their right mind is going to shoot a burst of 40 images if the subject is static. So the fps and rolling shutter aberations have a lot to do with each other.
Currently the photographic narrative is this...hey here's a camera (say a 6DII) that can shoot a 40fps electronic shutter. It's completely unusable and you will get messed up images with anything that's moving a lot. OR use the machanical shutter at 12fps and it's not an issue....OK...so that's a 12fps that's usable then...geeze...
While I appreciate the rolling shutter issue is a comparative ratio issue between the sensor read out speed and the object subects movement speed / frequency. The artifacts lead to rejected or unacceptable images. A stacked sensor design has proven to reduce the read out speeds significantly. The perfect solution is to employ a global shutter / sensor design...but I don't think Canon currently has access to the patent for this tech, they would have to develop a whole new aproach and patent that idea.
If an R5 has a readout speed of around 16m/s and the R3 has a readout speed of around 5m/s due to it's stacked sensor design, then it's plainly obvious that the R3 can shoot objects 3 tims higher speed / frequency rate without the rolling shutter artifacts being observable. Ergo...a photogtapher can actually use the 30-40 fps to capture fast moving objects and get usable (unrectable/unacceptable) images.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

From a feature point of view, a photographer is going to want to shoot at 40fps with fast moving subject (like a bird in flight)

Plenty of real photographers use the R6 II and R5 for birds in flight.
I own an R5 and an R3 and I can tell you from experience that the cases that require the R3 are few and far between.
I can guarantee you that more people use the R6 II and R5 for BIF than use the R3.
It sounds to me that you have never tried BIF with the R6 II.

 

[koenkooi]

I’d used the reduced size Raw option occasionally and they always seemed to offer the same options as a full size Raw albeit at a lower resolution - so what was I working with if they weren’t really Raw?

Then again I’ve never used the full sized Raw on my R5 or R3, it’s always been the cRaw

cRAW is almost magic, I only switch to full fat RAW when I know I need to have a lot of shadow recovery at very high ISO, like a no-flash camera trap at night (1/100s, f/4.5, ISO25600). I haven't found any other situation where I can actually notice the difference between cRAW and fat RAW.

 

[koenkooi]

Currently the R5 is only 12 bit with electronic shutter, only 1 or 20fps and no flash sync.

I wouldn't have an issue for no mechanical shutter if:
- the raw files are all 14 bit
- no banding (I will check for options this Saturday for indoor sports if the banding problems I had in the past can be managed by the anti-flicker options)
- lower than 20fps options
- Flash sync to 1/200s would be essential.
- Artificial shutter sound would be nice.

A mechanical shutter would add cost of course... ideally the 16fps one from the 1DXiii

I'm surprised at how much I have started depending on the fake shutter sound in the R8, I keep getting confused when using my R5 in ES mode. I thought it was a stupid marketing feature before I tried it

 

[Kit.]

Did I? You stated:

You equate high MP count with ‘absolute best quality photos’. Pretty clear…but wrong.

That suggests that "just a marketing tactic for people who want..." doesn't mean what I think it means.

Which is... unlikely.

 

[Kit.]

The use cases for more MP change. If the Bayer pattern is smaller than the resolved image you'll avoid Bayer moire/artifacting.

Also. corner sharpness for digitally-corrected lens distortion.

 

[neuroanatomist]

cRAW is almost magic, I only switch to full fat RAW when I know I need to have a lot of shadow recovery at very high ISO, like a no-flash camera trap at night (1/100s, f/4.5, ISO25600). I haven't found any other situation where I can actually notice the difference between cRAW and fat RAW.

I haven’t tried cRAW. Storage is cheap and I have plenty, I haven’t yet run into buffer issues. I do occasionally need to lift shadows on high ISO shots (just did a fair bit of that from shots in the Vatican Museums, for example).

 

[Del Paso]

I do not really care for 60 MP, even though I know they will be useful for many of us.
What I'm hoping for is:
EVF like the R3 or better
Eye contolled AF
DR (like Leica M11)
If not, I'll just buy an R5 which offers far more than I'll ever use or need. The R6 II would suit me too, if it weren't for its EVF and lack of upper display.
It's funny that one single camera has to satisfy so many often diverging demands...
But wouldn't photography be boring if we all had the same interests?

 

[scyrene]

This discussion prompted me to finally check what shutter setting I was using; I've had the R6 for over a year and never changed it from what I presume is the default (electronic first curtain?). I really should get to grips with all the features but it's worked ok. Full electronic is totally silent? Really weird sensation, not sure how long it would take to get used to that

 

[AlanF]

Plenty of real photographers use the R6 II and R5 for birds in flight.
I own an R5 and an R3 and I can tell you from experience that the cases that require the R3 are few and far between.
I can guarantee you that more people use the R6 II and R5 for BIF than use the R3.
It sounds to be that you have never tried BIF with the R6 II.

The only time rolling shutter on the R5 has ever had for me a noticeable effect for BIF is when I have panned it flying against a background with vertical lines, and it is the background showing it, not the bird.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Plenty of real photographers use the R6 II and R5 for birds in flight.

"Real" Photographers....a bit rich from the person who's not actually posted ANY actual photographs on this website or forum.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I haven’t tried cRAW. Storage is cheap and I have plenty, I haven’t yet run into buffer issues. I do occasionally need to lift shadows on high ISO shots (just did a fair bit of that from shots in the Vatican Museums, for example).

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.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Full electronic is totally silent? Really weird sensation, not sure how long it would take to get used to that

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.

 

[AlanF]

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.

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.