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

[sanj]

I prefer 45 mpx for an all-around camera. 45 is enough.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Canon RAW is never binned (except Magic Lantern which is not official).
Last time it was written that an R5s would be a separate model alongside the R5 II which would make way more sense.

Ah true. Maybe Canon will make it so.

 

[padam]

If I recall right, in the past 20 years, Canon was never (? ) trying to beat Nikon with lower prices.
Most of the time, Canon was more expensive.

That's just one example, we can also look at it from Canon's perspective. With the R8 it seems clear that they are willing to go to compete regaring pricing vs features.
The R6 Mark II is a credible update at the same price, refining on what was already good with some flaws that got fixed like overheating recording limit etc.

I would expect the R5 II to carry similar improvements with the existing sensor and keeping the same price gap between the R5 and R6 line.
I assume 8k60p is not possible without external power, but 4k60p HQ would be there for sure, no recording limit with managable overheating, more advanced AF etc.

If it is more radical then of course it could go higher but I don't think it makes sense because it is already very profitable at that price level.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

Which Nikon body is 60 megapixel?

61MP

- Sony a7R V
- Sony a7R IVA
- Sigma fp L
60MP

- Leica M11 Monochrom
- Leica M11 silver or black

Whoops, I wasn't supposed to say that. They will in shortish order.

 

[stillviking]

What I don't understand is why 60 MP if my lens if just sharp to 30 MP?

 

[GMCPhotographics]

People asked the same query about 24mp (or 21 in Canon's case) when 6-10mp was in the prosumer space.

Yes I remember those days well. The 5D, then the 5Dii. I still have a 5Dii which I use as a Teams / zoom camera.
I've been in the 21-24mp for well over 15 years now. I think 45mp is a nice resolution if you really need big. But 60mp just seems excessive.
I'm sure there are people who need the absolute cutting edge of resolution, but for many it undermines the versatility of the R5 linage.
Maybe it's the R5s specs we are hearing about?
I think a stacked 45mp sensor with 15fps and 40fps electronic shutter would be ideal.

 

[dolina]

Whoops, I wasn't supposed to say that. They will in shortish order.

It is inevitable that within 12 months a Nikon body refresh will have a 60MP body.

It is a given to stay competitive.

Alternate still image resolutions are today's medium format 100MP & 102MP like what Canon did in 2015 with the 51MP EOS 5Ds & 5Ds R when medium format bodies were 50MP at a higher price point. It lowered the cost of getting native 50MP images.

Someone will inevitably bring up out resolving lenses. That would likely apply to adapted dSLR & older lenses and not pro mirrorless lenses.

Other than Nikon & Canon missing 60MP bodies would be Panasonic.

 

[scyrene]

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

Few people need any given thing. Having said that I use crop mode a lot and that would yield 23MP which is very nice.

 

[Besisika]

I got the Canon R6 terrified that 20 megapixels wouldn\'t be enough. On a trip to Kenya & Tanzenia I took about 10 thousand photos on it alone. I thanked GOD it was only 20mp because any more and the file sizes in RAW would have been crazy. I was thinking of paring the R6 with an r5 mark ii when it comes out but now im afraid of what the file sizes will look like if I have to put the camera to work

File size should not be a problem. Something else might be, but not file size.
4 years ago, I bought a 256GB, two years ago I bought a 512GB and this year, I bought 1TB CF-E cards, and they cost the same. The 1TB is 2 times faster than the 256GB. I assume, SSD and HD will follow the same logic.
If you need 45 or 60Mpixels, don't worry bout their file size.

 

[Besisika]

With RAW recording, it makes no sense to suddenly make it cropped.
It will be a moderate update like the R6 Mark II which will enable them to keep the same 3899$ MSRP.

Actually, it does. In fact the things I miss the most in my R5 is 5K crop raw 60fp, as well as 120fps 2K raw, internally, if possible.
It is about having choices, not stuck in one option. 5K and 2K are about reach. 8K allows you to crop, yes, but the workflow is just increased. Besides, maybe I am peeping too much, but cropping 8K vs directly recording 5K crop are not the same, I found the 5K better. Not to mention that EF-S lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper, especially when on vacation, or hiking.

 

[[email protected]]

It's probably worth relating my experience from back when I was shooting Sony. When the A7R4 came out, I bought two and went from megapixels in the 40s to megapixels in the 60s.

It was a good change, as I'm one of those guys who can really use the extra megapixels. (I'm always shooting from seemingly too far away even though I'm shooting at 840mm.) But it wasn't a 50 percent gain, of course. More resolution only fixes your problems that stem from low resolution. It doesn't fix temperature movement in the air column, and all the myriad other problems.

It was enough of a benefit that when the R5 came out (why I jumped back to Canon), I was concerned about the lower res. Never regretted the move to Canon, but I now know what to expect in terms of benefit if/when the resolution jumps up; and I look forward to it.

 

[Sorosuub]

60 MP is too much for me. Hope Canon ups the R6III to 30MP- would be a sweetspot like the old EOS R.

 

[scyrene]

For years now, I have been wondering why camera manufacturers don't offer different choices of sensors within the same camera. It seems like such an easy way to differentiate, listen to customers need and keep the price quite low. At least, as long as those choices only concern the sensor. For example:

Maybe because they are trying lots of things and in a limited market they can't offer that many options? For example, all the R bodies have slightly different layouts/ergonomics, they seem not to have settled on one "best" yet. Alternatively they may think your way would be too confusing for potential customers.

- R6 low-light: 18mp and great low-light capabilities
- R6 basic: 24 MP

Even if it were true that lower res = better low light (which seems not to be the case for each given generation of sensor, and was never the case on an image level), do you really think the difference between 18MP and 24MP would be significant?

 

[P-visie]

For years now, I have been wondering why camera manufacturers don't offer different choices of sensors within the same camera. It seems like such an easy way to differentiate, listen to customers need and keep the price quite low. At least, as long as those choices only concern the sensor. For example:

Offer a line of R5s:
- basic R5: 45 MP
- R5r: 60 MP (or 70MP)
- R5SR: 100 MP
- R5xy: 45 MP stacked-sensor


The same would work with the R6, in a slightly different way:
- R6 low-light: 18mp and great low-light capabilities
- R6 basic: 24 MP
- R6 adanced 36 MP (should stay beneath the R5 imho)
- R6 with 24 MP stacked sensor

I don't how expensive the costs would be and how much the upgrade of a sensor could cost. But it is kind like the same way it has worked for laptops, computers even Sony playstation for years. And don´t even get me started about the possibilities to customize your new car...

I would absolutely love having two identical bodies to work with while both specialize through the choice of the sensor.

This idea would:

• Require Canon to manufacture 8 different sensors for the list of mp’s that you mention
• Changes in sensor (resolution) probably impact camera firmware as well
• Different labels / badges for the different camera types, boxes, user manuals etc.
• Complicate manufacturing of 8 slightly different types of camera’s
• Impact the complete distribution chain from factory to individual retailers (and repair centers)
• Lower sales volumes for each individual model
• Complicate the sales and marketing messages

The result would be a significant cost increase and thus more significant more expensive cameras.

 

[Antono Refa]

People asked the same query about 24mp (or 21 in Canon's case) when 6-10mp was in the prosumer space.

People were wrong then, so they must be wrong forever? Oh, please.

There are photographers who need 60MP and more, which is why there are 100MP medium cameras out there. They are a niche in a shrinking market.

Canon made 120MP and 250MP APS-H sensors years ago. There's no technological breakthrough in making 60MP FF sensors. Actual resolution is driven by marketing departments.

Sure, photographers can keep shooting with the same lenses, spend a bit more on computer upgrades, and move on. Or skip upgrading their cameras. Upgrading to RF was a big decision for me. I have no idea what Canon could offer that would make me upgrade again. Certainly not, say, 100 more MP.

 

[Nemorino]

I am wondering if an increased resolution would have a negativ impact on the AF performance due to the smaller pixels. R3 and R6 are netter in low light then the R5.

 

[Uneternal]

We and others expect the Canon EOS R5 Mark II to appear in the first half of 2024.

I hope not, but Canon's always late to the party. IMO it would make more sense to release it for Christmas sales. And there were rumors that suggested an early release.
It would allow Canon to lower the price of the R5, which would make them more competitive. Currently, if you want a high megapixel mirrorless, and you don't want to pay over $3000, there's only Sony, Nikon and Panasonic in that price range, cutting Canons prices by $1000.

 

[unfocused]

This seems plausible. First half of 2024 always seemed more likely than fall of 2023. If it follows Canon's traditional schedule we should see the R1 announced early in 2024 and the R5 following a few months later. Repeating once again, Canon needs to get the R1 out in time for Olympic level photographers to have experience with the camera well in advance of the Olympics. R5 II can follow anytime after that.

Sixty mp makes sense. A modest boost but not excessive. Does Canon still see a need for high resolution R5? My guess is only if it is in the 100 mp range.

The problem with rumors like this is that it's hard to judge whether they are real or just someone drawing some logical inferences. Almost anyone on this forum could guess similar specs,

 

[padam]

Actually, it does. In fact the things I miss the most in my R5 is 5K crop raw 60fp, as well as 120fps 2K raw, internally, if possible.
It is about having choices, not stuck in one option. 5K and 2K are about reach. 8K allows you to crop, yes, but the workflow is just increased. Besides, maybe I am peeping too much, but cropping 8K vs directly recording 5K crop are not the same, I found the 5K better. Not to mention that EF-S lenses are smaller, lighter, and cheaper, especially when on vacation, or hiking.

Cropped RAW options that provided with the R5C are in indeed missing from an R5, a few can work via external recording, so yes, it is crippled that way and I don't see them offering the full set of available RAW recordings. That's just product segmentation, one can moan about if forever or accept how much has already changed in the last few years.
Slowly but surely it will get better over time.

However, what you don't seem to get is that if a (Canon) camera has more than 8K resolution, yet still offers 8K RAW video, that means that there is no FF RAW video option at all. None.
One thing that the R5 II would be extremely weird to do is not offer something that is already there in an R5, which is 8K RAW uncropped. (8K 60p still might not be enabled due to power constraints, so that might still be the one and only RAW option. That is why talking about rumours about going above 45MP makes no sense at all, unless they offer some clarification.

 

[wockawocka]

Pixel binning down to 30mp or there's no point for me in having one.

(It's a big market I know)