Canon EOS R5 Mark II sensor resolution likely to stick at 45mp but with new AI features [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
And this is exactly why the R5 did NOT get the firmware update that brought the R6 II's AF improvements. As long as camera companies are spending huge sums of money on R&D, they have to sell more cameras. They can not give away for free in a firmware update, the features that will convince some people to buy the next generation camera.
In my opinion, this is the dilemma that camera brands are beginning to face and will increasingly face in the future as camera tech has matured and there is little room for advances. How can you a huge R&d budget be justified, or overcome, if there is increasingly little incentive for people to buy a new generation camera. In a world without the internet and YouTube and gear-head reviewers and influencers, this would be fairly simple. Drastically lower your R&D budget, put out a new generation camera every 6 to 8 years (or longer) and survive despite continually lowering camera sales. But in today's world of the internet and social media, the negative PR will be hard to handle. People are increasingly becoming upset if a new generation camera shows less improvement than desired. Somehow, despite obvious evidence that the next generation of a camera line has almost always been a minor upgrade, many people clearly expect more. People online were furious that OM System just released an OM-1 mark II. Those with an OM-1 were furious as they did not get the upgrades in a firmware release. Those interested in the mark II, were furious that the upgrades appear minor. Petitions were actually created to demand that OM Systems add the new features via firmware to the OM-1. The reality that OM Systems is now a tiny company with limited resources, a tiny share of the market, and clearly needs to sell as many cameras as possible and not give away too much for free, did not matter.
I have no clue as to how a subscription model would work. But as long as consumers (and alas, social media influencers) demand upgrades and advances, camera companies are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
Upvote
0
Since camera bodies and lenses are ‘monolithic‘, the development of a new camera body or lens remains an activity with a lot upfront engineering and investment, resulting in a finished product, i.e. the new camera or lens. You cannot incrementally deliver a camera body or lens to a consumer. A subscription model (i.e. some form of leasing or rental) will not change that.
An agile development approach with incremental delivery of capabilities will work for the firmware. Like Nikon does with the Z9. This does not mean that a camera’s capabilities can be extended indefinitely: at some point the hardware‘s capabilities will limit what can be achieved with firmware upgrades.
E.g. a pre-shooting buffer requires some sort of memory in the camera, improved AI subject recognition might require additional processing power of the camera’s CPU.
I suspect camera companies are thinking about subscription models for firmware upgrades since an increasing part of the camera’s capabilities (and costs) are related to software (firmware). And these costs do not stop when the development of the hardware is finished.
Upvote
0
As with most of us, we stand on the shoulders of giants. That said, the phrase is analogous to your pronouncement.
By all means add to the discussion in a meaningful way but it is boring to threaten to leave an ecosystem based on some rumoured business model which may be worthwhile to many if it ever eventuates.
No idea why you are talking about Gaza. I didn't mention it. Are you trying to deflect somehow?
Upvote
0
Yes, I mostly agree with you, however we are seeing with mirrorless cameras that the division of hardware to software is leaning more towards software with each genearation of camera. The Af system is mostly software based. It's reasonable to assume that the EOS R has a similar hardware AF system to the R5 and R6ii and that the majority of the differences are in the software region of the camera. Sure, the jump to dual pixel sensor based AF was hardware and we are looking forwards to quad pixel AF hardware. Sure, some features will always have a specific hardware component. However as the camera CPU and processing power inceases, I'm sure we will see more ofthe hardware features being rationalised via software instead.
I'm sure you can see that our cameras are becoming less reliant on their hardware as previous generations of DSLR cameras. Maybe in a few generations time we will see a single Rx camera that covers the functional needs of a R5 & R6 but is limited purely at a software level. To unlock higher MP or FPS then pay the subscription. It's not going to happen soon, but it is a possible reality. Tesla has trielled this in their cars, which have a similar ratio between hardware and software based features.
Upvote
0
Having used multiple digic 8 and digic X cameras, I think the new ASIC provided the much needed bandwidth increase to run AF on every other frame, make it if feel much more responsive compared to the M6II/RP/R.
Comparing the R5 with the R7, you can notice that while the R7 has better software, the relative slow sensor drags that performance down. The R6II/R8 have both the better software and a fast sensor, which makes them perform better than the R5, for most of my AF use cases.
I do agree with the general idea of your statement: AF is biased heavily towards software, but hardware improvements are still very noticeable. Things like resizeable focus zones with eye-AF and tracking are purely software, something I would've like to have seen in an R5 firmware update, but alas...
Upvote
0
Probably. For the last ~10 years I've been a hardware engineer in a software-defined domain. I draw lines differently between firmware (which to me is VHDL) and software/embedded software, but herein it's a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Likely the emphasis on programmable logic and processing system capabilities outweigh that put on hardware, at least from a a camera development investment perspective (i.e. independent on semiconductor design and fab).
Upvote
0
Its a logical, plausible but extreme illustration of the subscription model which has, in other mediums, done the exact analog of what I hypothesised n the camera space. Such an illustration is designed to force people to think a few steps ahead. Not to rationalise why the camel's nose is OK to enter the tent (to borrow from the parable), but to recognise that it is only the first step in the broader plan for the whole camel enter.
If lost on you, surely lost on many others. But I tried.
Upvote
0
Canon tried that about 10 years ago (I can't remember the models) and the kickback was vicious. It took them years for people to believe they were not still doing it. I think they will be reluctant to dip their toes in that water again.
But any software can be hacked - it would surely be financially risky to use such modelling as a basis for income projections.
Upvote
0
If you're talking DSLR's, I remember that the 300D had some turned down features, that when unlocked via firmware hack were bringing the 300D closer to the 10D performances.
Upvote
0
This kind of crippling on a budget model is almost as old as photography itself. The 1964 Pentax Spotmatic shutter speed went from 1 second to 1/1000th. Pentax introduced a budget model with no self timer and a top speed of 1/500th. Except if you turned the dial past 500 there was another click stop and the camera fired at 1/1000th ! In other words the only thing missing was the “1000” etching on the shutter speed dial.
Pentax had a ‘standard’ 55mm f/1.8 lens. They introduced a budget 55mm f/2 lens. It was just the 55/1.8 with a circular baffle inside to permanently give a max aperture of f/2 ! So the budget model would have been fractionally more expensive to produce that the higher grade model !
All marketing shenanigans, even back in the ‘60s.
Upvote
0
Happened me with a car, an Alfa Romeo 147 in 2006; I wanted to install the cruise control when ordering the car, but to have it you also had to buy a mandatory pack of other optionals, including I don't remember what, but like warming seats, bose sound system, rain sensor, things like that, so the cruise control alone was 300/400€ but you had to spend 1500/2000€ for the whole optional pack.
I went online to the Alfa forum to look if someone managed to have it installed aftermarket, and I found out that all 147's had the predisposition cables and port for the CC (it was installed on an extra lever side of the steering wheel, like the levers for wipers and directions), so you just needed to buy the original lever as a spare from Alfa service for like 30€, carve the space for the lever with a cutter in the soft plastic under the steering wheel, connect the lever to the predisposition port and lock it in place with two screws that were already on the car. Voilà, and I had my cruise control.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
I'm actually at my third Alfa Romeo; partially fourth, if we consider the Fiat Bravo (the second series, not the very first from the 90's), that allegedly was the Alfa "149", but when the Fiat Stilo had a very weak success, legends say that Fiat took that project from Alfa Romeo (as the 147 was still selling really well, so wasn't needing urgent successor) and released as a Fiat car, but you could see details of Alfa design inside, like the central console oriented toward the driver instead of being straight.
Considering that since now I have had 5 personal cars (a 6th was a company car, a Ford C-Max), and 4 of them were Alfa/Fiat, you can say there's some strong Italian brand loyalty here ahahah :-D the only betrayal was a brief period with a Citroen C2 VTS between the Fiat Bravo and the actual Alfa MiTo.
Upvote
0
A loyalty to one’s country's manufactured goods is not only understandable but has a lot going for it. I was always impressed on my many holidays in Italy by how much was made there. Alas, that changed as it too was flooded by cheap imports.
Similar threads
