Canon EOS R5 Mark II sensor resolution likely to stick at 45mp but with new AI features [CR2]

[Cryve]

Im not in favor of subscriptions too, but if i can get a better product because of that, then im willing to pay.

If you have all the lenses and cameras you want, then more money wont give you better photos (exluding travel etc.). This could be a way where investing more money could help me take more/better pictures. Id rather get the better product then, for a hobby that im spending a lot of time with anyway.

 

[amorse]

Ok I hear everyone about the subscription thing. The way it’s been done, I don’t think it could be worth it. But what if you could buy the R5 mark II for like $1500 as long as you subscribe for two years at $100 a month? And then with that you get meaningful updates and a direct community connection with canon to workshop new features? Mix that in with significant discounts on products and upgrades and that’s the only way I’d be interested in a subscription.

So $1,500, plus $2,400 in subscriptions to get to two years of use? What happens when I stop paying after year 2? Does the camera go back to Canon, or do I need to keep paying to keep using the body? At the risk of being overly dramatic, if that was the only way to access the body I would sell all my Canon gear and change manufacturers. I don't make many decisions on principle, but I'd be really tempted to make that one on principle. When I buy a product, I am buying for what it is on the day I buy it, not for potential upgrades they may or may not issue in the future. I see that as paying for features or services where I can't assess if I even want them or if I'm willing to pay for them. I can't stress enough how much I hate subscriptions, and I have several of them already which I cringe and bear.

 

[skrubol]

I just hope sticking to 45MPix keeps the price down, (but it probably won\'t.)
Biggest thing I hope we see is similar high-speed readout that\'s been rumored for the r1, at least 1/500s flash sync.
That and an EL5 will make a huge difference for me with outdoor portraiture.

 

[danfaz]

So why built a good quality lenses but stick with low resolution ? I think it's 2024 and we should move to 60 MP.

45 MP is low resolution now?
I think people might be getting swayed by smartphones and their 100-200 MP counts.

 

[Zigot]

I wish those R5ii and R1 will get multiple MP/FPS selection like 60 MP at 10 FPS, 45 MP at 30 FPS, 30 MP at 40 FPS with better AF AI with improved low light and RAW precapture.

 

[AlanF]

Most lenses cant resolve 60mp, unless you only care for the center or stop down. We can see it on the sony side. Recently the 300gm came out and lots of people owning 400 f2.8 and 600 f4 lenses said the 300mm f2.8 is noticably sharper -> those 13k lenses didnt take full advantage of the 50/60mp sensors.

Unless there are technological advantsments in lens production, better (sharper) lenses will be more expensive to produce. Thats why camera manufacturers have to see what the needs of their broadest target audience are.

It seems most people are fine with 45 mp. Going for 60 mp would mean that they have to produce the lenses to a higher standard, meaning they would be more expensive. If most people dont need 60 mp photos, then the price increase seems unattractive for them. Why increase the price for the entire lens lineup, if only very few people actually need the sharper lenses?

Its a balancing act.

That said, its just a CR2 Rumor, so nothing is set into stone. Could still be 60mp.

That is incorrect - some very popular lenses outresolve sufficiently a 60 Mpx sensor. My R7, which is equivalent to 82 Mpx, outresolves my R5 by 20% or more even with the "narrow " RF 100-500mm at 500mm and the narrower f/8 RF 100-400mm at 400mm, which is a cheap lens. As you put on extenders and increase the f-numbers to well above the diffraction limit and introduce image degradation, then the R7 does lose its advantage. But, as I found with the 90D that has the same 82 Mpx sensor, it leaps ahead further in resolution with the f/4 400mm DO II.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Subscription is something I personally dislike extremely. Buying features is a totally different thing. Just my opinion.

I feel the same way but Adobe is proof that not everyone feels that way.
I would prefer the Microsoft Office approach where there is a choice between a subscription and a lifetime license.

 

[Exploreshootshare]

Subscription is something I personally dislike extremely. Buying features is a totally different thing. Just my opinion.

I try to avoid and hardly use the subscriptions models because the ongoing costs really get to you. We cut down on streaming (only Netflix). We don't use Spotify or anything similar. If you invest the money you put in Spotify you'll save a lot of money in the long run...We have like 30 GB of music accumulated and so we only spent like 30-50 €/ year (combined) for new music purchases. At the moment, I still use Lightroom but I am working on switching to Affinity. I already bought it, but it is kind of hard getting used to it...

 

[Cryve]

That is incorrect - some very popular lenses outresolve sufficiently a 60 Mpx sensor. My R7, which is equivalent to 82 Mpx, outresolves my R5 by 20% or more even with the "narrow " RF 100-500mm at 500mm and the narrower f/8 RF 100-400mm at 400mm, which is a cheap lens. As you put on extenders and increase the f-numbers to well above the diffraction limit and introduce image degradation, then the R7 does lose its advantage. But, as I found with the 90D that has the same 82 Mpx sensor, it leaps ahead further in resolution with the f/4 400mm DO II.

Im sure many of canons lenses are sufficiently sharp to outresolve 45mp.
Your personal experience with the r7 shows that. It doesnt mean that the lenses "fully" resovle 60 mp tho.
It just means that there is a sharpness increase if you go above 45 mp.

Im sure its no different for other manufacturers too. Resolving really high mp seems to be a very hard engineering task.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Honestly, I looked at the GFX series as well, but my biggest gripe is limited wide/fast lens options, limited long(ish) lens options, and price

There are only a few but f/1.7 on a sensor that size is pretty insane.
I guess if a lens is long enough the sensor size would not make much difference for the size of the lens.
Although, you would still lose reach.

 

[AlanF]

Recently, for far and rather static (or even flying) targets I started using R7 with RF100-500 and I am satisfied. This is more versatile than R5 with RF100-500 and RF2X although there are special cases where this combo was necessary. Of course, someone can get just R7 with RF100-500 and use in many cases.

EDIT: Also, a better, faster sensor is always welcome.

The R7 with the RF 100-500mm is indeed underestimated. At 500mm, it resolves as well as the RF 200-800mm on the R5 at 800mm.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

On the Nikon side it feels to me, like the z8 is the actual successor to the d850 and z7 ii.
So i believe the canon r5 ii will compete with the nikon z8.

Canon never really made a DSLR to compete directly with the D850.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

But what if you could buy the R5 mark II for like $1500 as long as you subscribe for two years at $100 a month

That is kind of what GoPro does.

 

[bbasiaga]

"Of course Canon would stick with 45 MP, it's just a sign that their lenses can't resolve any better than that. Other manufacturers with better lenses aren't afraid to raise the MP count."

—Sony troll user​

You think they could be convinced by the fact that lenses have been resolving 80+mp FF equivalent on the 32mp APSc sensors for years? Nah, facts <<< fanboyism

If they are going to convince prospective buyers to ditch the current well-liked and respected 45MP, and fork out $4K for the privilege of using another 45MP camera, then they will need a seriously compelling set of new features, here\'s a few ideas:

1) Giant improvement in read-out speed (zero rolling shutter) and low-light sensitivity that matches or at least come close to the R3.

2) 2nd Gen eye-controlled AF that matches what\'s in Apple\'s Vision Pro headset.

3) Quad-pixel AF that will go toe-to-toe with the best Sony has to offer.

I know it\'s a big ask but they had 4 years since the original R5 was released and the competition is pretty stiff.

Canon needs to surpass not just what\'s available today but what Sony and Nikon will bring as the A7R mark VI and Z8 mark II

I don't think they need to, or care to. Nikon didn't surpass anything canon or Sony was doing with the z9 (other than price), and in fact the AF system was and still lags those two (though is still quite good). Sony's A9III wins the spec sheet battle, but was a step back in noise performance from a 3yr old R3 body. Spec sheet wars only really exist in the minds of forum dwellers like us. Now, I HOPE they do exactly what you say. But they don't need to to have a great, competitive body.

Ok I hear everyone about the subscription thing. The way it’s been done, I don’t think it could be worth it. But what if you could buy the R5 mark II for like $1500 as long as you subscribe for two years at $100 a month? And then with that you get meaningful updates and a direct community connection with canon to workshop new features? Mix that in with significant discounts on products and upgrades and that’s the only way I’d be interested in a subscription.

That's not a subscription. That;s a 0 interest loan. Its worse than that, from Canon's perspective, as you are asking them to include additional services for the same total cash outlay that the body sells for now. If they go to a subscription model, its to make MORE money. So the body price is going to be what it is, and the subscription will be beyond that. I think people are getting wise to the 'renter' economy. Paying money for stuff you have to then pay more money for the opportunity to use, and for which the provider can at any time revoke your access to, is a fad that can't end fast enough, IMO.


Brian

 

[Cryve]

The R7 is equivalent to 83 MP but only at the center.
Christopher Frost uses it to test Canon RF lenses with mostly good results.

I like Christopher Frosts reviews. Most lenses are really good nowadays and his tests are a testament to that.

There is a difference between being really good and fully resolving a sensor tho. Especially in the midframe and at the edges. Also we have youtube compression, so we cant even judge it with our own eyes with complete clarity.

All im saying is that we might not get the full benefit from 60mp that many people are hoping for, because the lenses also need to be sharp enough for the task. What use would a 100mp canon sensor be today, if the lenses cant even resolve it? thats all im saying. And im speaking from experience, im coming from canon and bought into sony and got the 400mm f2.8 from them and had to sell it, because it didnt resolve the 60mp sensor enough for me (compared to for example the 135mm gm).

Plus higher mp sensors usually mean slower readout, worse for video (because it usually comes with a crop), fewer frames per second etc. Not everybody wants that. the 60 mp sensor from sony does 6 fps in uncompressred raw. i think very few canon shoters would ever put up with that.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

What happens when I stop paying after year 2?

Generally, discounts like that come with a minimum 2 year contract.
That means you can't cancel without paying an early termination fee.

 

[AlanF]

Im sure many of canons lenses are sufficiently sharp to outresolve 45mp.
Your personal experience with the r7 shows that. It doesnt mean that the lenses "fully" resovle 60 mp tho.
It just means that there is a sharpness increase if you go above 45 mp.

Im sure its no different for other manufacturers too. Resolving really high mp seems to be a very hard engineering task.

There is no such thing as "fully" resolve.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sony's A9III wins the spec sheet battle, but was a step back in noise performance from a 3yr old R3 body.

It is even a step back from the a9 II despite Sony claiming that it wasn't.
If Canon tried to pull that off it would be bloody murder.

 

[marathonman]

Personally, I'd like to see an AI feature that works with eye auto-focus for small groups. I'd love to see a feature that gets every single eye of the people in a portrait tack sharp at the lowest possible aperture. That would help when I give my camera to somebody else to take a group portrait that I'm in ;-)

 

[Far]

I am a Canon user and I like my R5 and RF lenses very much (except the times that R5 AF and tracking flaws pisses me off). Also, perhaps as I am at my 40s, I am resisting to change to more 'trendy' brands of today like Sony and Fuji. But really, I feel like Canon is starting to demand too much loyalty from us. With the encouraging suggestions on upgrading R5 AF being dismissed months ago, and all these delays on Mark II, and now one after another we are faced with rather verified rumours that are not particularly encouraging. As the leading brand in industry, is it too much to expect competing high MP and AF after 2 or 3 years in one or two cameras at least? And if many people share this kind of feeling, of course the profits go down, and then they should think about something like subscription, which will be just a vicious cycle for going down. But I do really hope that they do very well with these new cameras and soon so that they entirely change the narrative, as Nikon did with Z9 and Z8. Canon does not invest as much in lighter and less expensive cameras to make them appealing for professional users (compare x100vi and R8 for example), but we would like to have their high-end camera to be superior, as we have known them.