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

[David_B]

Really not sure why people are going overboard with angst over the subscription thing. Yes, BMW tried heated seats as a subscription product. But it's not like they made people subscribe to use the car's transmission or door locks, which is analogous to what some here are suggesting for Canon. Sheesh.

FSD and other options are effectively "subscriptions" from Tesla because they can't be resold when you sell the car on the 2nd hand market. Sure, you don't pay $10/month for those Tesla options but you don't own the capability/feature either - you pay Tesla a license fee to use it (which isn't that much different to a subscription.)

 

[MkSprintz]

Really not sure why people are going overboard with angst over the subscription thing. Yes, BMW tried heated seats as a subscription product. But it's not like they made people subscribe to use the car's transmission or door locks, which is analogous to what some here are suggesting for Canon. Sheesh.

Because if implemented wrong it has the potential to blowback massively. I'd imagine BMW tried heated seats as a subscription before they became standard on almost every car. My 2015 Civic has heated front seats.

The only area subscriptions could work in the realm of cameras is on the editing side. I don't know if in that regard Canon or any manufacturer can effectively compete with Adobe in that regard.

 

[3kramd5]

FSD and other options are effectively "subscriptions" from Tesla because they can't be resold when you sell the car on the 2nd hand market. Sure, you don't pay $10/month for those Tesla options but you don't own the capability/feature either - you pay Tesla a license fee to use it (which isn't that much different to a subscription.)

If you purchased FSD outright, it follows the VIN and if you sell it the buyer will have FSD. If you subscribe to it monthly, then the buyer will have to subscribe as well.

 

[scyrene]

The R5 is the ostensible successor to the 5DsR, yet it was already a (small) step backwards in sensor resolution.

I am right there with you Dan. I moved from the 5DSR to the R5 and settled for the step back in resolution in exchange for the increase in some other capabilities.

A minor point but Canon has stated that the R5 outresolves the 5DsR. There's more to resolution than megapixel count.

 

[scyrene]

Do you really believe that going from 50mp to 60mp on FF makes a gnat's whisker of a difference ? 50mp @ 300dpi has an output of 29" on the long side. 60mp is 31.5. Even with your R5 at 45mp try taking an image and increasing the size to 60mp in PS, so that's changing the long side to 9500px and the short side to 6333, and watch how much the image jumps in size. It's minuscule.

Or put another way, 45 vs 60MP is like going from 400mm to ~462mm.

 

[3kramd5]

Or put another way, 45 vs 60MP is like going from 400mm to ~462mm.

Put a third way, if you want to increase a linear dimension by 50%, you have to more than double the pixel count.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A minor point but Canon has stated that the R5 outresolves the 5DsR. There's more to resolution than megapixel count.

Canon did state that, but the footnotes for that statement made reference to the Digic X processor and RF lenses, which suggests to me that in terms of real spatial resolution, the extra MP and self-canceling AA filter of the 5DsR are likely still slightly better than the R5

OTOH, when Canon stated that the 24 MP sensor in the R3 outresolves the 30 MP sensor in the R/5DIV, they did not add any qualifiers. That’s because of the improved AA filter, but that improvement doesn’t apply to the 5DsR.

 

[David_B]

OTOH, when Canon stated that the 24 MP sensor in the R3 outresolves the 30 MP sensor in the R/5DIV, they did not add any qualifiers. That’s because of the improved AA filter, but that improvement doesn’t apply to the 5DsR.

Will the improved AA filter make it into the R5 Mark II....

 

[codynpatterson]

And I'd rather have 60mp+, 80mp even better. Who's right between me and you? Hint: we both are, we just have different needs and wants and constraints which are all valid... for us specifically.

Incidentally, Canon offers plenty of choices already for people not wanting high resolution sensors.

And none of them have the feature set of the r5 which is why the r5 is for me. Hopefully they make an alternate version for those who want higher res!

 

[hne]

Seeing these rumours of probably nothing new that matters for me and with a history of new bodies being exorbitantly expensive in Sweden, I gave up and bought a used R5 and an EF 35/1.4L ii so I guess we'll see a $2800 R5ii with 100Mpx and a $1800 RF 35/1.2L in a few months just to make my life miserable.

Things that would really make me empty my bank accounts: 1/500s X-sync, built in GPS, 100Mpx sensor with pixel binning 25Mpx M-raw and 39Mpx crop mode for EF-S/RF-S lenses, priority face AF coupled to metering such that prioritised faces get properly exposed, EVF that turns off exposure simulation when a flash gets connected, L-jpeg export to phone even if only raw was saved to card.

Half that list is firmware functions that could have been included in any camera already...

 

[alanphotography]

That's what insurance is for....

Allow me to disagree. Insurance does not reduce the likeliness you'll be assaulted for your gear.

The goal of locking stolen cameras and lens is to destroy their resale value, hence destroying the appeal of stealing them in the first place, hopefully reducing violent thief once the practice is universal enough.

 

[AlanF]

Will the improved AA filter make it into the R5 Mark II....

The improved AA-filter is already in the R5.

 

[AlanF]

Canon did state that, but the footnotes for that statement made reference to the Digic X processor and RF lenses, which suggests to me that in terms of real spatial resolution, the extra MP and self-canceling AA filter of the 5DsR are likely still slightly better than the R5

OTOH, when Canon stated that the 24 MP sensor in the R3 outresolves the 30 MP sensor in the R/5DIV, they did not add any qualifiers. That’s because of the improved AA filter, but that improvement doesn’t apply to the 5DsR.

My direct experience of EF lenses on the R5 and 5DSR is that the R5 does marginally outresolve the 5DSR. Optyczne.pl has the R5 with better resolution using a variety of lenses in its quantitative tests. They find its AA-filter is asymmetric with virtually no vertical filtering. The 5DSR has supposedly a self-cancelling AA-filter as they didn't want to redesign the sensor fully, and it was a bit of a bodge that did lose some resolution. The Nikon 45 Mpx sensor in the D850 and Z7, without a filer, is definitely superior. In 100s of 1000s of bird shots on the R5 I’ve never had one spoilt by Moire whereas I had lots on the 5DSR and even some on the 5Div. The R5 sensor is a great achievement by Canon and really was a significant advance.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That's what insurance is for....

Insurance is basically a subscription if you think about it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The goal of locking stolen cameras and lens is to destroy their resale value, hence destroying the appeal of stealing them in the first place, hopefully reducing violent thief once the practice is universal enough.

It puts the power into nonviolent criminal hackers instead.
They can lock and unlock your gear for ransom.

 

[mpmark]

I'm absolutely devastated.
- No higher resolution
- AI bullshitting
- Subscription rip-off

I made the EF -> RF switch last summer temporarily using an R7 and a serious value of RF lenses and planning to buy the R5m2 latest Q1 2024 as was hoped...even now I might need to reconsider switching brands. I'm furious.

This has got to be the most hilarious comment I've read on here

 

[Kuja]

A minor point but Canon has stated that the R5 outresolves the 5DsR. There's more to resolution than megapixel count.

Actually, the 5Ds looks a little better than the 5DsR to my eyes because of moiré, and the R5 doesn't look that (or any?) better in resolving detail.

Fuji GFX 100 sensor is not that much larger, 33x44mm vs 24x36mm, but Fuji lenses seem to have no problems utilizing the 100MP resolution.

In my line of work (advertising photography) files are often subject to severe cropping due to the multiple horizontal and vertical output formats, and more resolution is always appreciated.

If the R5 MkII stays at 45MP I may switch to Fuji MF.

 

[Brikna]

Canon did state that, but the footnotes for that statement made reference to the Digic X processor and RF lenses, which suggests to me that in terms of real spatial resolution, the extra MP and self-canceling AA filter of the 5DsR are likely still slightly better than the R5

OTOH, when Canon stated that the 24 MP sensor in the R3 outresolves the 30 MP sensor in the R/5DIV, they did not add any qualifiers. That’s because of the improved AA filter, but that improvement doesn’t apply to the 5DsR.

The AA filter in the R6/R6II may be "improved" in terms of spatial resolution, but it is significantly worse (so much worse that I have never seen such behavior on any Canon before) in terms of aliasing - exactly what it should be fighting against. I believe that anyone who takes photos of clothes (or people wearing clothes) has encountered some very nasty examples of false colors and moire patterns on those two sensors. It's not as bad as with Sony's sensors, but it's still a step back compared to previous AA filter implementations. The R5 has a great AA filter, the R too...

Edit: sorry @neuroanatomist, now I see you were referring to the R3, not the R6II, so my replay was actually missed, but I won't delete it - next time I'll read what someone writes more carefully. But everything I wrote actually still stands, but it doesn't stand for R3.

 

[AlanF]

Actually, the 5Ds looks a little better than the 5DsR to my eyes because of moiré, and the R5 doesn't look that (or any?) better in resolving detail.

Fuji GFX 100 sensor is not that much larger, 33x44mm vs 24x36mm, but Fuji lenses seem to have no problems utilizing the 100MP resolution.

In my line of work (advertising photography) files are often subject to severe cropping due to the multiple horizontal and vertical output formats, and more resolution is always appreciated.

If the R5 MkII stays at 45MP I may switch to Fuji MF.

View attachment 215146

Measured resolutions of sensors with f/4 lens:
Z7 83 lp/mm, R5 82 lp/mm, 5DSR 79 lp/mm, 5DS 67 lp/mm

Test Canon EOS 5Ds - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS 5Ds - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

Test Canon EOS R5 - Rozdzielczość - Test aparatu

Test aparatu Canon EOS R5 - Rozdzielczość ...

www.optyczne.pl

 

[Marphoto]

However, the only thing that has to be better /much better for me to get interested in updating my R5 is speed/responsiveness and AF. More specifically I do not want it hunting when trying to find a bird in the sky or waking up. Or to be more specific (and reasonable) I want DSLR speed and efficiency.

Maybe it's me because I know members use R5 confidently for BIF (and Alan was very kind to share his very smart method to pre-activate R5 by pressing the shutter button when grabbing his R5 so as to be ready when targeting birds).

Yet, when I want to grab and take a picture of a target on air or even on the ground, my D850 with 500PF is the most valuable, speedy and dependable combo I ever had. The same applies to D500 instead of D850 with more difficult targeting though due to its crop factor.

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.

As I predicted, Canon would likely offer a similar sensor with improved read out speed and a few other tweaks. The current R5 is an excellent birding/WL camera other than the challenges with the slight lag in the EVF as a result of it not being a stacked sensor. Although the R5 is relatively dated compared to the competition, it still holds its own and is better in every facet over the R7 other than the later being a cropped sensor.