Canon EOS R5 Mark II Specifications

[neuroanatomist]

If you are hand holding, good chance you won't see much difference between 45 and 61 mp. If you use a tripod, maybe you will get close to the theoretical 16% maximum bump in resolution.

Depending on the lens, and the aperture selected relative to the effect of diffraction (which increases with pixel density).

 

[3kramd5]

So... your username... is ironic?

It’s like rain on your wedding day.

 

[neuroanatomist]

It’s like rain on your wedding day.

Technically, that's not ironic. Nor is a black fly in your Chardonnay.

 

[scyrene]

I think ultimately you will be happy that you saved your money. If the R5 II was 61 MP, then you would have spent a lot of money to ultimately find out that there isn't really that much difference between 45 mp and 61 mp. At least that is my assumption based on having both the R7 and R10 at one point, with their 16% difference in resolution, which is the same amount of bump between 45 and 61 mp. If you are hand holding, good chance you won't see much difference between 45 and 61 mp. If you use a tripod, maybe you will get close to the theoretical 16% maximum bump in resolution.

As I've said elsewhere, 45 vs 61 megapixels is like 400mm vs ~466mm. Put in those terms, even a bird photographer can surely see it's not a game changer.

 

[Quack]

As I've said elsewhere, 45 vs 61 megapixels is like 400mm vs ~466mm. Put in those terms, even a bird photographer can surely see it's not a game changer.

The problem is, incredible, innovative SONY has 61 MP and rotten, conservative Canon has only 45 mp. So, 61 must be so much better than 45!

 

[AlanF]

As I've said elsewhere, 45 vs 61 megapixels is like 400mm vs ~466mm. Put in those terms, even a bird photographer can surely see it's not a game changer.

It doesn't have to be a game changer - even us with bird brains know that every little helps. If you were offered a 466mm lens of the same size, weight, and f-number, as a 400mm (or 582mm instead of 500mm, as many of us have 100-500mm rather than 100-400mm), which one would you go for?

 

[AlanF]

I think ultimately you will be happy that you saved your money. If the R5 II was 61 MP, then you would have spent a lot of money to ultimately find out that there isn't really that much difference between 45 mp and 61 mp. At least that is my assumption based on having both the R7 and R10 at one point, with their 16% difference in resolution, which is the same amount of bump between 45 and 61 mp. If you are hand holding, good chance you won't see much difference between 45 and 61 mp. If you use a tripod, maybe you will get close to the theoretical 16% maximum bump in resolution.

You don't need a tripod to take advantage of higher resolution - appropriate shutter speeds and technique are required. And, if you can't take advantage of higher resolution for all of the time, then it can be worth it for the times you can. These arguments against higher resolution have got rolled out as resolution has been increased from 20-30-50 Mpx by Canon and earlier. The R7 has the equivalent of 82 Mpx FF, and I get a lot of extra resolution even with 100-500mm over my 45 Mpx R5, and without using a tripod.

 

[EricN]

You can't reason with an unreasonable person. If you disagree with him, he thinks you're stupid and he'll let you know. He's also not a professional photographer, so there's only so much value he can provide someone that's looking to learn anything that will actually make them a better photographer. He's just here to out technical knowledge everyone where he can and belittle them in the process.

Just block him like I did and get back to enjoying this forum.

Maybe you've already blocked me, too, but although he's not a professional photographer, he's able to quickly respond with accurate information in our discussions. This, along with the photos he has shared, led me to conclude he could be a professional photographer if he chose to be one. Blocking someone does effectively end your ignorance but I think you are losing more than you gain in this case. I don't agree with 100% of what he says, but I respect him more than most of the instructors in the fine arts program I worked through. Lastly, I wonder who hasn't said something unkind after becoming frustrated with too many people saying things that are easily prove are untrue? It's a part of life...

 

[EricN]

With respect, that makes no sense. Professional just means they do it for a living, not that they necessarily have special technical or artistic knowledge or insight.

This! I know, not only in photography, or even in fine arts, but people in almost every profession that don't appear to know what they are doing/saying. I recently saw an interview with one of the most famous politicians in USA fumbling with answering the questions before admitting ignorance AND THEN reasserting the previous comments which were already admitted to being based on ignorance.

 

[EricN]

With no disrespect taken, and sincere apologies for mine. Perhaps that wasn’t the best way to phrase it, and you’re correct. That is all professional means.

However, if you’re any level of photographer looking for advice about the trade or in depth knowledge about a particular field of photography, you generally find someone that is experienced. Now this can just as easily be an amateur or any non-professional. My grandfather was an absolutely brilliant photographer and never shot professionally, but I knew him personally and that brings trust. Just as well, there is an abundance of professionals who you scratch your head about. As strangers on the internet -you don’t know them personally- it would be difficult to vet them as being proficient in answering or providing an educated response without at least getting to know them on some level. The only way to really build that kind of “relationship” online is from historically sound advice, demonstration of knowledge in what you’re asking about, or a portfolio that shows they have experience in that field, etcetera. Like bird photography, I know so little about it so asking questions about it or getting a response about it from members here or elsewhere that have established good techniques or reliable information I consider trustworthy sources. That can be applied to anything.

A good analogy would be if you’re looking for advice about plumbing and some random person on the internet with zero signs of experience tells you how to do something. They could be spot on, but you would likely question it, would you not? But if they come out of the gate and you can establish they’re a day-to-day professional plumber, you would be more likely to take that stranger’s advice. I think that’s a pretty reasonable outlook. In this case, I directly responded to someone that decided to engage with neuro. My response was probably better shared as a private message. I just like reading people’s opinions, thoughts, and talking about cameras. In nearly every single thread on this website I see someone responding to him defending themselves after being spoken to rudely and you just get sick of it. It’s virtually every thread. Remarkable.

You don't need a relationship, you need to find other sources to verify statements or test what was said yourself. If you have never had a relationship of trust with someone you gave faulty information, you must be extremely lucky. I have been insulted for explaining to people why they are incorrect so many times I can't begin to guess. Is it better to see that or someone who is frustrated by continuing to try to correct people who end up wasting time? If your going to make judgements on others lacking politeness, why don't you consider your lack of empathy towards them?

 

[scyrene]

It doesn't have to be a game changer - even us with bird brains know that every little helps. If you were offered a 466mm lens of the same size, weight, and f-number, as a 400mm (or 582mm instead of 500mm, as many of us have 100-500mm rather than 100-400mm), which one would you go for?

The answer, both genuine and flippant, is whichever one I could afford (which is why I don't have a 100-500). Every little helps but I challenge anyone to show me a picture taken at 466mm that would be unusable at 400mm. Of course the question is always, how much difference is enough - and that is a personal preference for each of us. For years I chased megapixels and focal length, but when I was forced to go back to a 20MP body it didn't substantially restrict the shots I could take (and indeed I find crop mode at 7MP sufficient in many circumstances). I respect your position and experience but I take issue with trolls endlessly telling us that they need X megapixels or else a new body is DOA.

 

[AlanF]

The answer, both genuine and flippant, is whichever one I could afford (which is why I don't have a 100-500). Every little helps but I challenge anyone to show me a picture taken at 466mm that would be unusable at 400mm. Of course the question is always, how much difference is enough - and that is a personal preference for each of us. For years I chased megapixels and focal length, but when I was forced to go back to a 20MP body it didn't substantially restrict the shots I could take (and indeed I find crop mode at 7MP sufficient in many circumstances). I respect your position and experience but I take issue with trolls endlessly telling us that they need X megapixels or else a new body is DOA.

Many upgrades are incremental and add a little extra rather than being able to transform the unusable into the usable. They just increase the number of keepers or the ease or range of what you can do, or the quality. In some cases, like with AF for rapid action events, they can make a large difference. I make do with whatever gear is at hand.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

As Alan said, it's about enabling you to push the boundaries of what you can get away with. I made do with 16mp and then 24/26mp sensors for the past 8 years. Sometimes you're not always using a long enough lens, or you end up liking a tighter framing than you originally imagined, and you have to crop. Do you think I thought 45mp on the R5 was going to turn me into a wizard photographer? No. But it absolutely opened the door to more creative expression with minimal sharpness loss from deep crops. 61mp would just make a good thing even better, but it's not truly necessary for me. If anyone truly needs that resolution, they should probably be using a 100mp Fuji GFX instead.

 

[scyrene]

Many upgrades are incremental and add a little extra rather than being able to transform the unusable into the usable. They just increase the number of keepers or the ease or range of what you can do, or the quality. In some cases, like with AF for rapid action events, they can make a large difference. I make do with whatever gear is at hand.

Well obviously. But that is not really the point of what was being said earlier.

 

[AlanF]

Well obviously. But that is not really the point of what was being said earlier.

I was attempting to explain it was not a question of "unusable" but progressive improvement.

Every little helps but I challenge anyone to show me a picture taken at 466mm that would be unusable at 400mm.

 

[Quack]

It doesn't have to be a game changer - even us with bird brains know that every little helps. If you were offered a 466mm lens of the same size, weight, and f-number, as a 400mm (or 582mm instead of 500mm, as many of us have 100-500mm rather than 100-400mm), which one would you go for?

Yes, but I wouldn't pay $4000 for the extra maximum 16% resolution of the 466mm lens if I already had the 400mm lens, which is probably what the R5 II will cost.

 

[Quack]

You don't need a tripod to take advantage of higher resolution - appropriate shutter speeds and technique are required. And, if you can't take advantage of higher resolution for all of the time, then it can be worth it for the times you can. These arguments against higher resolution have got rolled out as resolution has been increased from 20-30-50 Mpx by Canon and earlier. The R7 has the equivalent of 82 Mpx FF, and I get a lot of extra resolution even with 100-500mm over my 45 Mpx R5, and without using a tripod.

Never said you needed a tripod to take advantage of higher resolution. Said without a tripod you might not see much difference between 45mm and 61 mp. That's twice now you managed to twist my words and meaning. Didn't expect that from you.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, but I wouldn't pay $4000 for the extra maximum 16% resolution of the 466mm lens if I already had the 400mm lens, which is probably what the R5 II will cost.

You are not being asked to pay an extra $4000 just to increase your reach by 16%. It's whether 61 Mpx resolution in an R5ii would be an advantage over 45 Mpx and one more selling point for those who are weighing up to buy or not.

 

[Del Paso]

This! I know, not only in photography, or even in fine arts, but people in almost every profession that don't appear to know what they are doing/saying. I recently saw an interview with one of the most famous politicians in USA fumbling with answering the questions before admitting ignorance AND THEN reasserting the previous comments which were already admitted to being based on ignorance.

So true...so often.

 

[AlanF]

Never said you needed a tripod to take advantage of higher resolution. Said without a tripod you might not see much difference between 45mm and 61 mp. That's twice now you managed to twist my words and meaning. Didn't expect that from you.

You wrote:

If you are hand holding, good chance you won't see much difference between 45 and 61 mp. If you use a tripod, maybe you will get close to the theoretical 16% maximum bump in resolution.

Doesn't that mean "without a tripod you probably won't take advantage of the higher resolution but with a tripod you might"? In other words, without any twisting them, a tripod is probably required. Maybe you did not mean that, but that is how it comes over.