Canon EOS R5 Mark II to up 8K framerate [CR2]

[MJR]

No, there is no correlation whatsoever.

Great, thank you very much for confirming that. Mark

 

[Czardoom]

45 -> 60 Mpx gives a 15.5% increase in resolution, which is the same as going from a 500mm lens to 580mm. There are those who are clamouring after a 200-600mm over a 100-500mm, which is pretty close to 580mm, and 600mm f/4 is favoured over 500mm f/4 by birders. Maybe I am one of those who don't understand, but I would go for 60 Mpx over 45 Mpx and I think I would see a difference when at the limits of resolution.

The 15.5% increase is, of course, the mathematical increase. I would suggest (and yes, just suggest based on my experience comparing various sensor MPs over the years) that real world increase will be lower, perhaps considerably lower. Especially if hand-holding (often the great equalizer) and factoring in diffraction if using higher apertures, and if actually making prints. And the lense's ability to resolve comes into play as well. Many years ago I compared the 18 and 24mp crop Canon cameras and there was no clear cut advantage in resolution with the 24mp sensor while hand holding. Recently I compared the R7 and R10 (32 vs 24mp) and saw little difference in actual resolution between the two. That's my experience, and of course, other's experience may differ.

 

[AlanF]

The 15.5% increase is, of course, the mathematical increase. I would suggest (and yes, just suggest based on my experience comparing various sensor MPs over the years) that real world increase will be lower, perhaps considerably lower. Especially if hand-holding (often the great equalizer) and factoring in diffraction if using higher apertures, and if actually making prints. And the lense's ability to resolve comes into play as well. Many years ago I compared the 18 and 24mp crop Canon cameras and there was no clear cut advantage in resolution with the 24mp sensor while hand holding. Recently I compared the R7 and R10 (32 vs 24mp) and saw little difference in actual resolution between the two. That's my experience, and of course, other's experience may differ.

I have done comparisons of the RF 100-400mm on the R7 and R10, with a flagpole target I use that is about 60m from my local camera shop. The centre crops from hand-held shots are below. Superficially they are similar but look closely at the metal and you can see clearly the extra resolution of the 32 Mpx sensor around the bolt heads etc. Lab tests on a specialist site (optyczne.pl) have the R7 resolving 2894 LW/PH and the R10 2328 LW/PH. There is no doubt in my hands and mind that the 32 Mpx sensor has a noticeably better resolution, when pushed to the limits. It's at the limits I need extra resolution, not when I have close ups or I don't have to crop. There, the resolution doesn't matter much

Comparisons depend crucially what generation the sensors are, as well the strength of the low-pass filters involved and design. For example, the recent Canon sensors outresolve the old ones because of weaker filters and improved design. The old 30 Mpx 5DIV is ouresolved by the new 24 Mpx R3 and R8. Now, let's compare a latest generation 61 Mpx with the previous one and a 45 Mpx. The 61 Mpx Sony A7RV resolves 5364 LW/PH compared with 4354 LW/PH for the 61 Mpx A7RIV and 3946 LW/PH for the 42.4 Mpx A7Riii, that's a 23% increase for the V vs IV alone. The R5 does 4413 LW/PH. If Canon makes a new generation 60 Mpx R5 using the latest technology there is no doubt in my mind and I hope also my hands that there will be a similar increase in resolution.

R7 on top, R10 below. These are at f/8 with not the sharpest of lenses. With the 32 Mpx 90D in the past, I found that the EF 400mm f/4 DO II brought out the best in the sensor as diffraction from a narrow sensor does blunt sharpness.

 

[Del Paso]

I have done comparisons of the RF 100-400mm on the R7 and R10, with a flagpole target I use that is about 60m from my local camera shop. The centre crops from hand-held shots are below. Superficially they are similar but look closely at the metal and you can see clearly the extra resolution of the 32 Mpx sensor around the bolt heads etc. Lab tests on a specialist site (optyczne.pl) have the R7 resolving 2894 LW/PH and the R10 2328 LW/PH. There is no doubt in my hands and mind that the 32 Mpx sensor has a noticeably better resolution, when pushed to the limits. It's at the limits I need extra resolution, not when I have close ups or I don't have to crop. There, the resolution doesn't matter much

Comparisons depend crucially what generation the sensors are, as well the strength of the low-pass filters involved and design. For example, the recent Canon sensors outresolve the old ones because of weaker filters and improved design. The old 30 Mpx 5DIV is ouresolved by the new 24 Mpx R3 and R8. Now, let's compare a latest generation 61 Mpx with the previous one and a 45 Mpx. The 61 Mpx Sony A7RV resolves 5364 LW/PH compared with 4354 LW/PH for the 61 Mpx A7RIV and 3946 LW/PH for the 42.4 Mpx A7Riii, that's a 23% increase for the V vs IV alone. The R5 does 4413 LW/PH. If Canon makes a new generation 60 Mpx R5 using the latest technology there is no doubt in my mind and I hope also my hands that there will be a similar increase in resolution.

R7 on top, R10 below. These are at f/8 with not the sharpest of lenses. With the 32 Mpx 90D in the past, I found that the EF 400mm f/4 DO II brought out the best in the sensor as diffraction from a narrow sensor does blunt sharpness.

View attachment 212210View attachment 212211

The difference is indeed visible, more than I expected!

 

[czesiek]

I want those old color and hues from the 1Ds MarkIII. Give me a daylight camera

I still use this dinosaur from time to time, IMO it's the best Canon camera i've shot.

5Ds is nice as well, also having amazing colors but it's just not the same. Hopefully the new R1 will have matrix around 50mpix.

 

[SwissFrank]

I can see getting all the R6 features, with better video speeds, but literally same sensor, as being not quite a "R5 Mk2" but rather an "R5 Mk1.5."

Like others here, I can say for the first time in my life, it's not the camera holding me back. Whatever problems my images have is down to me, never the camera or lens. That said, if the increase in features is only modest (in other words, Mk1.5) that'd mean R5 MkI prices won't plummet, and it might make sense to upgrade anyway.

I think nothing would increase my success rate more than eye-driven AF point. On an intellectual level I'd like electronic ND, global shutter, etc., but in practice they're just nice-to-haves.

Oh, one tiny thing: I'd like the focus-assist "red borders" for manual focus to be double-width; I have trouble seeing them as my eyes go downhill.

 

[SwissFrank]

I still use this dinosaur from time to time, IMO it's the best Canon camera i've shot.

Wow! I used it from the week it was released until I got the R. I felt the R was far better, then the R5 absolutely buried it, specifically with IBIS, 45MP, far better dynamic range, low-light capability, etc. etc. I did love the EF EOS-1's though, I shot the 1N, 1V and all three 1Ds's. Still beautiful and good ergonomics. The R5 is actually a little small for my hands.

 

[koenkooi]

I can see getting all the R6 features, with better video speeds, but literally same sensor, as being not quite a "R5 Mk2" but rather an "R5 Mk1.5." [...]

Since I have both the R5 and the R8, I also feel than an R5 with the latest, much more efficient, Digic X and the latest firmware improvements would be a much better camera than the current R5. Not enough to entice me to buy it, but it would make me interested

 

[Czardoom]

Thanks Alan, for your comparison. As I said, other's results may differ from mine. Perhaps your hand holding ability is better than mine. It looks like these are cropped fairly tightly, greater than 100% on a standard monitor, and for me to really see a meaningful difference I needed to zoom in even more. So, I would agree that there is a difference, but one I would consider minor. Needless to say, each person will have a different opinion as to how they would describe the resolution difference.

I recently had a chance to compare the 30mp sensor of the Canon R to the 24 MP sensor of the R8. I have numerous times, here and elsewhere, read about how the 24mp outresolves the 30mp due to the less aggresive low pass filter. Again, these were not scientific tests, just the same photos taken with each camera of trees, leaves and branches, and viewed side by side on a standard monitor. What I found was very odd. In the very center of the photo, the 24mp sensor did seem to have the very slightest edge. But away from the center, the 30mp sensor of the R had a slight resolution edge. The differences were very slight. I had to zoom in to greater than 100% to really see the differences, but the results were the same for all my shots.

 

[SwissFrank]

Since I have both the R5 and the R8, I also feel than an R5 with the latest, much more efficient, Digic X and the latest firmware improvements would be a much better camera than the current R5. Not enough to entice me to buy it, but it would make me interested

Fair enough. I guess I was too tired to make my point that EVEN if the new R5 WAS "just" a Mk1.5, same sensor but a few periphery improvements, it's not as if that's a bad thing. What you describe is something I'd probably swap to, and probably could swap to pretty cheaply. Even without a major upgrade, I'd still prefer to have it than not. In other words, while I'd love huge new features as much as anyone else, I'm not mad or disdainful of something modest at this point.

 

[Fischer]

I would expect 45 MP because I think that's what the majority of actual photographers and high-end enthusiasts will want.

Every time we get a new high end camera body we get the same tired arguments on MPIX count no matter if its going from 4 to 6 to 8 to 12 to 16 to 20... MPIX. Now its suddenly 45 MPIX that for some magical reason has become all "real" photographers "need". So are you still shooting 8 MPIX? Thought not. Actually no "actual photographers" do.

 

[Fischer]

45 -> 60 Mpx gives a 15.5% increase in resolution, which is the same as going from a 500mm lens to 580mm. There are those who are clamouring after a 200-600mm over a 100-500mm, which is pretty close to 580mm, and 600mm f/4 is favoured over 500mm f/4 by birders. Maybe I am one of those who don't understand, but I would go for 60 Mpx over 45 Mpx and I think I would see a difference when at the limits of resolution.

100% agree. More is just better.

 

[TedYork]

To me, 45 megapixel will be quite disappointing as Sony has A7r5 out for a while now, and I like to think that R5 line has also art photographers in mind who are always keen for higher megapixels.

Yep - I want to get back to a still camera priority. If I were into video, I'd buy a video centric camera.

 

[Dragon]

So just some thoughts on resolution options. Full width (or very near full width) scaled video is almost certain and Canon will not forego DCI aspect ratios on a 5 series body. The DigicX processor is clearly capable of integer scaling with current examples of 8k to 4k (R5), 7k to 4k (R7), 6k to 4k (R3,R6 II, etc), and 5k to 4k (R6 with slight crop). Non-integer down-scaling filters are substantially more complex since they require dynamic coefficients. I think this makes the most likely resolution options to be ones that are integer related to DCI video. That would be 8k (45 MP), 9k (57 MP), 10k (70 MP), 11k (85MP), and 12k (101 MP). Any of those higher resolutions can also be converted to any of the lower resolution via the same integer filter approach with the caveat that de-bayering needs to occur first and the down converted "raw" file would likely be essentially a full RGB .dng type of file, but lossless compression could still apply. Re-bayering would be feasible, but would clearly result in an IQ loss, so a full RGB file for subordinate resolutions seems the most likely, but the file size may not be that much smaller than the actual full resolution raw file unless some very clever compression is used. It is also quite possible that we will see two bodies with one at 45 MP (to facilitate 8k/60) and one at some higher resolution and in that case, I would suspect 12k for the high res body for the bragging rights to 100 MP (and 12k). Note that 12k/30 is only a slightly higher data rate than 8k/60. With CF Express 4.0, the memory cards will be there to pull it off .

 

[Dphotos]

For right now and my work flow I need a better camera for low light. I have all Canon gear and an arrange of professional lenses. The Sony beats Canon in low light with shadow detail and grain both in stills and motion but I hate the feel of the Sony camera and its menu. I hope the the R5 ll will come out with a better low light sensor.

 

[Dragon]

For right now and my work flow I need a better camera for low light. I have all Canon gear and an arrange of professional lenses. The Sony beats Canon in low light with shadow detail and grain both in stills and motion but I hate the feel of the Sony camera and its menu. I hope the the R5 ll will come out with a better low light sensor.

Judging by the dynamic range chart, the best Sony has vs the R5 is awfully close to a wash with respect to dynamic range. At very high ISOs, Sony is adding noise reduction. If you are shooting at very high ISO, try DXO Photolab and/or Topaz Denoise for stills and Topaz Video AI for videos. The improvement will be far greater than any tiny difference between the R5 and the Sony Sensors.

 

[Juppeck]

Fewer MPIX? Not happening IMHO. 8K leaves me cold, but can see the competition coming out with some cool features. Let's kill rolling shutter for a start. Better high ISO would be nice as well.

And i would like to have to see a BSI sensor, a less getting warm Body and cheaper prices for the lenses. 8K - well , film is not my hobby. So, 8K, 16K or 1K, i don't care. An R5 with 50Mpixel sensor that give me the option to raise the ISO more without getting noise. Santa is not far away

 

[jeffa4444]

Makes sense they would launch the R1 first with the Olympics in the Northern Hemisphere this summer. Also off the back of last year telephoto lenses.
The R5 MKII however is the volume prosumer camera and if it comes in summer or autumn (fall) it will sell out like the original did.
Once the R1 arrives there is no gap in the camera lineup so hopefully Canon will address the gaps in the lens line up particularly L primes.

 

[john1970]

Makes sense they would launch the R1 first with the Olympics in the Northern Hemisphere this summer. Also off the back of last year telephoto lenses.
The R5 MKII however is the volume prosumer camera and if it comes in summer or autumn (fall) it will sell out like the original did.
Once the R1 arrives there is no gap in the camera lineup so hopefully Canon will address the gaps in the lens line up particularly L primes.

You might see some L primes announced in mid-February so only another few weeks.