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

[shadowsports]

Here I was thinking my 12TB of photo storage would be enough for a while. All I ever wanted was 4k 120 and about 35MP. A 45MP or 60MP stacked sensor would be fine with me. I don't see myself needing 60MP but if I had the option to use a lower res, I'm all for it. (As long as its more than 33, and shy of 50 please). I'd like to have a second R series body dedicated to super telephoto. As of now, I don't need 60MP, or 8K/60. 24MP cameras don't cut it for me. I sometimes ty to convince myself an R62 would be enough, but I am so spoiled with the R5 C, that I just don't see myself being happy with something less than 45MP. At the rate I'm going, my back up is going to be an R5. I just want something to take still images with. Its going to be dirt cheap when the mkII is released.

 

[Czardoom]

Imagine the flak if it's only a 45 MP ("New Canon once again cripplehammered" and so on...)
PS: I do not need more...

I would expect 45 MP because I think that's what the majority of actual photographers and high-end enthusiasts will want. Social media, You Tube reviewers and influencers and gear-heads will shout and cry and if Canon is smart, they will ignore all the noise. What social media cries out for is almost always a sign of what NOT to do.

 

[Czardoom]

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.

Of course, Canon should chase the numbers!! Because most people don't understand that you will see almost no difference between 45 and 60 MPs. But please everybody, live in your little dream worlds where a bigger number is like a little pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of course, Canon should chase the numbers!! Because most people don't understand that you will see almost no difference between 45 and 60 MPs. But please everybody, live in your little dream worlds where a bigger number is like a little pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

But...

 

[Far]

Of course, Canon should chase the numbers!! Because most people don't understand that you will see almost no difference between 45 and 60 MPs. But please everybody, live in your little dream worlds where a bigger number is like a little pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Yes, it might be that starting photographers overrate resolution, but specific professionals rightly appreciate resolution too, and I believe R5 should orient itself toward the most demanding professionals. An artist always appreciates the possibility of larger prints, and in digital age, there is no reason why we shouldn’t enjoy the possibility of more and more zooming in and cropping while maintaining a usable resolution.

 

[David - Sydney]

Dumb question by someone that doesn't know much about the underlying engineering: Why can't they offer 4K raw as well? I shoot in 8k raw a decent amount, and 4k60 All-I....but I always wish I could shoot it raw...is there some reason this can't be done as well?

That’s what 4kHQ is (downsampled from 8k) and one of the 3 video modes that originally had heating issues

 

[David - Sydney]

Of course, almost nobody actually uses 8k/60, raw or not. Most video is consumed on smartphones, and these cameras aren't the cinema cameras any filmmaker would use for big-screen productions. I think it's just pointless escalation of specs for the sake of competition.

Very true but I guess that it would fill some niche doco needs for hybrid sized bodies and tick spec sheet boxes.
No 8k monitors/tvs limit it to cropping to 4k in reality now but who knows what will be demanded in 3-5 years time. Storage costs drop every year, pc/card reader/internet speed increasing each year. Not long ago that 50mb still files were grinding PCs to a halt

 

[David - Sydney]

Maybe the R5ii is actually the new R1

 

[Quarkcharmed]

In terms of the image quality in the R5, my major concern/complain is the hot pixels. There's too many popping up during long exposures. I'll wait for reviews on R5II.
If it's the same 45Mp and same IQ/Dynamic range, I'll probably skip it.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The Sony BURANO does record 6K compressed RAW internally downscaled from an 8K sensor.

Sony does shenanigans like that.
Canon does not.

 

[Del Paso]

But...

View attachment 212169

I see you've at last ordered this greatest camera of all times...
Welcome to Wonderful Sony World!

 

[Michael Clark]

At the rate I'm going, my back up is going to be an R5. I just want something to take still images with. Its going to be dirt cheap when the mkII is released.

Uh-huh...

 

[shadowsports]

Uh-huh...

I've got video covered for the time being. I was in Alaska last month and experienced the challenges of lens swaps while on the move first hand. I never thought I would want a second body. Now I get it.

 

[jam05]

Why not both. One aimed at stills and one hybrid. That said I hope Canon goes for 60 and spend a frikkin fortune on the CFA and resist the temptation to deliver clean images at ISO 5 million.

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

Because one will be a stacked sensor

 

[clearwaterphotog]

I've got video covered for the time being. I was in Alaska last month and experienced the challenges of lens swaps while on the move first hand. I never thought I would want a second body. Now I get it.

When I went to Alaska, I picked up a second Fuji X-T3 so I could have a standard zoom and long telephoto available at all times, so I never had to make excuses not to switch lenses and get a shot. I had a few people ask if I was a pro because I looked the part, but I didn't mind having both bodies on me (using Peak clips and a neck strap for the big lens). I got every shot I wanted and I regretted nothing! Dual body setups are the way to go.

I intended on selling the tele after the trip but I came to really like it. I sold the second X-T3 when the X-T4 came out (which of course I purchased) and kept the dual setup, which I used in Montana, and for car camping + hiking trips (not humping around that much weight if backpacking) as well as canoe excursions. I've since added the R5 and it was too much to upgrade the whole setup at once, so I'm still rocking the X-T4 and 100-400 until I can afford an R5II and 100-500. Hopefully not more than a year away, as I've been loving the IQ of the R5 and L zooms.

 

[MJR]

My first ever post on CR. A question if I may for those much more techie than me! does or would a brighter EVF go hand in hand with the use a stacked sensor? readout speed etc. As I wear polarising glasses (80% opacity), in sunlight I have a great deal of difficulty (as I'm sure others do) using the R5 or R6II EVF without some form of shading (for me a bush hat ) At the moment I also have the use of a Z8 and my EVF / eyesight problem is greatly reduced, hence my question re stacked vs non-stacked. Having been Canon since my first camera, an AE1-P in 1984, it does feel quite strange though to be using the opposition tech (said tongue-in-cheek) and I do miss the 3 back button set-up on the R5 when compared with the more limited set-up available on the Z8. Thanks in advance, Mark

 

[EOS 4 Life]

does or would a brighter EVF go hand in hand with the use a stacked sensor?

No, there is no correlation whatsoever.

 

[Czardoom]

Yes, it might be that starting photographers overrate resolution, but specific professionals rightly appreciate resolution too, and I believe R5 should orient itself toward the most demanding professionals. An artist always appreciates the possibility of larger prints, and in digital age, there is no reason why we shouldn’t enjoy the possibility of more and more zooming in and cropping while maintaining a usable resolution.

Yes, and my point was you will likely see only a very little difference in resolution and not be able to crop much more or make much bigger prints.

 

[Martin0815]

Sony does shenanigans like that.
Canon does not.

Whether you want to stick to a pure ideal of 'Raw', or accept some flexibility when it is useful, is of course up to you.

Please note that all 'Raw' formats are not directly the 'true' sensor output, actually the sensor output is processed to produce a standardised and usable image format, in most cases compressed, either lossless or lossy to keep file size down. Then the question arises what level and kind of processing might be allowed for a 'Raw', but in any case it is already processed according to the OEM's intended output, while the processing details are not disclosed and essentially depend on the OEM's decision.

The usefulness of 'Raw' videos/images is that important parameters like white balance, gamma, noise reduction etc, can be selected in post and lossy compression is normally avoided or minimal to make a maximum of image information available for post-processing.

In the case of Sony's Burano camera oversampling 8K Raw to 6K 'shenanigans' Raw, all the useful items of a 'Raw' file are preserved except for the intended reduction in pixel dimensions and file size, while there is a significant gain in image quality thanks to the oversampling, in particular due to averaging out noise and increasing (colour) resolution when the sensor uses the typical Bayer pattern (like almost all commercial cameras).
The benefit of oversampling is very obvious when comparing EOS R5's standard 4K to 4K HQ, which is oversampled from 8K.

A drawback of oversampling is the required processing power in camera causing battery consumption and heat generation, while current top camera CPUs, including the EOS R5 for 4K HQ (not available as Raw), already achieve it, and future generations will get more and more efficient.

In conclusion, to me oversampling of video makes good sense for Raw and any other video format.
When oversampling of video is applied, then e.g. 60MP produce significantly better quality than 45MP for video and for stills.

 

[AlanF]

Of course, Canon should chase the numbers!! Because most people don't understand that you will see almost no difference between 45 and 60 MPs. But please everybody, live in your little dream worlds where a bigger number is like a little pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

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.