Great, thank you very much for confirming that. MarkNo, there is no correlation whatsoever.
Upvote
0
Great, thank you very much for confirming that. MarkNo, there is no correlation whatsoever.
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.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.
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 muchThe 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.
The difference is indeed visible, more than I expected!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
I still use this dinosaur from time to time, IMO it's the best Canon camera i've shot.I want those old color and hues from the 1Ds MarkIII. Give me a daylight camera
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.I still use this dinosaur from time to time, IMO it's the best Canon camera i've shot.
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 interestedI 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." [...]
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.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
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.I would expect 45 MP because I think that's what the majority of actual photographers and high-end enthusiasts will want.
100% agree. More is just better.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.
Yep - I want to get back to a still camera priority. If I were into video, I'd buy a video centric camera.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.
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.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.
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 awayFewer 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.
You might see some L primes announced in mid-February so only another few weeks.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.