High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?

[vikingar]

Those paintings were physically very large for a good reason. Human vision is limited in angular resolution, so to appreciate great detail, we need to be able to scan a wide field of view. For example, the optimal viewing distance for an 85 in 8k TV is about 3 feet. This means that for even 33MP to be fully appreciated, we need a screen that is most of a wall unless we are going to sit with our noses in said screen. Sadly, with "smart" phones, the trend is in exactly the opposite direction and with a 4 in screen, not many pixels are needed. Maybe some genetic engineering can increase average human visual acuity in future generations, but that won't help the commenters on this forum .

Smartphones are starting to make use of higher resolutions, and the trend is going upwards. You won't find many 4in smartphones anymore, the regular iPhone 15 is 6.1in and the Max is 6.7in.

Progress is slow and steady. First were larger screens ("phablets", now just called regular phones), then increased pixel density ("Retina"), and just recently more and better options for easy sharing of full resolution images were made available to regular users. E.g. iCloud Shared Library, full resolution sharing on WhatsApp, etc, where previously this was always restricted due to bandwidth/storage costs.

I do agree that it is hard to see/use 33MP on even the newest phones. At 460ppi pixel density (iPhone 15 Pro Max) you can see about 3.6MP at a time. But zooming in on a 45MP R5 photo on my phone and seeing all the detail come out is pretty amazing. Nothing pixelates.

Once VR / AR becomes mainstream, looking at a large image like you would a painting will be entirely possible. VR and AR make use of foveated rendering where the parts of the image you're looking at are shown at a much higher resolution than the rest, and of course you can move/look around. So any image can be rendered larger than life. I'm sure younger generations will love it once it becomes mainstream. The tech might even be usable this time around, looking forward to the Apple headset.

 

[canonmike]

Concur

With that said, I really don’t think a lot of “common” people are spending upwards of $4k on cameras.

 

[TedYork]

One of the metrics that kept me away from the Canon mirrorless system for so long was the resolution of the new R series cameras was lower than the previous DSLR cameras. I rocked a pair of 5Diii's for a long time. I didn't see the mk4 as somehting was going to improve my work much. However, the 5Div compared to the (then new) R looked like the mk 4 was the better camera. When the R5 came a long, 45mp was a bit behind the 5Ds...although the rest of the camera was a massive improvement. The R6 was only 20mp and against the 22mp of my 5Diii...it felt like a step backwards. Which is why the R8 and R6ii were the cameras for me to upgrade to.
We don't know what resoution the new R5ii will be, some say it'll be the same or there abouts (45mp). Which is fine. But those who need to push the limits of sensor resolution...45mp might not be enough. So I understand the drive for a nuvo high MP, low fps camera. It's the last bastion of the DSLR days that's left, the 5Ds still slightly outresolves the R5.

Actually, withe the RF lenses the R5 does a better job resolving than my 5dsr. Having said that I'm one of those waiting for more resolution. Back when Canon announced the 5dsr everyone was wining about how there was no need for such high resolution and now its the norm. I have a friend in the Phase one world who use to argue his big pixel made his images better, but now that he's at 150pixel he talks about the pixel count. Guess we'll see how the future goes....

 

[Fischer]

I would say this though. It is not a free lunch, in the sense that higher resolution requires more "discipline" to enjoy the advantages it offers. Better shooting techniques, maybe tripods, higher shutter speeds, good lenses used in their sweet spots, etc. If you don't then you may just experience the downsides of high mps, such as bigger files, lower fps, heavier computing, and none of the advantages.

There is never more camera shake induced blur from shooting a high res body - only potentially less.

 

[roby17269]

There is never more camera shake induced blur from shooting a high res body - only potentially less.

Hmmm? My understanding was the opposite, but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong

 

[koenkooi]

Hmmm? My understanding was the opposite, but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong

The absolute length of the blur is the same,
it will be spread over more pixels. So when looking at the picture zoomed to 100% the blur is larger, because the relative magnification is greater.

 

[scyrene]

Any higher will end up the lens cannot resolve the MP.

It's more complicated than that.

And I struggle to understand why so much MP is needed if is for the sake of cropping. That just means they are using wrong focal length.

Sometimes. But there's a limit to the focal lengths available, and if you want to travel light, even more so.

 

[roby17269]

The absolute length of the blur is the same,
it will be spread over more pixels. So when looking at the picture zoomed to 100% the blur is larger, because the relative magnification is greater.

Yes, so you agree with me? Sorry, slow brain morning

 

[FabFR]

There are about 10 R bodies currently (eos R seems to be discontinued on B&H) with R5ii and R1 to come. The niches are getting smaller.. a R5a would be nice but maybe a high mp body would sell more but would be more expensive.

Maybe implement a better ‘raw’ pixel shift in-camera image??

I do agree !
Each new generation of cameras provides new high specifications, but theses specifications concern fewer and fewer photo applications, even for professionnals.
In the past years, we understood that 24, 36 or 45Mpix is better for large prints, but now we can print approx all print size for common and uncommon uses ! The niche for 100Mpix+ sensors is shrinking... Otherwise these professionnals (and a few amateur photographers) already have MF cameras in this niche market !

 

[koenkooi]

Yes, so you agree with me? Sorry, slow brain morning

I think both you and @Fischer are right, you’re just talking about slightly different things, pixel level vs image level blur.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

Actually, withe the RF lenses the R5 does a better job resolving than my 5dsr. Having said that I'm one of those waiting for more resolution. Back when Canon announced the 5dsr everyone was wining about how there was no need for such high resolution and now its the norm. I have a friend in the Phase one world who use to argue his big pixel made his images better, but now that he's at 150pixel he talks about the pixel count. Guess we'll see how the future goes....

i'm seeing something similar when comparing the results from my R8 & R6ii to that from my older 5DIII. It's only a 2 mp bump, but the AA filter is a lot milder and the detail is resolving a lot higher. Previously, my mk1 EF 24-70mm f2.8 L, Ef 35mm f1.4 L and Ef 85mm f1.2 II L all resolved superbly when shot wide open on my 5DIII. I'm seeing slightly softer results from all three. I've recently upgraded my 24-70/2.8 for a Mk II EF (optically, there's not between the EF and RF versions) and I'm just awaiting my EF 35mm f1.4 mkII to arrive. My EF 85mm f1.2 II L is still sharp enough for the amount I use it these days!
Often people think that "all EF glass" is soft. When often the later mkII or mkIII versions are as sharp as the new RF lenses. In some rare cases, the EF optics are even sharper than their RF counterparts.

I've read reports that the 24mp sensor in the R8 /R6ii can out resolve the 30mp Eos R and I can well belive it. So it's quite easy to see that the R5's 45mp complete with it's gentler AA filter easily out resolves the 5DSR's 50mp. I was happy at 22mp for well over 10 years and I'm also currently happy at 24mp.
I think that next year, I need to get a EF 200mm f2.0 LIS and a EF 24mm f1.4 II L and I'm proabably done with my lens collection. When Canon drops a R5ii...I'll probably wait for about 6-8 months and then pick one up once all the hype and hysteria has died down.

 

[Dragon]

i'm seeing something similar when comparing the results from my R8 & R6ii to that from my older 5DIII. It's only a 2 mp bump, but the AA filter is a lot milder and the detail is resolving a lot higher. Previously, my mk1 EF 24-70mm f2.8 L, Ef 35mm f1.4 L and Ef 85mm f1.2 II L all resolved superbly when shot wide open on my 5DIII. I'm seeing slightly softer results from all three. I've recently upgraded my 24-70/2.8 for a Mk II EF (optically, there's not between the EF and RF versions) and I'm just awaiting my EF 35mm f1.4 mkII to arrive. My EF 85mm f1.2 II L is still sharp enough for the amount I use it these days!
Often people think that "all EF glass" is soft. When often the later mkII or mkIII versions are as sharp as the new RF lenses. In some rare cases, the EF optics are even sharper than their RF counterparts.

I've read reports that the 24mp sensor in the R8 /R6ii can out resolve the 30mp Eos R and I can well belive it. So it's quite easy to see that the R5's 45mp complete with it's gentler AA filter easily out resolves the 5DSR's 50mp. I was happy at 22mp for well over 10 years and I'm also currently happy at 24mp.
I think that next year, I need to get a EF 200mm f2.0 LIS and a EF 24mm f1.4 II L and I'm proabably done with my lens collection. When Canon drops a R5ii...I'll probably wait for about 6-8 months and then pick one up once all the hype and hysteria has died down.

The R5 has a very well designed AA filter, but it is not "gentler" than than the "cancelled" AA filter in the 5DSR. The 5DS has a more aggressive AA filter, but the 5DSR effectively has no AA filter at all. I have both cameras and the R5 offers great detail, but not more than the the 5DSR. Shadow recovery is another matter. The R5 wins hands down.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The R5 has a very well designed AA filter, but it is not "gentler" than than the "cancelled" AA filter in the 5DSR. The 5DS has a more aggressive AA filter, but the 5DSR effectively has no AA filter at all. I have both cameras and the R5 offers great detail, but not more than the the 5DSR. Shadow recovery is another matter. The R5 wins hands down.

Canon claims the R5 has the highest resolution ("Confirm with the CPA resolution chart according to ISO12233") of any EOS camera as of July, 2020. Since they made the EOS 5DsR several years before, I presume they'd have included that as an EOS camera.

 

[EricN]

40~50MP for mid high MP but maintaining fast CMOS is my preference. However, Canon needs to put a 60+MP, sub-100MP FF to grab some market share from a7Rx series. Sony has monopoly in that segment.

Any higher will end up the lens cannot resolve the MP. And I struggle to understand why so much MP is needed if is for the sake of cropping. That just means they are using wrong focal length.

It could be used for making a panorama from one photo vs several photos.

 

[Dragon]

Canon claims the R5 has the highest resolution ("Confirm with the CPA resolution chart according to ISO12233") of any EOS camera as of July, 2020. Since they made the EOS 5DsR several years before, I presume they'd have included that as an EOS camera.

Sometimes marketing claims don't quite tell the whole story. I haven't done exhaustive testing on the two cameras, but to my eye the 5DSR offers more snap in fine detail using the same lens. I suspect that has to do with the lack of AA filter roll off which would then offer more modulation depth (i.e. a higher MTF) at high frequencies. There may be some arcane reason (maybe related to aliasing) why the R5 has a higher limiting resolution, but I don't see it in actual pictures. That is not to dis the R5 as it takes great and sharp photos, but I just don't see it as sharper than the 5DSR in spite of the fact that it is a better camera in so many other ways.

 

[Dragon]

It could be used for making a panorama from one photo vs several photos.

If you have that rare wide angle lens that is sharp all the way to the corners .

 

[EricN]

If you have that rare wide angle lens that is sharp all the way to the corners .

You're right for now. However, it only needs to be sharp to the left and right sides because you'll generally want to crop to at least a 2:1 ratio and the 10-20mm f/4 won't be rare by the time a high mp body could be available.

Anyway, my point was an image doesn’t need to be cropped to anything close to the usual 3:2 that using a longer focal length would solve more conventionally.

 

[David - Sydney]

And I struggle to understand why so much MP is needed if is for the sake of cropping. That just means they are using wrong focal length.

Definitely a challenge to change lenses with an underwater housing. Regularly cropping hard with a 16-35mm lens if I find something small to shoot. Even with a 100mm macro setup, there can be a lot of hard cropping for abstracts for instance or where it is hard to get close to a subject.

 

[David - Sydney]

If you have that rare wide angle lens that is sharp all the way to the corners .

not just sharpness but coma and vignetting for wide aperture astro. Panoramas (if stitched well) can avoid using the corners. It assumes that the center is good though

 

[Dragon]

You're right for now. However, it only needs to be sharp to the left and right sides because you'll generally want to crop to at least a 2:1 ratio and the 10-20mm f/4 won't be rare by the time a high mp body could be available.

Anyway, my point was an image doesn’t need to be cropped to anything close to the usual 3:2 that using a longer focal length would solve more conventionally.

You are right. The 10-20 won't be all that rare for those of us who can afford a 100 MP body in the first place