It’s time to fill those memory cards. Canon releases firmware v1.8.1 for the Canon EOS R5. 400mp stills are now possible

[R5boy]

Just playing with this new toy for the last hour.

I do not like this new feature nor I will use it

- You need to use a tripod yes or yes
- If there's any even smallest change like anything moving in the background gets messed up already, since shoot 9 pictures with different times
- Really slow
- There's artifacts coming out of the picture
- Only JPEG
- Not separated pictures which at least... we could later use.

Here you have 2 sample pictures with same exposure same composition. 1 normal and another super mega 400mpx. https://we.tl/t-kZyXE2lZwm Wetransfer link, 91.6MB

Yeah lot more resolution but for what? :S

Thank for your files, they're very interesting, downsampling to 50% is artefact free and end up to 100MP. By the way, does it works with barcketing ? is it ES only ?

 

[angelisland]

I zoomed in, it looks really weird.

You are looking at 200%, at I'm guessing would represent a tiny portion of an image which would effectively be a 40 foot wide print???

 

[ata bora]

You are looking at 200%, at I'm guessing would represent a tiny portion of an image which would effectively be a 40 foot wide print???

My opinion. Whether or not to print is a matter of preference.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I think that we will need to wait until someone spends untold hours experimenting to tell us if and when we would get some benefit. Perhaps it will allow me to crop a photo rather than buy a longer zoom lens? I'd have to see if anyone could bolt it down good enough to get more out of a object 7 miles away which is the direct line distance to the top of Mount Spokane from my back yard.

 

[BPP]

I've been testing the new IBIS High res today too. I'm sorry to report it's very disappointing. In fact it's terrible. Sure it creates huge images but zoomed in to 100% the artefacts/pixelation makes them totally unusable. Why would Canon release something that they know would get loads of attention when it's so poor.
I agree with Chema Photo - I will not be using it.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has got better results.

This is a 100% crop (1022 pixels wide) from the centre of an IBIS High res image I shot today. (With a tripod, ie, zero camera movement).

 

[dmelchor]

I've been doing some tests with the new high resolution mode of R5. Both images are a 100% crop. The image on the left is the 400mpx camera output with the new feature. The one on the right is a 45mpx raw scaled up to 400mpx using topaz. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[BPP]

I've just done the same as 'dmelchor' with the equivalent 45MP image of the IBIS High res (which I posted above) that I also took earlier, ie I've upscaled the 45MP to the same size as the IBIS High res using Topaz.

IBIS High res on the left, upscaled 45MP file on the right. I know which I prefer.

 

[ata bora]

I've just done the same as 'dmelchor' with the equivalent 45MP image of the IBIS High res (which I posted above) that I also took earlier, ie I've upscaled the 45MP to the same size as the IBIS High res using Topaz.

IBIS High res on the left, upscaled 45MP file on the right. I know which I prefer.View attachment 208145

The result is clear, if you ask me, it looks like the next R5 update will fix the bugs in this new feature.

 

[ata bora]

I've been doing some tests with the new high resolution mode of R5. Both images are a 100% crop. The image on the left is the 400mpx camera output with the new feature. The one on the right is a 45mpx raw scaled up to 400mpx using topaz. Draw your own conclusions.

View attachment 208144

A very nice and understandable result. Thanks for your enthusiasm.

 

[gmon750]

Wow... the downers in this thread... Seems like they were expecting the firmware to update their R5 to an R1. Go figure.

My R5 was an incredible camera before the firmware. You folks might want to consider that your bar may be set a wee bit high.

 

[entoman]

Now who’s fault was it to hype things up? Not Canon’s

Very true, but IMO that doesn't excuse them.

It should have been perfectly possible to add the AF updates found in the R3/R6ii/ and even in the "cheap" R7. It should also have been possible to add pre-capture (even if only for JPEGs), not to mention variable fps and exposure bracketing in ES.

They clearly made a *choice* to NOT include these features, which are probably far more useful to the bulk of users. With no sign of a R5ii on the horizon, it's pretty disappointing. I suspect it's part of a cunning plan by Canon to get people who want these features to buy a R6ii or R7 as a second body.

 

[byjohnburns]

I've been testing the new IBIS High res today too. I'm sorry to report it's very disappointing. In fact it's terrible. Sure it creates huge images but zoomed in to 100% the artefacts/pixelation makes them totally unusable. Why would Canon release something that they know would get loads of attention when it's so poor.
I agree with Chema Photo - I will not be using it.

I'd be interested to know if anyone else has got better results.

This is a 100% crop (1022 pixels wide) from the centre of an IBIS High res image I shot today. (With a tripod, ie, zero camera movement).
View attachment 208142

Unfortunate results.

I've tested it multiple times and have only good things to say. Any lack of clarity in the zoomed in image I've included is lens-derived; I can't imagine many lenses are designed to resolve 400mpx. I'd be curious to know what's causing the digital artifacts for some users.

 

[entoman]

Unfortunate results.

I've tested it multiple times and have only good things to say. Any lack of clarity in the zoomed in image I've included is lens-derived; I can't imagine many lenses are designed to resolve 400mpx. I'd be curious to know what's causing the digital artifacts for some users.

Interesting that you've got far better results than others. I wonder what you did that was different.
I assume that everyone was using a time delay to allow the camera to settle.

A few random thoughts:

Perhaps you just have a far more stable tripod.

Are IBIS and/or OIS automatically disabled in pixel-shift mode?
Or did you disable them when perhaps others didn't?
Maybe if IBIS remains enabled, the camera is fighting against itself?

 

[hovland]

I've just done the same as 'dmelchor' with the equivalent 45MP image of the IBIS High res (which I posted above) that I also took earlier, ie I've upscaled the 45MP to the same size as the IBIS High res using Topaz.

IBIS High res on the left, upscaled 45MP file on the right. I know which I prefer.View attachment 208145

curious, what lens did you use? and, does it have lens image stabilisation and was it on?

 

[ata bora]

Unfortunate results.

I've tested it multiple times and have only good things to say. Any lack of clarity in the zoomed in image I've included is lens-derived; I can't imagine many lenses are designed to resolve 400mpx. I'd be curious to know what's causing the digital artifacts for some users.

Which lens did you use?

 

[byjohnburns]

Interesting that you've got far better results than others. I wonder what you did that was different.
I assume that everyone was using a time delay to allow the camera to settle.

A few random thoughts:

Perhaps you just have a far more stable tripod.

Are IBIS and/or OIS automatically disabled in pixel-shift mode?
Or did you disable them when perhaps others didn't?
Maybe if IBIS remains enabled, the camera is fighting against itself?

I'm curious too.

Here's my set-up and rundown:

• Tested in combination with the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Both performed equally well.
• IBIS settings were left untouched. Whatever they are should be overridden by the IBIS High resolution shot setting, since it relies on IBIS anyway.
• Lens stabilization was left on, on both lenses.
• I did not use a shutter delay, but instead flipped the LCD outward and released the shutter by tapping. Microvibrations from the light tap were absorbed by the screen and should not have reached the body.
• Images were recorded onto a Sony TOUGH 128GB V6 card.

The artifacts others have reported look like interlaced compression you sometimes see in video. Weird one for sure!

 

[ata bora]

I'm curious too.

Here's my set-up and rundown:

• Tested in combination with the RF 24-70 f/2.8 and RF 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Both performed equally well.
• IBIS settings were left untouched. Whatever they are should be overridden by the IBIS High resolution shot setting, since it relies on IBIS anyway.
• Lens stabilization was left on, on both lenses.
• I did not use a shutter delay, but instead flipped the LCD outward and released the shutter by tapping. Microvibrations from the light tap were absorbed by the screen and should not have reached the body.
• Images were recorded onto a Sony TOUGH 128GB V6 card.

The artifacts others have reported look like interlaced compression you sometimes see in video. Weird one for sure!

for results, lenses like decisive ?

 

[hovland]

Her is a macro shot of a chip on a pcb, it's quite dusty and was only for testing. so not the best technically.
Seems quite decent and can't see any of the blurred edges as on some others.
taken with the rf 100 macro at approx 1:3 (with IS on). So I can actually see some use for this.


some observations when the 400mp mode was activated:
No flash sync
no focus bracketing, hope support for this will come in the future.
1,6 crop mode not available

Wonder how moon shots will turn out?

 

[byjohnburns]

for results, lenses like decisive ?

Could be. Random thought; what memory card are you recording onto? Pure conjecture, but I wonder if it's a speed or buffer-related issue.

 

[ata bora]

Could be. Random thought; what memory card are you recording onto? Pure conjecture, but I wonder if it's a speed or buffer-related issue.

"hovland" just made a post and he wrote that he uses rf 100mm.