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

[dmelchor]

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 used a tremendously robust tripod. I used a 70-200mm. At 200mm the artifacts were terrible. At 70mm the result was much better, but there were still some artifacts. I understand that when moving the sensor at the sub-pixel level, any small vibration is fatal. Therefore I understand that this option is not intended to be used with telephoto lenses. Surely with an angular lens the results are better. For my tests I used a remote trigger and shot inside the house and without air. The set could not be more stable. The only possible vibrations would come from the movement of the sensor itself.

 

[ata bora]

Canon EOS R5 Specifications and Features -

Canon EOS R5 specifications and key features in detail.

www.canon-europe.com

what it says in camera specs,

 

[macrunning]

Wow! This is about as exciting as watching a big turd drop. So un-impressed with this update. The AF on the R5 needs some fixing Canon. And for anyone out there who thinks we should all be so privileged to have these minor updates from Canon I say this: We are not working with your grandpas cameras here, we are working with computers. Imagine if Apple decided to not give us updates and that if you wanted new features and security patches you would have to by the latest model. Camera companies need to be updating the firmware on a regular basis so long as the hardware can support it. We all know Google and Apple will continue to push camera technology and make software updates easy. Hell Canon charges way more for these cameras than my Apple laptop did or my monitors. That's just ridiculous in my book. Value wise my laptop does far more than the camera does and I don't have to be doing the cha cha every time a rumored update is being made or comes out, the updates happen automatically on my computer, iPad and iPhone.

 

[definedphotography]

I'm assuming this is not the "big update" that was rumored to be coming.
The pixel shift seems like a nice addition, but not one I'll be using.

 

[entoman]

I'm assuming this is not the "big update" that was rumored to be coming.
The pixel shift seems like a nice addition, but not one I'll be using.

Big, huge, humungous, massive, enormous..ly disappointing.

 

[DavidJoarnt@gmail.]

The upgrade for the 400 mp file is worthless cannot save to anything but a jpg file cannot do hdr or bracket exposure and does not save the original 9 files a complete waste of the upgrade

 

[BPP]

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.

I can’t speak for others who may have been expecting more from this firmware update but for me the only major feature of the upgrade is the 400MP IBIS High res option and it’s not only unimpressive, it’s a bit of a dud.

 

[entoman]

The upgrade for the 400 mp file is worthless cannot save to anything but a jpg file cannot do hdr or bracket exposure and does not save the original 9 files a complete waste of the upgrade

To do HDR or exposure bracketing at the same time as doing pixel-shift would need a minimum of 27 consecutive exposures (9 for the pixel-shift x 3 for the HDR or bracketing), so not very realistic if you want in-camera processing.

But I do agree that if the original 9 files are not saved, it greatly diminishes the usefulness of the feature, as it prevents being able to composite the files in post.

My biggest criticism though, is not about the pixel-shift, but about all the other much more useful (to the majority) features that could have so easily been added, but were omitted.

 

[BPP]

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?

Is worth noting that there’s no option to use any time delay when using the new IBIS High res feature. I agree it would make sense but both 2s and 10s are disabled.

 

[djack41]

Very disappointing. Canon is slipping behind.

 

[entoman]

Is worth noting that there’s no option to use any time delay when using the new IBIS High res feature. I agree it would make sense but both 2s and 10s are disabled.

That's a crazy omission by Canon.

 

[R5boy]

Is worth noting that there’s no option to use any time delay when using the new IBIS High res feature. I agree it would make sense but both 2s and 10s are disabled.

unbelievable, it's so amateurish

 

[Marphoto]

WTF? EPIC FAIL CANON.

 

[roby17269]

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.

I am confused with this talk of diffraction and of resolving power of lenses not up to 400mp.
I thought each single shot is still 45mp and therefore a lens which is good for the R5 in standard mode should be fine for the R5 in "super high res" mode.
Am I missing something? (honest question)

 

[R5boy]

if you want in-camera processing.

We don't want that, that's to me is the biggest error of canon's featurtes. On the field we're here to shoot, to capture reality, light. We've no time for in camera processing. I can understand why they do this, fgor simplicity etc, but that's would be ok on a low cost device, here we're taklin 4,5K€ people that invest that much don't need jpeg gadgets. We need tool that can capture reality in the best possible way, and quickly. If they want a jpeg output, fine, but just let us disable it and have the camera capture tthe files, then we'll process it at night.

I'm a bit mad at that feature, because to me it proves lack of care. They're the last to provide this, and yet they do a terrible job, doing all mistakes possible : no bracketing, no shutter delay WTF. That's a sloppy job.

 

[Steve Balcombe]

Is worth noting that there’s no option to use any time delay when using the new IBIS High res feature. I agree it would make sense but both 2s and 10s are disabled.

That's incorrect, I used 2 sec delay when testing today.

 

[xlksii]

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

The AI obviously looks better in this case, but it also clearly looks as though it's just making up plausible detail.

 

[byjohnburns]

Is worth noting that there’s no option to use any time delay when using the new IBIS High res feature. I agree it would make sense but both 2s and 10s are disabled.

This is incorrect. I have the camera in front of me, with IBIS High res on, and am able to use both a 2 and 10 second delay.

 

[byjohnburns]

unbelievable, it's so amateurish

That's a crazy omission by Canon.

It is an incorrect claim. I have the camera in front of me, with IBIS High res on, and am able to use both a 2 and 10 second delay.

 

[angelisland]

Very disappointing. Canon is slipping behind.

Everybody who owns a camera claims that their brand is slipping behind ;-)
As far as most comparisons I have seen the R5 compares very favorably (aside from FPS and no-blackout EVF) to the Sony A1 which costs $3,000 more.