Multiple RAW image resolutions coming to the Canon EOS R5 Mark II?

[scyrene]

More resolution for what? Did you have the lenses that support those resolutions? You must have much money to ask about. I recommend that you should sell your fullframe gear an get a middle format system mit 200MPixel sensor. They got the lense quality.

This nonsense again. All lenses benefit from higher res sensors* (at least for now); and if someone is using long focal lengths (eg for bird photography) then medium format doesn't even have the glass. Try to expand your horizons a little!

*obviously it's diminishing returns and diffraction becomes increasingly important but still

 

[Juppeck]

This nonsense again. All lenses benefit from higher res sensors* (at least for now); and if someone is using long focal lengths (eg for bird photography) then medium format doesn't even have the glass. Try to expand your horizons a little!

*obviously it's diminishing returns and diffraction becomes increasingly important but still

If you're going to criticize, it would be more noble if you didn't let your judgments become personal. This reduces your credibility and your motivation to even respond to your comment.

I don't want to convince you, but you have no visible advantage in the image result. Faith may move mountains, but in the end it's the photo that counts. the lens simply only delivers a limited number of lines. If the sensor scans this one line with three or four lines of pixels, you won't get more detailed information in the photo.
There are a few other side effects that are beneficial. It's so irrelevant that it's definitely not worth $5000.
With the R5II it is hoped that, in addition to the higher resolution, it will also be faster. Shutter or burst speed, tracking and focus speed. But that alone would only be so interesting for very few customers that they would pay so much money for it.
The R5 is completely sufficient for me and even for that many lenses are not good enough to max out the system.
Medium format systems definitely have their advantages - that's why they exist. Commercial studios use them. A Fuji film like this isn't much bigger than a full frame camera. A system is not an all-rounder.

 

[EricN]

If you're going to criticize, it would be more noble if you didn't let your judgments become personal. This reduces your credibility and your motivation to even respond to your comment.

I don't want to convince you, but you have no visible advantage in the image result. Faith may move mountains, but in the end it's the photo that counts. the lens simply only delivers a limited number of lines. If the sensor scans this one line with three or four lines of pixels, you won't get more detailed information in the photo.
There are a few other side effects that are beneficial. It's so irrelevant that it's definitely not worth $5000.
With the R5II it is hoped that, in addition to the higher resolution, it will also be faster. Shutter or burst speed, tracking and focus speed. But that alone would only be so interesting for very few customers that they would pay so much money for it.
The R5 is completely sufficient for me and even for that many lenses are not good enough to max out the system.
Medium format systems definitely have their advantages - that's why they exist. Commercial studios use them. A Fuji film like this isn't much bigger than a full frame camera. A system is not an all-rounder.

Unfortunately, you are incorrect. Even after the resolution that we can notice a lens's images becoming soft, there is still more information available if a higher resolution sensor was used. That is an objective fact. If you don't agree, you can send NASA an email asking about this topic.
As far as what is worth $5000, that is subjective.

 

[scyrene]

If you're going to criticize, it would be more noble if you didn't let your judgments become personal. This reduces your credibility and your motivation to even respond to your comment.

I don't want to convince you, but you have no visible advantage in the image result. Faith may move mountains, but in the end it's the photo that counts. the lens simply only delivers a limited number of lines. If the sensor scans this one line with three or four lines of pixels, you won't get more detailed information in the photo.
There are a few other side effects that are beneficial. It's so irrelevant that it's definitely not worth $5000.

How is it personal? Respond or don't, my "credibility" is irrelevant when we're discussing matters of fact.

Nothing to do with faith either, on my part. I believe you are engaging in what is called "projection".

 

[usern4cr]

How is it personal? Respond or don't, my "credibility" is irrelevant when we're discussing matters of fact.

Nothing to do with faith either, on my part. I believe you are engaging in what is called "projection".

I normally don't get into emotional boxing (as I notice here somewhat), but I'll mention this:

I have made my own careful resolution measurements with the R5 and RF 85 f1.2L lens, and I have found that this lens could probably support a sensor with 4 times as many pixels on it total. Now that's not with the same 100% contrast (as it then probably gets close to the max lens resolution) but it would still result in a much better image than the current 45MP sensor can sense.

Furthermore, you still must have a variety of lens magnifications (instead of just a few if any in certain focal ranges) to bring the image you want to have cropped exposed on the biggest part of the sensor as possible to take advantage of all those pixels. So a medium format system without enough lens choices could easily not be living up to its sensor capability since the desired cropped image might be too big or small for the sensor.

So a R5II at 60MP is easily better than at 45MP. At 180MP it would be even better, and probably also better than many medium format cameras with their current lenses. After that (somewhere) I would guess that it can't get much better at that sensor size and cost/quality of lenses.

 

[Michael Clark]

If you're going to criticize, it would be more noble if you didn't let your judgments become personal. This reduces your credibility and your motivation to even respond to your comment.

I don't want to convince you, but you have no visible advantage in the image result. Faith may move mountains, but in the end it's the photo that counts. the lens simply only delivers a limited number of lines. If the sensor scans this one line with three or four lines of pixels, you won't get more detailed information in the photo.
There are a few other side effects that are beneficial. It's so irrelevant that it's definitely not worth $5000.
With the R5II it is hoped that, in addition to the higher resolution, it will also be faster. Shutter or burst speed, tracking and focus speed. But that alone would only be so interesting for very few customers that they would pay so much money for it.
The R5 is completely sufficient for me and even for that many lenses are not good enough to max out the system.
Medium format systems definitely have their advantages - that's why they exist. Commercial studios use them. A Fuji film like this isn't much bigger than a full frame camera. A system is not an all-rounder.

Lenses don't "deliver" lines, though. Lenses project blur circles. If the blur circles are small enough, they allow us to discriminate the lines on a chart that was the source of the light that the lens projected as blur circles.

Increasing from one line to four lines of photosites in the same linear space on the sensor increases resolution because it allows blur circles to be detected as more circular, rather than as blocky squares.

 

[Ozarker]

Who are we fooling? I'd never pick lower resolution.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Who are we fooling? I'd never pick lower resolution.

But keep in mind that MP count ≠ resolution. For example, the 24 MP sensors in the R3 and R8 both out-resolve (in terms of actual spatial resolution) and thus provide more image detail than the 30 MP sensors in the 5DIV / EOS R.