The Canon EOS R5 and EOS R6 will be announced in the first few days of July

Starting out EOS R

EOS R - RF24-105mm F4L, RF70-200mm f2.8L
Feb 13, 2020
255
281
When the 1st announcement came for the R5, I was excited, when the second and subsequent announcements came, I was wow, let me at it & ready to buy, as long as the price wasn't ridiculous. But it's funny how when things drag on and your forced to use what you have, as well as do lots of other things you wouldn't normally do because of COVID-19 & lockdown, I'm sort of a bit meh, flat and neither here nor there.

I've gone from 'I'm getting that when pre orders are available' to 'I think I'll wait until lockdown ends and use some of the new techniques I was forced to learn during lockdown to see if the extra specs are worth the expense'.

Time with nothing to do makes you think and puts different perspectives on things.

It's a funny old world. ;)
 

koenkooi

EOS R
Feb 25, 2015
1,142
936
When the 1st announcement came for the R5, I was excited, when the second and subsequent announcements came,[..]
Technically Canon hasn't announced anything about the R5 yet, they only released a 'Development announcement' and a few updates. I do agree that it feels like Canon is announcing R5 things every other day, but then I realize it's just Canon Rumors drip feeding us info, not Canon itself :)
 

Joules

EOS R
Jul 16, 2017
906
999
Hamburg, Germany
Absolutely no, if you're doing landscapes/architecture, heavy cropping, large prints.

Also, when you upgrade from 5DIV, 45mp sounds like a decent jump on par with Nikon D850 and Sony A7rIII. 39mp is a kinda meh.
Keep in mind with the R5 we should also get the new type of high detail low pass filter first found in the 1D X III. So even a lower megapixel bump could give you a greater than expected improvement with regards to detail.

Also worth noting is that Canon usually increments their resolution by a factor of about 1.3 between generations. And that would actually would mean 45 MP is the odd choice if the R5 is an R / 5D IV successor.

6D to 6D II => 20 * 1.3 = 26
5D III to 5D IV => 22 * 1.33 = 30
Older APS-C => 18 * 1.33 = 24
Newer APS-C => 24 * 1.33 = 32

R to R5 => 30 * 1.33 = 40 ?

Maybe they simply abandoned that approach for something more practical. 45 sounds nicer than 40, but it is no make or brake difference to me and probably not to the market either. As you can see above, it would be no unusual increment for Canon, and this time the speed and AF are getting unprecedented improvements to go along with it.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,857
1,638
Wouldn't those extra hardware pixels also need to appear in the RAW file data?
Yes, and they do. But what you see on your screen is never a raw file, it's one demosaiced interpretation of that raw file.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,857
1,638
RAW files already have 'additional' pixels, there's a border that is used for image housekeeping like black level calibration which doesn't show up in the resulting picture on your screen.

That's why Canon spec pages have:

Effective Pixels Approx. 30.3 megapixels
Total Pixels Approx. 31.7 megapixels

So that 44.9MP, is it the total or effective number of pixels?
Effective.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,857
1,638
It's not such a big problem to add those padding pixels. Details of jpeg compression are unlikely to be the decisive factor for determining the sensor dimensions.

Some other factors could make them to be a multiple of 16, I don't argue that.
If you have source files that are divisible by 8x8 or 16x16 you don't need to add any padding pixels, do you?

btw, I don't think camera works with tiff files internally, the demosaicing process you mentioned is only needed for jpeg generation and back-screen previews, it's not written to raw files which leave demosaicing to the processing software.
Internally the camera would have buffers with RGB data per pixel, but it won't convert them to tiff files, it's kinda meaningless. tiff file implies more data than just RGB per pixel, and that data isn't necessary for interim processing.
JPEG is a special version of TIFF files that is fully compliant with the TIFF standard. Canon .crw and .cr2 files store their raw file information in a TIFF compliant container.

But I never said Canon cameras "convert" the RGB data to TIFF files. What I actually said was "Uncompressed TIFF files are one form that represents these individual RGB values for each pixel." The distinction being that the information in a raw image file aren't really "pixels" at all, they are monochrome luminance values from photosites a/k/a sensels a/k/a as "pixel wells" but technically they are not "pixels".
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
1,149
984
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
If you have source files that are divisible by 8x8 or 16x16 you don't need to add any padding pixels, do you?
You don't need to 'add' them in terms of additional memory, the padding will be virtual. I'm not saying Canon won't make image dimensions multiples of 16. I'm saying jpeg conversion is unlikely to be the only or main factor. The cost of software processing of 'uneven' jpegs is negligible.

JPEG is a special version of TIFF files that is fully compliant with the TIFF standard.
Is it so? I thought jpeg compression can be used in tiff files, when tiff serves as a container. Normally tiff files have uncompressed images.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
1,149
984
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
JPEG is a special version of TIFF files that is fully compliant with the TIFF standard.
I dived deeper into that https://www.adobe.io/content/dam/udp/en/open/standards/tiff/TIFF6.pdf
jpeg inside tiff is an 'extension' to the baseline tiff. Extensions are not supported by all tiff readers.
tiff is a container for jpeg compression but not jpeg files, so by no means jpeg can be fully compliant with tiff.

Canon .crw and .cr2 files store their raw file information in a TIFF compliant container.
Apparently cr2 uses tiff as a container, but again it adds canon-specific tags to tiff so not compliant with the baseline tiff.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
.
Still – Canon's either holding back the resolution spec because it's lower than expected or higher than expected. I seriously doubt it will be right at 45 mp. If it is 45 mp, it's dumb they didn't release the mp spec with the rest of the specs.
I can’t remember Canon ever releasing the exact resolution of a camera sensor before the official announcement. So they are holding back information that they have always held back until the official announcement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

12Broncos

EOS M6 Mark II
Jul 20, 2019
59
55
Now that we have a month's notice, maybe we should we start a forum discussion where we can start practicing excuses to justify the purchase to loved ones and concerned onlookers.

"Yes, I already have a camera, but I don't have that camera!"
As of right now, I don't have a camera. I'm content to save for it. If it's released in July I might be able to get it in September. Just in time for Autumn!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,857
1,638
Absolutely yes, when downscaled to the Insta size.
Absolutely no, if you're doing landscapes/architecture, heavy cropping, large prints.

Also, when you upgrade from 5DIV, 45mp sounds like a decent jump on par with Nikon D850 and Sony A7rIII. 39mp is a kinda meh.
45MP is less than 7.5% more than 39MP in terms of linear resolution.
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
247
164

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,857
1,638
You don't need to 'add' them in terms of additional memory, the padding will be virtual. I'm not saying Canon won't make image dimensions multiples of 16. I'm saying jpeg conversion is unlikely to be the only or main factor. The cost of software processing of 'uneven' jpegs is negligible.
How about the "savings" in terms of elegant engineering and simplicity? How about the effect on image quality when an image needs to be highly compressed/decompressed by a network transport system handling billions of requests per second?

If you have source files that are divisible by 8x8 or 16x16 you don't need to add any padding pixels, do you?

Is it so? I thought jpeg compression can be used in tiff files, when tiff serves as a container. Normally tiff files have uncompressed images.
The way many folks use TIFF files are that they are 16-bit uncompressed or, even more commonly, losslessly compressed (LZW) images but that is far from the only form TIFF files can be. 8-bit TIFFs, for instance, are also baseline compliant.


I dived deeper into that https://www.adobe.io/content/dam/udp/en/open/standards/tiff/TIFF6.pdf
jpeg inside tiff is an 'extension' to the baseline tiff. Extensions are not supported by all tiff readers.
tiff is a container for jpeg compression but not jpeg files, so by no means jpeg can be fully compliant with tiff.
Sheeesh! By your rigid standard CMYK, YCbCr, or CIE L*A*B based TIFFs are not "real" TIFFs either. Yet publishers request images in such "TIFFs" all of the time. Many extensions, including JPEG, are standardized parts of the TIFF standard and any modern tiff reader can easily handle them. JPEGs are a standardized image format within the TIFF standard. Even many private extensions, such as proprietary raw camera files, can be handled by the most commonly used TIFF readers.

Apparently cr2 uses tiff as a container, but again it adds canon-specific tags to tiff so not compliant with the baseline tiff.
Restricting only baseline TIFF compliant files with no extensions as the only "real" form of TIFFs in 2020 is a bit like restricting Kleenex as the only "real" form of facial tissue.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,857
1,638
None of those were fast moving.

Try tracking an airshow crossover in Live View
Hunt through that thread and see him later using LV for birds in flight with stacked extenders. I've been following the thread in real time for months, I don't have time to read the entire thing again.

It should go without saying that anyone in their right mind using the kinds of focal lengths needed to get a tight shot of an airshow crossover from behind the safety line will be using a gimbal on a tripod if they have any kind of clue as to what they are doing.
 
Last edited: