# A high-megapixel EOS R camera is still on the roadmap [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 4, 2020)

> While a lot of us, myself included expected to see a high-megapixel R replacement for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R DSLRs to be coming next, that has turned out not to be the case. As we’re going to get the 45mp Canon EOS R5 next and then a Canon EOS R6 later on in the spring. We have no details on the announcement timeframe for another EOS R series camera. We were told that 4 new full-frame cameras were coming in 2020, so this may be one of them.
> 
> The source claims that the megapixel jump from the 50.6mp sensor in the EOS 5DS series will be “significant”. We’ve had rumors stating 70+ megapixels, but I get the feeling it could be much higher. Unfortunately, most everything rumored about this camera previously has proven incorrect. I would think if...



Continue reading...


----------



## vjlex (Feb 4, 2020)

I agree on the R3 moniker. I posted in another thread that was my pick too, being that for so many years we were waiting on the mythical 3D, which we surmised became the 5DS because the 3D moniker would have been too confusing!


----------



## edoorn (Feb 4, 2020)

and agree on the very high mpix count; would differentiate it from the R5 and beat the A7rIV in terms of resolution


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Feb 4, 2020)

No doubt some people will buy it, and there's no reson to doubt they can make it, so why not? I'd expect it to be expensive. The market for such a camera is going to be fairly small but I suppose Canon might accept lower profit in return for the PR value of having the highest resolution full frame.


----------



## BillB (Feb 4, 2020)

My understanding from previous posts is that the R5 will be announced next, but that the R6 will be the first camera that will actually be available to buy. When you say the R5 is next, is this a change from earlier posts?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

I'm still curious how the naming will work. I thought the R5 / R6 products' names being confirmed meant that:

1DX --> R1
5DS --> R2, R3, R4 or R5S
5D --> R5
R -->  (RIP)​6D --> R6
RP -->  (RIP)​7D --> R7 (might never happen, but at least it has a name collared for future assignment)

But CR Guy has implied that R6 isn't corresponding to the 6D slot -- it is likely more of an A7S sort of competitor. So I'm as interested as anyone on the hierarchy/nomenclature/pricing/positioning for all these new FF bodies.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

But as for this thread's body, high res + IBIS multi shot would be a neat party trick.

Couple multi shot that with an auto focus stacking algo and we'll end up spending a terabyte to stitch together one 200 MP product/macro/landscape shot. 

- A


----------



## MartinF. (Feb 4, 2020)

R3 - I do a repost from last wedensday from the R5/R6 post:

Nice if we are beginning to see a naming scheme that is makes sense (and are related to the old one). Makes perfect sense that "R" (that was between 5D and 6D series) will be superseded by an R5 and an R6. probably a R1 for pro-sports. Maybe a R7 (APS-C) for sports and maybe space for another APS-C (and RP style entry-level APS-C - to take over from 90D or Rebels) - who know - and R8 ? (I do believe in APS-C sensors for the "R" mount).
And then get rid of the "s", and make a high megapixel R5 and name it R3. (they never used the name 3D, probably because it means something else in the film world). 

Well - just speculations and has nothing to do with the cameras - just the naming... - but fun to participate in the name-guessing game....


----------



## MartinF. (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm still curious how the naming will work. I thought the R5 / R6 products' names being confirmed meant that:
> 
> 1DX --> R1
> 5DS --> R2, R3, R4 or R5S
> ...


good guessing - and my quess is still that an R6 will fit in the 6D "slot" - somehow. (those tech slots are moving over time, as technology gives new possibilities for new slots in a productrange.


----------



## Wallybud (Feb 4, 2020)

So with a high mp body like this shutter becomes a huge factor. Will shooting it at mRaw or sRaw get rid of that problem slightly or will the camera always require a higher shutter speeds (or strobes) to get tack sharp images etc


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 4, 2020)

Wallybud said:


> So with a high mp body like this shutter becomes a huge factor. Will shooting it at mRaw or sRaw get rid of that problem slightly or will the camera always require a higher shutter speeds (or strobes) to get tack sharp images etc


I thought IBIS helps. every current 42mp+ camera has ibis. Do they have problems with camera shake?


----------



## mpmark (Feb 4, 2020)

edoorn said:


> and agree on the very high mpix count; would differentiate it from the R5 and beat the A7rIV in terms of resolution



Honestly, lets not become one of those sony fan boys with the "my lens is bigger then your lens attitude. We're all grown ups here aren't we? Its honestly pointless for who's beating who with this. Thats kids kinda talk.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 4, 2020)

yay. but when exactly? and what would be the dynamic range of a 100mp beast?


----------



## JohanCruyff (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm still curious how the naming will work. I thought the R5 / R6 products' names being confirmed meant that:
> 
> 1DX --> R1
> 5DS --> R2, R3, R4 or R5S
> ...



Everything makes sense, except R4. 
*R4  is impossible! *

https://www.tofugu.com/japan/number-four-superstition/


----------



## Wallybud (Feb 4, 2020)

RayValdez360 said:


> I thought IBIS helps. every current 42mp+ camera has ibis. Do they have problems with camera shake?



Well 42 is one thing, 80-100 seems like another. I think I might be leaning more toward the R5 at this point.


----------



## Adelino (Feb 4, 2020)

R U 4 real?


----------



## mariosk1gr (Feb 4, 2020)

From my understanding and from all these rumors since 5d mark iii I can say from my experience that Canon has a very standard way all these years to categorize their camera models. R5 is going to take the place of 5d4 w/o a mirror ofc. The same occupies to R6 which is going to take the place of 6d2 also. The R will get a lower price and remember my words, it is and will be a very good milc body for starters that want to invest in new canon's camera and lens system. The pricing for the new bodies i think its going to be for R6 between 2500-3000$ and for the R5 3500-4000$. Maybe 500$ less for both but it will be a surprise! As for the high megapixel camera its possible to see it in 2020 and maybe at next spring in 2021. Its already enough for Canon to shake the waters for good with 3 ff cameras in 2020 and finally enter in milc market. As for now, Canon with the launch of 1dx3 proves that i's going to the right direction. They will dominate in Olympics for sure. RS for me is for sure the moniker that high mp camera will get. R2, R3 or R4 is very unlikely for a ff body and not a good moniker for such a body. Call it intuition if you like but it its not a moniker for this camera... it doesn't sound well. Lastly if R6 is going to be a a7s alternative then the video specs should be more generous than R5 in my opinion.


----------



## Chaitanya (Feb 4, 2020)

Its high time Canon drops AA filters from its sensors.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 4, 2020)

Chaitanya said:


> Its high time Canon drops AA filters from its sensors.


But dat moire.


----------



## digito23 (Feb 4, 2020)

@Canon Rumors Guy Do you have any details on the physical design of the new R cameras?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 4, 2020)

Some observations from using the 5DS now for a number of years.

a. 50.1MP is simply not always necessary and I find even with portraits Im using mRaw to lower the file size yet still getting superbly detailed shots at A3 or above.
b. The biggest area of improvement needs to be at high ISO / low light
c. Video needs to vastly improve across the spectrum but at a minimum needs to be 4K full sensor
d. Also owning the EOS R the metering needs to cover a larger area (not large enough on the EOS R)
e. Retain the toggle switch (D pad & Touch Bar dont cut it)
f. In-body stabilisation in conjunction with lens stabilisation (camera shake is even more apparent at high MPs)

Whilst I use the 5DS as a portrait camera in good light its a great landscape camera with all the benefits of the 5 series ergonomics, metering etc. so as far as possible Canon should not stray from a winning formula but in an R series wrapper.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 4, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



100mp sensor should be no problem for Canon as they have shown a 250 mp sensor 5 years ago and a 120 mp sensor as well.
It would be nice to see a 100+ mp sensor on the 5DSR replacement.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 4, 2020)

I think R5s makes more sense than R3. R3 implies it is somehow a better camera than the R5 just because it has more pixels. And if it is getting a bigger and better body to go with the prestige of being one under the R1, I would still argue that the R5 should get the same treatment, which leads us back to R5s.


----------



## djkraq (Feb 4, 2020)

The EOS RS makes more since than EOS R3.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Honestly, lets not become one of those sony fan boys with the "my lens is bigger then your lens attitude. We're all grown ups here aren't we? Its honestly pointless for who's beating who with this. Thats kids kinda talk.




Not necessarily. High res seems to hold a high asking price very effectively. 5DS held price like a champ, the D850 the same, and we haven't seen the A7R4 price move at all since launch.

So high res may not be about being top dog -- it may just about tenting up the pricing in general to make a new R6 or again 5D4 at $2500 seem like a bargain.

- A


----------



## FramerMCB (Feb 4, 2020)

They should call it the R-HMP_Monster


----------



## cazza132 (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> But as for this thread's body, high res + IBIS multi shot would be a neat party trick.
> 
> Couple multi shot that with an auto focus stacking algo and we'll end up spending a terabyte to stitch together one 200 MP product/macro/landscape shot.
> 
> - A


Love the idea - esp when computational image analysis is becoming real time on phones these days. But, I would still love to have the individual raw files available and Canon's software supports the same types of analyses in post with selective edit. Eg. moving objects.

If Canon has/does go down the route of using BSI sensors (heaps of patents), there would be no/minimal loss in photon capture - the more resolution the better for me!

Perfect astro and landscape camera for sure! The more pixels with the same read noise packed on to a sensor - the higher the dynamic range. Also, moire would be diminished when using fast sharp lenses.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

djkraq said:


> The EOS RS makes more since than EOS R3.




Not if R5 and R6 are in there, too, and everyone and their mother is expecting a gripped R1 to show up eventually.

I think Canon should go all numbers or go all letters (after the R, I mean). Mixing them up is confusing as hell.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I think R5s makes more sense than R3. R3 implies it is somehow a better camera than the R5 just because it has more pixels. And if it is getting a bigger and better body to go with the prestige of being one under the R1, I would still argue that the R5 should get the same treatment, which leads us back to R5s.




I think this entirely depends on how Canon is positioning this camera.

If this is a high res specialty studio/tripod instrument -- all-in on resolution while video and high fps take a big back seat -- I see this more likely to be called an R5S. Canon will want folks paying nearly top dollar (for a non-gripped body) for the higher units product the R5 represents, and it's hard to do that if R3 happens ('Why is Canon's third best camera still $3500?'). In other words, I think you can argue for R5 price better with R5S just being a modest few hundred dollars higher in cost.

But if this is some science fiction kraken megabeast do-everything of a camera -- does everything the R5 can do *and* has the high resolution -- i could see some $4k R3 sort of product. But while I get that high res has demand and high fps has demand, I can't for the life of me fathom who is snapping away (idk) 80 MP stills at 10+ fps. That's nuts to me.

So, to me, 70-80 MP X 5-6 fps in a specialty high res stills rig called the R5S (at, say, $3800 vs. an R5 at $3500) makes more sense.

- A


----------



## cazza132 (Feb 4, 2020)

I am down with R5s or R3. The trolls will roll the RS naming - rat s..t :/


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 4, 2020)

RayValdez360 said:


> I thought IBIS helps. every current 42mp+ camera has ibis. Do they have problems with camera shake?



5Ds does not have IBIS
I'm sure IBIS will be a usefull to have feature, but not having it is not exactly the end of the world.


----------



## mppix (Feb 4, 2020)

Extrapolating the R5/R6 rumors, this one will shoot 16k 15fps video 
Exciting times =D


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 4, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> 100mp sensor should be no problem for Canon as they have shown a 250 mp sensor 5 years ago and a 120 mp sensor as well.
> It would be nice to see a 100+ mp sensor on the 5DSR replacement.



The 5Ds sensor and the 120/250MP sensors Canon showed were all regular sensors, not DPAF sensors. But the 120MP APS-H sensor would correspond to a 200MP FF sensor, so 100MP of dual pixels isn't a stretch. But Canon hasn't shown anything with dual pixel that would exceed 80MP FF.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Honestly, lets not become one of those sony fan boys with the "my lens is bigger then your lens attitude. We're all grown ups here aren't we? Its honestly pointless for who's beating who with this. Thats kids kinda talk.


Seniors regressing back to child hood. It happens, you know.

Jack


----------



## scyrene (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I think Canon should go all numbers or go all letters (after the R, I mean). Mixing them up is confusing as hell.



It may well be, but they've shown a penchant for using letters for a very long time. Moreover, they seem to like using -s for high res versions of existing lines: 1Ds (and successors) and 5Ds (I'm not sure what the -s was meant to stand for, if anything). No camera company seems bothered how confusing their nomenclature is (though Canon's is better than most in that regard).



ahsanford said:


> I think this entirely depends on how Canon is positioning this camera.



Absolutely. I agree that there's more chance of a name change if it's more substantially different.


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 4, 2020)

If the R5 does sport 45MP, then this is already a high MP camera. Not cutting edge high by today's standards, but still very high. While an even higher MP camera will appeal to some, the laws of diminishing returns will come into play - both in terms of gain from those extra MPs and customers willing to pay for the privilege.

Will there really be sufficient market to warrant another high MP camera when the R5 already has 45MP? 

If so, my guress is that we won't see the camera till 2022 (as a mid life stop gap till the R5 is replaced two years later)


----------



## cazza132 (Feb 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The 5Ds sensor and the 120/250MP sensors Canon showed were all regular sensors, not DPAF sensors. But the 120MP APS-H sensor would correspond to a 200MP FF sensor, so 100MP of dual pixels isn't a stretch. But Canon hasn't shown anything with dual pixel that would exceed 80MP FF.


Yes they have - 90D / M6 II  Wrt pixel density, and with solid DR and noise performance!


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> If the R5 does sport 45MP, then this is already a high MP camera. Not cutting edge high by today's standards, but still very high. While an even higher MP camera will appeal to some, the laws of diminishing returns will come into play - both in terms of gain from those extra MPs and customers willing to pay for the privilege.




Tell that to cell phones, 32 MP crop sensors, etc. Just as Medium Format continues to jack up resolution to maintain relevance and hold a place in the market, all cameras below it will do the same.

To the market, it's not about diminishing returns -- it's all about appearing to offer more over time.

- A


----------



## edoorn (Feb 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> Honestly, lets not become one of those sony fan boys with the "my lens is bigger then your lens attitude. We're all grown ups here aren't we? Its honestly pointless for who's beating who with this. Thats kids kinda talk.



I don't give a rat's ass to be honest, but Canon will use this to claim the highest resolution 35mm camera crown. That's marketing kinda talk, in a grown up world. But as product proposition is good too; they try to stay away from copying Sony's ff mirrorless line and differentiate. 

Actually I'm really glad the R5 will have 45mpix; that's a very sweet spot for me and I probably would not need this camera.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm still curious how the naming will work. I thought the R5 / R6 products' names being confirmed meant that:
> 
> 1DX --> R1
> 5DS --> R2, R3, R4 or R5S
> ...



While I agree in general, what I am curious about is how the purpose of each body is going to evolve. It used to be the 1D line was the best of everything including resolution. Eventually resolution was conceded to the 5D lineup. Since ~2012, we've had a common mantra that the 1D was sports/action/ultimate dependability, the 5D was "events" and the 6D was entry level as each lineup really seemed optimized for a specific group. This targeted approach has given Canon a base market for each camera and left those outside the targeted groups to pick the best camera for themselves. 

But, what gets me about the R5 specs is that they pop so much as SPECs, but I really wonder who the target market is? Has event photographer really gravitated to 45 MP and 12 fps? Because I know several wedding photographers that grumbled about the 30 MP of the 5DIV. 45/12 seems more like a wildlife spec to me, but people seem to be preferring OVF for wildlife. Is the R6 now aimed at event photographers? Or is Canon abandoning the "targeted niche market" approach and we are about to get cameras differentiated by spec sheets.

This may be coming. I do not think it is a coincidence that the R5 and R6 are both rated at 12 fps. I think Canon is going to manufacture 1 shutter and put it into both cameras. Or that the 1DXIII and the R6 are both 20 MP (if the rumor holds). Good chance that is the same sensor, albeit, maybe with a few tweaks so they can call it different. The large megapixel body, good chance that is a scaled up M6II 32 MP sensor (~82 MP), and not some "all new" sensor.

So, if all this holds, I suspect we are about to see a bunch of Frankenstein'd camera bodies. This is where lowest manufacturing cost prevails. Has this always happened, sure (just think how many times we saw a 18 MP sensor), but I really wonder if each camera body is going to be less targeted for specific markets and more different components bolted together to create pricepoint/spec list differentiations..


----------



## neurorx (Feb 4, 2020)

I am surprised someone hasn't suggested the R2 at this point....


----------



## Kit Lens Jockey (Feb 4, 2020)

Well, keep in mind that the frames per second speed is adjustable. I think on the 1D you can even dial it in to exactly what you want it. But many cameras have had a slow burst and a fast burst for a long time. So if you don't want 12fps, don't use it. Problem solved.

As far as the megapixels, an increase in megapixels has been the most consistent advancement in digital cameras since the very beginning of digital cameras. While it's true that for some users we might be reaching a level where the number of megapixels is "good enough," it would be silly to expect Canon to just abandon any increase in camera resolution, especially when their rivals are still pushing forward with larger and larger numbers.

If photographers are "grumbling" about 30 megapixels or above, sorry, it's time for a new computer and/or memory cards. If you want the latest camera, you have to accept that you'll need the computer and storage to match it. If that's too much for you to handle, you're welcome to keep your old camera.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 4, 2020)

docsmith said:


> Or is Canon abandoning the "targeted niche market" approach and we are about to get cameras differentiated by spec sheets.



At this point I actually think Canon want to show how far they are in mirrorless technology. And they have obviously made great steps forward when it comes to sensor read-out and write-to-card speeds, as demonstrated in 90D/M6II and 1DXIII. So if they can do a 45MP camera shooting 8K RAW video, I think they want to be the first to do it. And I DO think it will be 8K/30p RAW video. It makes sense. Yes, it is more - but not THAT much more - than 5.5K/*60p* RAW video in the 1DXIII.

Quite opposite, talking about "30p" if it refers to timelapse, doesn't make much sense. You can play a timelapse at any fps you decide you want to play it at.


----------



## sanj (Feb 4, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Well, keep in mind that the frames per second speed is adjustable. I think on the 1D you can even dial it in to exactly what you want it. But many cameras have had a slow burst and a fast burst for a long time. So if you don't want 12fps, don't use it. Problem solved.
> 
> As far as the megapixels, an increase in megapixels has been the most consistent advancement in digital cameras since the very beginning of digital cameras. While it's true that for some users we might be reaching a level where the number of megapixels is "good enough," it would be silly to expect Canon to just abandon any increase in camera resolution, especially when their rivals are still pushing forward with larger and larger numbers.
> 
> If photographers are "grumbling" about 30 megapixels or above, sorry, it's time for a new computer and/or memory cards. If you want the latest camera, you have to accept that you'll need the computer and storage to match it. If that's too much for you to handle, you're welcome to keep your old camera.


Perfectly said. Btw has someone actually said they do not want their camera to be able to shoot high fps? I find that difficult to believe. And yes, there are plenty of low megapixel cameras available for anyone who wants those.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

docsmith said:


> While I agree in general, what I am curious about is how the purpose of each body is going to evolve.




+1. I am curious to see old tropes like 'entry' / 'all-around pro' / 'detail' / 'sports' start to die off for new user bases and use cases.

But if they were going to evolve or change... why immediately snap to the presumed R1 / R5 / R6 familiar structure? Why go with familiar names that parallel existing FF lines if you plan to subdivide / redefine them in the new system?

It's possible (time will tell) that the 1 / 5 / 6 series hierarchy is totally fine as is and Canon just needs to tweak one line or add a unique new one.

- A


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> The 5Ds sensor and the 120/250MP sensors Canon showed were all regular sensors, not DPAF sensors. But the 120MP APS-H sensor would correspond to a 200MP FF sensor, so 100MP of dual pixels isn't a stretch. But Canon hasn't shown anything with dual pixel that would exceed 80MP FF.



True, but if they are showing 250 mp so 100 mp with DPAF would still be smaller than 250 mp.
I am sure they can do it.


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 4, 2020)

I doubt we see a high MP camera this year and the R5 specs are wrong. Unless of course you believe Canon is just going to change decades long behavior and throw all kinds of high end specs into their cameras. Yea, not happening.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

sanj said:


> Perfectly said. Btw has someone actually said they do not want their camera to be able to shoot high fps? I find that difficult to believe. And yes, there are plenty of low megapixel cameras available for anyone who wants those.




I don't need high fps myself. For what I shoot, it just generates a boatload more shots to sift through.

2-3x a year I'll shoot some wildlife that I stumble into. A rabbit in the yard, an eagle on a fishing trip, etc. and _then_ I wish I had more FPS. But it's not enough to build my body buying decision around.

(I do rant about FPS, but more from a positioning standpoint. I have long thought the 5D throughput versus other bodies in unexplainable other than via nerf hammer reasons)

- A


----------



## davidhfe (Feb 4, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> At this point I actually think Canon want to show how far they are in mirrorless technology. And they have obviously made great steps forward when it comes to sensor read-out and write-to-card speeds, as demonstrated in 90D/M6II and 1DXIII. So if they can do a 45MP camera shooting 8K RAW video, I think they want to be the first to do it. And I DO think it will be 8K/30p RAW video. It makes sense. Yes, it is more - but not THAT much more - than 5.5K/*60p* RAW video in the 1DXIII.
> 
> Quite opposite, talking about "30p" if it refers to timelapse, doesn't make sense. You can play a timelapse at any fps you want to play it at.



I would NOT expect RAW—been reading a lot of the comments over on EOS HD and folks there have mentioned there's a big difference between 14-bit 45mp and doing a 10 bit 45mp readout for 10bit 4:2:2 video. Full readout, full bit depth w/ DPAF @ 20fps, probably gives some indication of the total ceiling on the system's performance.

Also remember the relationship between the 2K->4K->8K isn't a linear scaling. The "K" refers to the width of the image, so it's scaling as a square. 8K is 4x the pixels of 4K. 5.5K -> 8K is a bigger leap than "just an extra 2.5K pixels"

edit: forgot a "not" in there—whoops


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I doubt we see a high MP camera this year and the R5 specs are wrong. Unless of course you believe Canon is just going to change decades long behavior and throw all kinds of high end specs into their cameras. Yea, not happening.




It's amazing how a bullish CR Guy (confident he's got proper leaks and not hearsay) changed my outlook. I was a firm 'oh, hell no' for the first few days of this, and now if the 5D5 and R5 turned out to be a more-like-the-Canon-we-know 36 MP x 8 fps I would be somewhat gutted.

I am buying into these R5/R6 rumors, but I believe that there will be some wicked fine print that tarnishes otherwise bonkers spec sheets.

- A


----------



## davidhfe (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> It's amazing how a bullish CR Guy (confident he's got proper leaks and not hearsay) changed my outlook. I was a firm 'oh, hell no' for the first few days of this, and now if the 5D5 and R5 turned out to be a more-like-the-Canon-we-know 36 MP x 8 fps I would be somewhat gutted.
> 
> I am buying into these R5/R6 rumors, but I believe that there will be some wicked fine print that tarnishes otherwise bonkers spec sheets.
> 
> - A



I can see a lot of fine print on the video specs (especially when you're at 60 and 120fps) but for what matters to me, I don't see how you can nerf 45mp with a 12fps mechanical shutter. All I've ever really wanted was for my 5D4 to hit the speeds of a 7D2. Add in some electronic shutter capability for faster or silent shooting and I can deal with a little rolling shutter or AF asterisks, etc. That stuff is all gravy compared to what's out there.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 4, 2020)

Assuming $3,500 for the R5, if the R3 (with eye control focus like the EOS 3?) has at least 50% more MP, and the same video performance of the R5, I would pay an additional $1,000 - $1,500 for it. If it does not do 8K/30, I would want a similar price to the R5,and would probably buy both over time.


----------



## sanj (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I don't need high fps myself. For what I shoot, it just generates a boatload more shots to sift through.
> 
> 2-3x a year I'll shoot some wildlife that I stumble into. A rabbit in the yard, an eagle on a fishing trip, etc. and _then_ I wish I had more FPS. But it's not enough to build my body buying decision around.
> 
> ...


Dear Ahsanford if you do not want to shoot hi burst, do not! There is a simple setting on the camera. You can set the trigger button to shoot single or low burst or high burst.


----------



## sanj (Feb 4, 2020)

Gloads said:


> Assuming $3,500 for the R5, if the R3 (with eye control focus like the EOS 3?) has at least 50% more MP, and the same video performance of the R5, I would pay an additional $1,000 - $1,500 for it. If it does not do 8K/30, I would want a similar price to the R5,and would probably buy both over time.


What R3? Are there rumors to that?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> I can see a lot of fine print on the video specs (especially when you're at 60 and 120fps) but for what matters to me, I don't see how you can nerf 45mp with a 10fps mechanical shutter.




Harder to temper the hotness (I wouldn't say nerf it in this case) with stills on the R5, yes, but it's still possible

AF asterisks as you said -- Eye AF or tracking AF slowing down the fps
Less AF customization / selectable areas
Compressed RAW at highest speeds
e-shutter machine gun 20 fps mode makes big assumption on what you aren't asking it to do (meter, focus, etc.)
Reserve high res IBIS multi-shot mode for just the high res body (okay, _that_ would be a nerf)
But yes, 45 x 12 is still bonkers. That alone + IBIS would be an instant upgrade for many 5D4 users were a similarly spec'd 5D5 to surface.

- A


----------



## LensFungus (Feb 4, 2020)

They should have named the astrophotography camera Canon EOS R2D2. Shame, Canon.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

sanj said:


> What R3? Are there rumors to that?




Read the OP, perhaps? 

- A


----------



## davidhfe (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Harder to temper the hotness (I wouldn't say nerf it in this case) with stills on the R5, yes, but it's still possible
> 
> AF asterisks as you said -- Eye AF or tracking AF slowing down the fps
> Less AF customization / selectable areas
> ...



I would accept pretty much all of those (except the IBIS stuff), assuming there are no caveats up to 12fps. I am not expecting A92 stacked sensor performance on a 45mp "5D" body.

Ugh starting to think I need to reset some expectations here so that I don't get disappointed. Like you, when I first read these specs I though "total bullcrap—no way"


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 4, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> 5.5K -> 8K is a bigger leap than "just an extra 2.5K pixels"



Yes, I know. But don't forget 1DXIII does the 5.5K in *60fps* (12bit) RAW. R5 rumour says 8K in *30fps* RAW.
I DON'T think it will have DPAF in 8K mode. I don't think 1DXIII has that either? Maybe not even contrast AF? And like 1DXIII, probably 12bit.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 4, 2020)

cazza132 said:


> Yes they have - 90D / M6 II  Wrt pixel density, and with solid DR and noise performance!


M6II scaled up is barely 82MP


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> M6II scaled up is barely 82MP




This year's Bugatti _only_ does 235 MPH. But I endure this hardship nonetheless.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> Ugh starting to think I need to reset some expectations here so that I don't get disappointed. Like you, when I first read these specs I though "total bullcrap—no way"




...because fine print is never on a rumored spec list.

Never seen on any SLR rumored spec sheet:

_"Spot metering at any AF point is still just for the 1-series, because Canon still hates you. Cheapskates."_

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I doubt we see a high MP camera this year and the R5 specs are wrong. Unless of course you believe Canon is just going to change decades long behavior and throw all kinds of high end specs into their cameras. Yea, not happening.


Going from manual to auto focus was changing decades of behavior.
Going from film to digital was changing decades of behavior.
Adding video to DSLR's was changing decades of behavior.
Adding a mirrorless camera line in FF was changing decades of behavior.
DPAF was changing decades of behavior.
Changing from EF to RF mount was changing decades of behavior.

Canon is never the leader. Canon always follows. Canon doesn't innovate. Canon never adjusts to the market. Canon is *******.


----------



## cazza132 (Feb 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> M6II scaled up is barely 82MP


About right for the hi-res full frame - with DPAF (164 sub pixels). They can do it all right - esp with their new smaller sensor fab pitch. Stacked / BSI patents they have shown up also. Those 250MP FF & 120MP APS-H sensors have been around since the birth of DPAF on the 60D. It does look like there will be a bunch of new sensors - esp given the amazing read speeds from the new 1Dx III.


----------



## Pape (Feb 4, 2020)

Nobody suggested R1 yet , 4 pixel could work as one on sport mode 
or 9 if high megapixel is 200mpix
Would be good for canon if needs continue only 3 full frame line and M serie rebels
Tokyo olympics would feel weird without R1


----------



## Go Wild (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I'm still curious how the naming will work. I thought the R5 / R6 products' names being confirmed meant that:
> 
> 1DX --> R1
> 5DS --> R2, R3, R4 or R5S
> ...


So now maybe those who need the high MP can stop complaining on the R5!  Good that Canon looks to everyone and tries to make cameras that benefit everyone. 

My bet would be around 70mp but they could use the 83MP sensor that we´ve heard. For me....too much, but it´s a great number to who need resolution! 

From the naming...Your "table" kinda makes sense, but im not sure Canon will follow that...I do Believe the R1 is saved to the sports type EOS R (the 1dxIII mirrorless)...and...I could see the R5 as a new mirrorless 5dmkV...Besides that....To the 6D line Canon alredy have the EOS R and I dont believe they will make another camera for now. We could see in 1 or 2 years the EOS R mkII. 

I believe R6 is a new kind of Camera to Canon, directed to video and with great High sensitivity. Like A7S or something. Or....It could be a less MP and more cheap version of the EOS R but....where it fits between the R and RP? I think we all agree that this new R6 camera is making us scratch our heads!  

For me I don´t personally believe Canon will do a APS-C mirrorless camera. Why? It just doesn´t make sense! The EOS R5 i am sure it will have something like the A7r3 and you can toggle between FF and APS-C. So Why make a camera with an APS-C sensor only? 

We need more info on the R6 to discover a bit more about this camera! And let´s wait for more news about the HIGH MP camera. For me....I am only looking for the EOS R5! Can´t wait!!!!


----------



## Bahrd (Feb 4, 2020)

*EOS Rn *- expensive models
*EOS RPn *- budget FF models
Because... why not?


----------



## BillB (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> I do rant about FPS, but more from a positioning standpoint. I have long thought the 5D throughput versus other bodies in unexplainable other than via nerf hammer reasons)


I remember seeing somewhere that the 5DIV (and maybe the 5DS ) mirror assembly traded off cycling speed to get better vibration dampening and less noise.


----------



## sanj (Feb 4, 2020)

BillB said:


> I remember seeing somewhere that the 5DIV (and maybe the 5DS ) mirror assembly traded off cycling speed to get better vibration dampening and less noise.


Everything is balance. I trust Canon to find it.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Feb 4, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> 5Ds does not have IBIS
> I'm sure IBIS will be a usefull to have feature, but not having it is not exactly the end of the world.


Current meaning not that old as that camera. i have the camera. the shake is more noticable when you zoom in than my other cameras I own. only when you zoom alll the waaayyy innn.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> I believe R6 is a new kind of Camera to Canon, directed to video and with great High sensitivity. Like A7S or something. Or....It could be a less MP and more cheap version of the EOS R but....where it fits between the R and RP? I think we all agree that this new R6 camera is making us scratch our heads!




All they had to do was make it 26 MP and everyone would immediately know what it is -- a mirrorless 6D3 (which is what I think it is anyway).

By not doing this, it could be misread as a mirrorless 1DX3-lite.

But it might be neither.

- A


----------



## SteveC (Feb 4, 2020)

sanj said:


> Everything is balance. I trust Canon to find it.



And you can trust many to complain about whatever point the balance is at.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Go Wild said:


> For me I don´t personally believe Canon will do a APS-C mirrorless camera. Why? It just doesn´t make sense! The EOS R5 i am sure it will have something like the A7r3 and you can toggle between FF and APS-C. So Why make a camera with an APS-C sensor only?




Because 7D users don't want a tiny EF-M body.

Because 7D and 90D users don't want to pony up for a much more expensive FF shutter and sensor only to use the middle of it.

Because Canon might want one mount to rule them all -- have Rebels join RF as well. (This path would mandate inexpensive crop image circle RF-S lenses, though, so it's a bit out there.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Bahrd said:


> *EOS Rn *- expensive models
> *EOS RPn *- budget FF models
> Because... why not?




That works, other than the R and RP not having any numbers today. How does a future EOS R II and EOS R1 II coexist? That's confusing as hell. Olympus's naming always lost me like this.

R and RP coexisting with a shiny clean slate of R1 / R5 / R6 doesn't make much sense to me.

If you are going to go full Audi simple (letter + number), commit to it. Don't launch a great new system and start from a cluttered, inconsistent design nomenclature.

- A


----------



## Dexter75 (Feb 4, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Going from manual to auto focus was changing decades of behavior.
> Going from film to digital was changing decades of behavior.
> Adding video to DSLR's was changing decades of behavior.
> Adding a mirrorless camera line in FF was changing decades of behavior.
> ...



so you are saying Canon has not intentionally crippled their cameras for decades in order to protect other lines? You must be new to Canon. If you think that behavior is all the sudden going to stop and they are going to pack all the features from their $7k camera and $15k video line and put it into a $3500 camera , I have a bridge to sell you lol.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> so you are saying Canon has not intentionally crippled their cameras for decades in order to protect other lines? You must be new to Canon. If you think that behavior is all the sudden going to stop and they are going to pack all the features from their $7k camera and $15k video line and put it into a $3500 camera , I have a bridge to sell you lol.


If you think a $15k video camera would ever have the same feature set and market as a $3,500 camera then you already bought the bridge from somebody.

"Intentionally crippled" I get it now. Every camera at every price point should all have the same feature set, otherwise they are "intentionally crippled". I guess Canon is the only manufacturer to do this. Now you've bought two bridges. Care to buy more?


----------



## docsmith (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ... why immediately snap to the presumed R1 / R5 / R6 familiar structure? Why go with familiar names that parallel existing FF lines if you plan to subdivide / redefine them in the new system?


The cynical answer: staying with the familiar structure will result in more sales simply because of that familiarity whether or not they are shifting the target markets.


----------



## koenkooi (Feb 4, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If you think a $15k video camera would ever have the same feature set and market as a $3,500 camera then you already bought the bridge from somebody.
> 
> "Intentionally crippled" I get it now. Every camera at every price point should all have the same feature set, otherwise they are "intentionally crippled". I guess Canon is the only manufacturer to do this. Now you've bought two bridges. Care to buy more?



While a lot of the 'crippled' talk is people not understanding technology, there are bits where Canon did cut functionality just for the sake of segmentation. An obvious example is that the RP silent shutter mode doesn't allow you to set shutterspeed nor aperture, it's a 'scene mode'.
I'm not sure what to make of the M6II forcing a full mechanical or full electronic shutter, I would love to have EFCS as an option.


----------



## flip314 (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> This year's Bugatti _only_ does 235 MPH. But I endure this hardship nonetheless.



Bugatti is *******, because I never need to go anywhere CLOSE to 235mph. They're not going to sell any cars that way. I just need a nice solid commuter car that gets good gas mileage and does maybe 90mph. I'm buying my next car from Sony, and everyone else already is too!


----------



## Silvertt7 (Feb 4, 2020)

I know they have been doing well on the RF lenses but until I see it for myself and the reviews validate it, I simply do not care if Canon does a high res camera. I simply don't trust them. The 5DS has 50 megapixels and when it first came out people were excited. But the ISO on that camera is what, 6400? And you don't even want to go near that max for noise. To me they could do 70 megapixels they could do 80. Doesn't matter. The real question is how does the sensor handle noise? How is the dynamic range? Because megapixels alone as a criteria is absolutely foolish.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> While a lot of the 'crippled' talk is people not understanding technology, there are bits where Canon did cut functionality just for the sake of segmentation. An obvious example is that the RP silent shutter mode doesn't allow you to set shutterspeed nor aperture, it's a 'scene mode'.
> I'm not sure what to make of the M6II forcing a full mechanical or full electronic shutter, I would love to have EFCS as an option.


Of course. At the same time, the R doesn't do automatic focus stacking.

Segmentation, though, is not arbitrary. Canon and every other manufacturer, does what they think will generate the maximum amount of profit. What frustrates me with the throwing around of the word "crippled" is the implication that no other camera manufacturer "cripples" their cameras. Cripple has a strong negative connotation and belies the writer's lack of understanding when it comes to developing, marketing, and selling products.

Features such as DPAF showed up in the 70D first, I believe. That and the touch screen and articulating screen. They are blind, this "intentionally crippled" crowd, when it comes to features trickling up the product lines. The M6 Mark II is another example.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> While a lot of the 'crippled' talk is people not understanding technology, there are bits where Canon did cut functionality just for the sake of segmentation.




Crippling / nerfing = what Canon does

Segmentation / feature set differentiation = why Canon does it

...but it's still the same phenomenon. Canon wants you to buy the nicer model, and they are very clever about how they do that.

- A


----------



## mpmark (Feb 4, 2020)

edoorn said:


> I don't give a rat's ass to be honest, but Canon will use this to claim the highest resolution 35mm camera crown. That's marketing kinda talk, in a grown up world. But as product proposition is good too; they try to stay away from copying Sony's ff mirrorless line and differentiate.
> 
> Actually I'm really glad the R5 will have 45mpix; that's a very sweet spot for me and I probably would not need this camera.



I agree with you about the R5 45MP, plenty for me as well and I dont care too much about the higher MP model.


----------



## Del Paso (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> This year's Bugatti _only_ does 235 MPH. But I endure this hardship nonetheless.
> 
> - A


How dare they!


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> I know they have been doing well on the RF lenses but until I see it for myself and the reviews validate it, I simply do not care if Canon does a high res camera. I simply don't trust them. The 5DS has 50 megapixels and when it first came out people were excited. But the ISO on that camera is what, 6400? And you don't even want to go near that max for noise. To me they could do 70 megapixels they could do 80. Doesn't matter. The real question is how does the sensor handle noise? How is the dynamic range? Because megapixels alone as a criteria is absolutely foolish.




...unless you only live on or around base ISO. Studio folks bringing light to the party and landscapers sitting on a tripod at ISO 100 generally don't care about high res leading to more noise.

Consider: some folks have great Canon glass and want to keep using it, and don't really care how Canon stacks up to Sony's sensors. The 5DS and 5DSR probably have served them well for a long time.

- A


----------



## mpmark (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Not necessarily. High res seems to hold a high asking price very effectively. 5DS held price like a champ, the D850 the same, and we haven't seen the A7R4 price move at all since launch.
> 
> So high res may not be about being top dog -- it may just about tenting up the pricing in general to make a new R6 or again 5D4 at $2500 seem like a bargain.
> 
> - A



you missed my point but thats ok, I get what you are saying though.


----------



## Architect1776 (Feb 4, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Of course. At the same time, the R doesn't do automatic focus stacking.
> 
> Segmentation, though, is not arbitrary. Canon and every other manufacturer, does what they think will generate the maximum amount of profit. What frustrates me with the throwing around of the word "crippled" is the implication that no other camera manufacturer "cripples" their cameras. Cripple has a strong negative connotation and belies the writer's lack of understanding when it comes to developing, marketing, and selling products.
> 
> Features such as DPAF showed up in the 70D first, I believe. That and the touch screen and articulating screen. They are blind, this "intentionally crippled" crowd, when it comes to features trickling up the product lines. The M6 Mark II is another example.



That term, crippled, is a favorite of the Sony/Nikon fanboy trolls.
Most all what is currently state of the art is a Canon development dating back over 30+ years.
DPAF still leads the way by far and produces the focus that is smooth and accurate that all others totally lack including Sony which struggles in this like all others.
Canon looks at the market and gives features and price to appeal to the largest segment of users. Yes there are hard core users that want it all in one camera. Well that would put it out of the price point for nearly all of us who take photos for real fun, family gatherings, vacation snap shots and our cats doing odd things. There are many models for rabid users and if you want it all get the 1DX MIII which seems to right now trounce all other competitors by a good margin. And if you are truly serious about real video then you will use the C500 MII anyway rather than a DSLR or mirrorless.


----------



## keithcooper (Feb 4, 2020)

sanj said:


> Perfectly said. Btw has someone actually said they do not want their camera to be able to shoot high fps? I find that difficult to believe. And yes, there are plenty of low megapixel cameras available for anyone who wants those.


well... yes, myself - if it's there I'd hardly complain, but...

...Given some arbitrary 'amount' of updating to spread around on a new model, my personal preference is to minimise the allocation towards FPS and video.

That's not what a big part of the 'market' wants, so I accept that it will be more of a niche product I'd like to get.
In the past I used a 1Ds and 1Ds mk3 which were fast(ish) but the times I actually pushed their FPS limits were extremely uncommon.


----------



## Silvertt7 (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> ...unless you only live on or around base ISO. Studio folks bringing light to the party and landscapers sitting on a tripod at ISO 100 generally don't care about high res leading to more noise.
> 
> Consider: some folks have great Canon glass and want to keep using it, and don't really care how Canon stacks up to Sony's sensors. The 5DS and 5DSR probably have served them well for a long time.
> 
> - A



...that's like saying the shortcomings don't matter--as long as you have perfect lighting. That is a laughable excuse. That camera had junk ISO, plain and simple. And your comment about landscapes... I shot mostly landscapes when I was shooting with the 5D2 and 5D3... you are almost NEVER in perfect lighting conditions when you're shooting landscapes. There are plenty of times when ISO noise performance matters for landscapes.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 4, 2020)

I think that Canon has decided to keep the old camera designators but drop the "D" and replace a letter R in front. Thus a R5 will be equivalent in purpose to a 5D series model like a 5D MK V, and a R6 will be a 6D update. 

A high MP R5 may carry a R5S model. That would be more compatible with Canon numbering schemes where the lower numbers are higher models. If a 7D replacement comes, it might be a R7.

Would a flagship be a R1 or a R1X?


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> ...that's like saying the shortcomings don't matter--as long as you have perfect lighting. That is a laughable excuse. That camera had junk ISO, plain and simple. And your comment about landscapes... I shot mostly landscapes when I was shooting with the 5D2 and 5D3... you are almost NEVER in perfect lighting conditions when you're shooting landscapes. There are plenty of times when ISO noise performance matters for landscapes.




No, I'm arguing Canon jammed a sensor full of pixels full-well knowing it wouldn't be a star from a noise perspective. They sell other sensors for that need.

They felt the high detail camp (presumably studio and tripod landscape shooters) needed more resolution, so they gave it to them. That's all.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Would a flagship be a R1 or a R1X?




The original X (1DX1) was meant to have the X represent a merging of the 1Ds and 1D lines. But speed clearly won and resolution clearly lost.

So to keep the X around would be an 8 year long troll of the 1Ds / 5DS userbase. R1 would be my pick.

- A


----------



## Romain (Feb 4, 2020)

I have a question. Do you think next very high res FF bodies will extinguish the MF market? Or is there a future for it? With all the new techs coming in mirrorless bodies, the prices and the flexibility it provides in real life, how could MF shooters resist to switch?..


----------



## slclick (Feb 4, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think that Canon has decided to keep the old camera designators but drop the "D" and replace a letter R in front. Thus a R5 will be equivalent in purpose to a 5D series model like a 5D MK V, and a R6 will be a 6D update.
> 
> A high MP R5 may carry a R5S model. That would be more compatible with Canon numbering schemes where the lower numbers are higher models. If a 7D replacement comes, it might be a R7.
> 
> Would a flagship be a R1 or a R1X?


The 1DX was the 5th in the 1D line, which didn't denote the 5th model but a new line within a line. Crazy! We need a white board and a bunch of dry erase markers to keep up! 

*Edit*

I was wrong it was the 9th and Michael Clark is once again here to save the day. Thanks , Mick.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 4, 2020)

Romain said:


> I have a question. Do you think next very high res FF bodies will extinguish the MF market? Or is there a future for it? With all the new techs coming in mirrorless bodies, the prices and the flexibility it provides in real life, how could MF shooters resist to switch?..




MF will shock us with an even higher resolution model, fear not. They always play that card.

- A


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Crippling / nerfing = what Canon does
> 
> Segmentation / feature set differentiation = why Canon does it
> 
> ...


And the great thing is that "nicer" means different things to different folks based on use case = Another reason they do it.

There isn't anything insidious about it. I think that is what "crippled" implies. Nerfed is far better, in my opinion. Better yet is understanding that every manufacturer with multiple products in the same category at different price points do exactly the same thing. 

Cars are the most obvious example of this in my mind.


----------



## BillB (Feb 4, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> I know they have been doing well on the RF lenses but until I see it for myself and the reviews validate it, I simply do not care if Canon does a high res camera. I simply don't trust them. The 5DS has 50 megapixels and when it first came out people were excited. But the ISO on that camera is what, 6400? And you don't even want to go near that max for noise. To me they could do 70 megapixels they could do 80. Doesn't matter. The real question is how does the sensor handle noise? How is the dynamic range? Because megapixels alone as a criteria is absolutely foolish.


If I remember right, the S in 5DS stands for Studio. At least to me, a Studio disegnation implies that the camera is intended for an environment in which light levels can be controlled, but there may be requirements for very high resolution photographs.


----------



## Dragon (Feb 4, 2020)

Wallybud said:


> So with a high mp body like this shutter becomes a huge factor. Will shooting it at mRaw or sRaw get rid of that problem slightly or will the camera always require a higher shutter speeds (or strobes) to get tack sharp images etc


A global e-shutter would be nice  .


----------



## Romain (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> MF will shock us with an even higher resolution model, fear not. They always play that card.
> 
> - A


That's what i thought, but in term of prices they'll must make much more effort than in term of resolution. Because big bump in res + add advanced techs + more affordable prices = very huge challenge for them. The gap between APS-C/FF/MF is closer and closer. How could they maintain the distance without profit losses?


----------



## Treyarnon (Feb 4, 2020)

RayValdez360 said:


> Current meaning not that old as that camera. i have the camera. the shake is more noticable when you zoom in than my other cameras I own. only when you zoom alll the waaayyy innn.



The 5Ds is still a current camera (not been replaced or phased out) 
I have one to. There is NO more noticeable shake compared to other cameras when compared at the same resolution.


----------



## BeenThere (Feb 4, 2020)

It’s high time for Canon to move away from geeky numbers for their cameras.
My suggestion:

R5 becomes T-Rex
The 100 mega pixel becomes Godzilla
The R6 becomes Raptor
Etc.

Much better for marketing and getting some separation from the also rans.


----------



## AEWest (Feb 4, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I think R5s makes more sense than R3. R3 implies it is somehow a better camera than the R5 just because it has more pixels. And if it is getting a bigger and better body to go with the prestige of being one under the R1, I would still argue that the R5 should get the same treatment, which leads us back to R5s.


I think Canon should go back to its digital roots and use the double digit numbering system for the second tier (e.g. R10 rather than R6) and triple digit for introductory R camera (eg R100 rather than RP). I think they shot themselves in the foot with their current naming convention of R line.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Feb 4, 2020)

AEWest said:


> I think Canon should go back to its digital roots and use the double digit numbering system for the second tier (e.g. R10 rather than R6) and triple digit for introductory R camera (eg R100 rather than RP). I think they shot themselves in the foot with their current naming convention of R line.



1, 5, 6, and 7 leaves a lot of gaps.They could shift the 5 to the 3 and the 6 to the 5. Nice even gaps for new products.


----------



## Deleted member 68328 (Feb 4, 2020)

My guess is that Canon doesn't know what its mirrorless lineup will precisely look like on the long term. Maybe they'll introduce some cameras that sit between existing models, maybe not... But that makes me think that they will not spoil all numbers available (R2, R3, R4, ...) but will be cautious. So, I think it'll be called R5 S. I may be wrong.


----------



## amorse (Feb 4, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I think that Canon has decided to keep the old camera designators but drop the "D" and replace a letter R in front. Thus a R5 will be equivalent in purpose to a 5D series model like a 5D MK V, and a R6 will be a 6D update.
> 
> A high MP R5 may carry a R5S model. That would be more compatible with Canon numbering schemes where the lower numbers are higher models. If a 7D replacement comes, it might be a R7.
> 
> Would a flagship be a R1 or a R1X?


Ya never know, they may go further back in their naming archives and call the high resolution body the R1s


----------



## Dragon (Feb 4, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> ...that's like saying the shortcomings don't matter--as long as you have perfect lighting. That is a laughable excuse. That camera had junk ISO, plain and simple. And your comment about landscapes... I shot mostly landscapes when I was shooting with the 5D2 and 5D3... you are almost NEVER in perfect lighting conditions when you're shooting landscapes. There are plenty of times when ISO noise performance matters for landscapes.


Not sure what you mean by "junk ISO". The 5DS only has "native" ISO to 6400, but extends to 12800 and if you want 25600, simply turn the EV down one stop and the camera will happily oblige. If you are talking dynamic range, then note that from ISO 800 to ISO 12800, the 5DS, the 5D IV, the Nikon 850D, and the Sony A7R4 are all within a quarter stop and at ISO 6400, the 5DS is still the best. Look for yourself http://www.photonstophotos.net/Char...rk IV,Canon EOS 5DS,Nikon D850,Sony ILCE-7RM4


----------



## HikeBike (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> Not if R5 and R6 are in there, too, and everyone and their mother is expecting a gripped R1 to show up eventually.
> 
> I think Canon should go all numbers or go all letters (after the R, I mean). Mixing them up is confusing as hell.
> 
> - A


Seems like the pro bodies will get a number behind the R, the enthusiast bodies will get a capital letter behind the R, and specialist bodies will get a lower-case letter behind the R. As for the R itself...I think it will be dropped from the lineup.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 4, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> I know they have been doing well on the RF lenses but until I see it for myself and the reviews validate it, I simply do not care if Canon does a high res camera. I simply don't trust them. The 5DS has 50 megapixels and when it first came out people were excited. But the ISO on that camera is what, 6400? And you don't even want to go near that max for noise. To me they could do 70 megapixels they could do 80. Doesn't matter. The real question is how does the sensor handle noise? How is the dynamic range? Because megapixels alone as a criteria is absolutely foolish.



It's clear you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 4, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Not sure what you mean by "junk ISO". The 5DS only has "native" ISO to 6400, but extends to 12800 and if you want 25600, simply turn the EV down one stop and the camera will happily oblige. If you are talking dynamic range, then note that from ISO 800 to ISO 12800, the 5DS, the 5D IV, the Nikon 850D, and the Sony A7R4 are all within a quarter stop and at ISO 6400, the 5DS is still the best. Look for yourself http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


Agreed. One caveat is that the DR is the same when viewed at the same size. And you need this link


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## scyrene (Feb 4, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Of course. At the same time, the R doesn't do automatic focus stacking.
> 
> Segmentation, though, is not arbitrary. Canon and every other manufacturer, does what they think will generate the maximum amount of profit. What frustrates me with the throwing around of the word "crippled" is the implication that no other camera manufacturer "cripples" their cameras. Cripple has a strong negative connotation and belies the writer's lack of understanding when it comes to developing, marketing, and selling products.
> 
> Features such as DPAF showed up in the 70D first, I believe. That and the touch screen and articulating screen. They are blind, this "intentionally crippled" crowd, when it comes to features trickling up the product lines. The M6 Mark II is another example.



Aside from being a gross word to use anyhow, it implies something that is all but unusable. When what they mean is, it didn't get every feature or functionality they wanted/thought was possible. So it's hyperbole, too.


----------



## David - Sydney (Feb 4, 2020)

As I wrote previously, RS does imply Rat S*** in some lingo but RS is also similar in looks to R5 hence the rumour that they couldn't tell if it was R5 or RS.
My guess is R3 instead.
R4 is unlikely due to the similarity in sound to "death" in many asian languages. See https://www.tofugu.com/japan/number-four-superstition/


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Feb 4, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> 5.5K -> 8K is a bigger leap than "just an extra 2.5K pixels"



I played a bit with the numbers.
For an R5 to do 8K/30p video in same 12bit quality as 1DXIII does 5.5K/60p, how much extra data need to be read from sensor?

1DXIII:
5472x3648 (19.96megapixels)
5472x3648 * 60p = 1.197.711.360 <- This is the 100% reference

R5:
8192x5461 (44.74megapixels)
8192x5461 * 30p = 1.342.095.360 <- 112%
8192x5461 * 25p = 1.118.412.800 <- 93%
8192x5461 * 24p = 1.073.676.288 <- 90%

So 8K30p is 12% more "expensive" than the 5.5K/60p that the 1DXIII are cable of.
8K25p and 8K24p are "cheaper", so those should definitely be possible.

Of course this is (for both 1DXII and R5) without AF - Or at least without DPAF which would double the required readout from sensor (I don't know if 1DXIII can do contrast-based AF in 5.5K?).


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 4, 2020)

Kit Lens Jockey said:


> Well, keep in mind that the frames per second speed is adjustable. I think on the 1D you can even dial it in to exactly what you want it. But many cameras have had a slow burst and a fast burst for a long time. So if you don't want 12fps, don't use it. Problem solved.
> 
> As far as the megapixels, an increase in megapixels has been the most consistent advancement in digital cameras since the very beginning of digital cameras. While it's true that for some users we might be reaching a level where the number of megapixels is "good enough," it would be silly to expect Canon to just abandon any increase in camera resolution, especially when their rivals are still pushing forward with larger and larger numbers.
> 
> If photographers are "grumbling" about 30 megapixels or above, sorry, it's time for a new computer and/or memory cards. If you want the latest camera, you have to accept that you'll need the computer and storage to match it. If that's too much for you to handle, you're welcome to keep your old camera.



As long as they give people the choice, which is why Sony and Nikon offer 24MP FF and 46/61MP FF. Pick your poison. I don't care if Canon release 100MP, for me 45MP will be fine for now and it looks like they'll have a 20MP FF too, but down the track it may be a different story and a 80MP+ might appeal.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 4, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Would a flagship be a R1 or a R1X?



Presumably R1, as the -X was added in the same way as numbered iterations. If it's the first of its kind, logically it would be R1, like the 1D. Not that logic is necessarily their preference in choosing names...


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

Wallybud said:


> So with a high mp body like this shutter becomes a huge factor. Will shooting it at mRaw or sRaw get rid of that problem slightly or will the camera always require a higher shutter speeds (or strobes) to get tack sharp images etc



Canon cameras with .cr3 raw files have yet to have any M-RAW or S-RAW output choices. The choice is between RAW or C-RAW.

Beyond that, your comment shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the difference in magnification when viewing a portion of high resolution images at 100% compared to viewing portions of lower resolution images at 100%. The more megapixels an image file has, the greater the enlargement ratio used to view at 100% on the same monitor.

Let's assume you're using a 24" FHD (1920x1080) monitor with a pitch of 96 ppi.

When you view a 24MP file at 100% you're looking at a piece of approximately an 60x40" enlargement.
When you view a 96MP file at 100% you're looking at a piece of approximately a 120x80" enlargement.

The greater the enlargement ratio, the greater the effect of the same amount of blur, relative to the total frame size. In other words, the same amount of camera shake will show up as more blur when you enlarge by a greater factor.


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Feb 4, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Yes, I know. But don't forget 1DXIII does the 5.5K in *60fps* (12bit) RAW. R5 rumour says 8K in *30fps* RAW.
> I DON'T think it will have DPAF in 8K mode. I don't think 1DXIII has that either? Maybe not even contrast AF? And like 1DXIII, probably 12bit.



They removed the RAW part of the 8K spec last week. Still don't believe for a minute it's not just in-camera 8K timelapse. The 1DXIII has DPAF in 4K30p and 4K60p when used in super 35 mode which is a 1.34x crop. The 1DXIII sensor has 1/60 second read speed, so allows 4K60p from full sensor, but clearly it not fast enough to offer DPAF. Does DPAF actually need to be read twice as fast so they would require 1/120s read speed for 4K60p from full sensor with AF?


----------



## Dragon (Feb 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Agreed. One caveat is that the DR is the same when viewed at the same size. And you need this link
> 
> 
> Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


Thanks for the link. I had figured folks were smart enough to add their cameras of choice, but changed the link for those who aren't  . Yes, I know DR is measured based on a fixed picture resolution, but that is fair given that a fixed number of photons strike any same size sensor for a given scene and exposure. High res cameras clearly have more pixel level noise than low res cameras for the same exposure, but they are generally better after noise reduction because good noise reduction is quite a bit better than the simple averaging that occurs with larger pixels. In my experience, double the pixels buys about 3dB after NR, which kind of makes sense when you think about it. With a 5DS/r, shoot the image, run it through smart noise reduction, then shrink it to the size of the lower pixel count camera and compare it to that picture both before and after NR. You will like the high initial MP image better than either of the others.


----------



## reefroamer (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> +1. I am curious to see old tropes like 'entry' / 'all-around pro' / 'detail' / 'sports' start to die off for new user bases and use cases.
> 
> But if they were going to evolve or change... why immediately snap to the presumed R1 / R5 / R6 familiar structure? Why go with familiar names that parallel existing FF lines if you plan to subdivide / redefine them in the new system?
> 
> ...


The challenge for Canon will be to achieve profitable volumes in each of whatever segments they create in the present shrinking ILC market. Using the existing segments may not be the best strategy attract and sell to a new generation of photographers/videographers who represent the best opportunity to grow the market.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 4, 2020)

Could one of these supposed "4 full frame cameras coming in 2020" be the 5D5 instead? The 5D4 is due for a replacement soon (it's on the 4 year upgrade cycle)...


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 4, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> It's amazing how a bullish CR Guy (confident he's got proper leaks and not hearsay) changed my outlook. I was a firm 'oh, hell no' for the first few days of this, and now if the 5D5 and R5 turned out to be a more-like-the-Canon-we-know 36 MP x 8 fps I would be somewhat gutted.
> 
> I am buying into these R5/R6 rumors, but I believe that there will be some wicked fine print that tarnishes otherwise bonkers spec sheets.
> 
> - A




I’m still Not seeing much reason to expect this to be true. In fact, this posting on a high res version appears to be entirely unsourced, based on logic, yet raises the confidence of a high resolution release to cr2.

By the same logic, it should have been cr2 a year ago.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m buying, if the damned thing is made. But this Charlie Brown ain’t gonna let Lucy pull the ball away every two months for the next couple of years.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

cazza132 said:


> About right for the hi-res full frame - with DPAF (164 sub pixels). They can do it all right - esp with their new smaller sensor fab pitch. Stacked / BSI patents they have shown up also. Those 250MP FF & 120MP APS-H sensors have been around since the birth of DPAF on the 60D. It does look like there will be a bunch of new sensors - esp given the amazing read speeds from the new 1Dx III.



I thought Dual pixel CMOS AF debuted on the 70D?


----------



## reefroamer (Feb 4, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> If you think a $15k video camera would ever have the same feature set and market as a $3,500 camera then you already bought the bridge from somebody.
> 
> "Intentionally crippled" I get it now. Every camera at every price point should all have the same feature set, otherwise they are "intentionally crippled". I guess Canon is the only manufacturer to do this. Now you've bought two bridges. Care to buy more?


I think the old saying, “You get what you pay for,” still holds true for most purchase decisions. Also, “There's no such thing as a free lunch.” But some people still believe they are entitled to a free lunch. Most of us know free lunch=crippled lunch.


----------



## Aaron D (Feb 4, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I think R5s makes more sense than R3. R3 implies it is somehow a better camera...



I think the entire numbering thing implies a ranking of cameras. I was really liking the R, Rp, Rs, Rx convention that was floating around. I wish it was going to be an R II instead of an R5. Or Rt even. They used to make an FTb........

I'll suppose I'll survive whatever naming they end up with.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

slclick said:


> The 1DX was the 5th in the 1D line, which didn't denote the 5th model but a new line within a line. Crazy! We need a white board and a bunch of dry erase markers to keep up!



1D X was the ninth digital 1-series body.

1D
1Ds
1D Mark II
1Ds Mark II
1D Mark IIn
1D Mark III
1Ds Mark III
1D Mark IV
1D X
1D X Mark II
(1D X Mark III)


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 4, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Not sure what you mean by "junk ISO". The 5DS only has "native" ISO to 6400, but extends to 12800 and if you want 25600, simply turn the EV down one stop and the camera will happily oblige. If you are talking dynamic range, then note that from ISO 800 to ISO 12800, the 5DS, the 5D IV, the Nikon 850D, and the Sony A7R4 are all within a quarter stop and at ISO 6400, the 5DS is still the best. Look for yourself http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Canon EOS 5DS,Nikon D850,Sony ILCE-7RM4



Don't confuse them with facts! There's no way the reason for their poor results is them choosing the wrong tool for a specific job and not the camera's fault!


----------



## Freddie (Feb 4, 2020)

I would probably buy a R-series Canon camera body with a high-density full-frame sensor. It would replace the 5DSr for landscapes and macros. I wouldn't go for anything less than 70+ megapixels. Come on, Canon, get with it!


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 4, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> I thought Dual pixel CMOS AF debuted on the 70D?


Yup. I can remember debating with myself as to what to get. At the time, the 60D looked like it was still a great camera to me. In the end, I went for the 70D due to dual pixel AF and the articulating screen because I was doing youtube videos at the time for my Google+ page. It was a nice camera.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 4, 2020)

neurorx said:


> I am surprised someone hasn't suggested the R2 at this point....



It was suggested multiple times, perhaps I wasn't the first but here it goes a couple of years back.


----------



## Gazwas (Feb 5, 2020)

I personally don’t see the high res body happening any time soon and the info in this article is the usual carrot dangling nonsense that Is purely based on a hunch. If we are to believe the info fed to this site over the last twelve months about the high res R and Canon had a 100MP chip ready to go, I’m 100% sure we’d be seeing it this month along side the R5. But for whatever reason the high res sensor was either not up to scratch, too costly to make or the market conditions not right so Canon has shelved it for future development (2021-2022?). Maybe we won’t see it until the R1 is released and they resurrect the R1s designation.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> *Going from manual to auto focus was changing decades of behavior.
> Going from film to digital was changing decades of behavior.*
> Adding video to DSLR's was changing decades of behavior.
> *Adding a mirrorless camera line in FF was changing decades of behavior.*
> ...



That's a bold statement so I highlighted in *bold* the points where Canon wasn't the leader and actually followed someone else's innovations or trends.
Adding video to a DSLR was something new, but DPAF is something very specific to Canon and it didn't change the 'decades of behaviour', and changing mounts isn't something Canon did first.

Your obviously sarcastic statement may in fact be (mostly) true. Only that I don't think Canon is really *******.


----------



## slclick (Feb 5, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup. I can remember debating with myself as to what to get. At the time, the 60D looked like it was still a great camera to me. In the end, I went for the 70D due to dual pixel AF and the articulating screen because I was doing youtube videos at the time for my Google+ page. It was a nice camera.


Ah the poor 60D, it was rough following the amazing for the time 50D. The 60 didn't do it justice as an upgrade.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> No, I'm arguing Canon jammed a sensor full of pixels full-well knowing it wouldn't be a star from a noise perspective. They sell other sensors for that need.
> 
> They felt the high detail camp (presumably studio and tripod landscape shooters) needed more resolution, so they gave it to them. That's all.


Tripod landscape shooters still want low noise and good dynamic range. The more pixels Canon puts into this beast, the more I worry about the noise and overall performance. Time will tell but the 45Mp one may happen to be a sweeter spot for landscapes, especially low light/astroscapes.


----------



## fox40phil (Feb 5, 2020)

I thought it will be 80MPs? Like the 90D/6mII sensor as a full-frame sensor? 

45 & 80 is also really nice and ok? to have two different cameras!


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's a bold statement so I highlighted in *bold* the points where Canon wasn't the leader and actually followed someone else's innovations or trends.
> Adding video to a DSLR was something new, but DPAF is something very specific to Canon and it didn't change the 'decades of behaviour', and changing mounts isn't something Canon did first.
> 
> Your obviously sarcastic statement may in fact be (mostly) true. Only that I don't think Canon is really *******.


I never said Canon was the leader with those things. The conversation has to do with Canon not changing things after doing them for a long period of time.


----------



## Ozarker (Feb 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> Ah the poor 60D, it was rough following the amazing for the time 50D. The 60 didn't do it justice as an upgrade.


I wouldn't know. I was going from a Rebel XSi to the 70D. Even the 60D would have been a huge upgrade.


----------



## slclick (Feb 5, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I wouldn't know. I was going from a Rebel XSi to the 70D. Even the 60D would have been a huge upgrade.


I went 300D>T2i>60D>7D>5D3. I've enjoyed walking this path, especially the T2i, very underrated. After all those incremental bumps, I'm ready for something extraordinary.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> I know they have been doing well on the RF lenses but until I see it for myself and the reviews validate it, I simply do not care if Canon does a high res camera. I simply don't trust them. The 5DS has 50 megapixels and when it first came out people were excited. But the ISO on that camera is what, 6400? And you don't even want to go near that max for noise.



This was a myth pushed by people going cross eyed staring at 100% and 200% magnifications in Photoshop. And comparing them to lower resolution files which are naturally magnified less at 100%. At the same view size 5Ds noise is comparable to other FF cameras from 2015, but it's a heck of a lot sharper and more detailed. Even 5 years later it still has good high ISO.

Better reviewers made note of this at the time, that the 5Ds lost nothing at high ISO compared to a 5D3. Imaging Resource had probably the best assessment because they actually print files as part of their testing, and they noted their surprise at just how good the high ISO prints were.

I have ISO 3200 files from my 5Ds that I would not hesitate to print 24x36". They are tack sharp and full of detail across the tonal range with only a bit of noise in deep shadows. By 12,800 you may only be looking at an 11x14, but that's true of just about every 35mm sensor out there.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2020)

mpmark said:


> I agree with you about the R5 45MP, plenty for me as well and I dont care too much about the higher MP model.



I'll still care about a high MP model. But I have to admit that at 45mp, with those specs, the R5 is going to be one hell of an all-rounder.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> I went 300D>T2i>60D>7D>5D3. I've enjoyed walking this path, especially the T2i, very underrated. After all those incremental bumps, I'm ready for something extraordinary.


Phase One?..


----------



## slclick (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Phase One?..


You so funny QC (I should start saving for a Monochrom M)


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> Ah the poor 60D, it was rough following the amazing for the time 50D. The 60 didn't do it justice as an upgrade.



The 50D upgrade at the time was the 7D. The 60D was an upgrade in some ways and a downgrade in others.


----------



## navastronia (Feb 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> I went 300D>T2i>60D>7D>5D3. I've enjoyed walking this path, especially the T2i, very underrated. After all those incremental bumps, I'm ready for something extraordinary.



I think this is fun to talk about. I went t4i -> 7D -> 5D -> RP.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 5, 2020)

Dexter75 said:


> I doubt we see a high MP camera this year and the R5 specs are wrong. Unless of course you believe Canon is just going to change decades long behavior and throw all kinds of high end specs into their cameras. Yea, not happening.



The. market is changing rapidly. Good chance they reinvent themselves and break with past habits ...


----------



## slclick (Feb 5, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I think this is fun to talk about. I went t4i -> 7D -> 5D -> RP.


What did you find was the biggest leap for you? (I know the leap in a body purchase may not coincide with big leaps in technique and artistic vision though ...)


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> I have ISO 3200 files from my 5Ds that I would not hesitate to print 24x36". They are tack sharp and full of detail across the tonal range with only a bit of noise in deep shadows. By 12,800 you may only be looking at an 11x14, but that's true of just about every 35mm sensor out there.



Yeah it comes down to the subjective difference, I don't find it full of detail across the tonal range. 5Ds does perform on par with Nikon D800 which is 2012, but lags slightly behind D810 (2014) and lags a lot behind 5DIV and A7RIV





Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com





The detail in the hair is almost completely lost, better sensors show quite a drastic difference. The noise of 5Ds is very coloured and very grainy. 5DIV does very well at the same time.


----------



## joestopper (Feb 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> As I wrote previously, RS does imply Rat S*** in some lingo but RS is also similar in looks to R5 hence the rumour that they couldn't tell if it was R5 or RS.
> My guess is R3 instead.
> R4 is unlikely due to the similarity in sound to "death" in many asian languages. See https://www.tofugu.com/japan/number-four-superstition/



RS is not a bad name. Performance cars from A**I have that very batch ...


----------



## navastronia (Feb 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> What did you find was the biggest leap for you? (I know the leap in a body purchase may not coincide with big leaps in technique and artistic vision though ...)



I was shocked by the leap from 7D to 5D, but more than the full-frame sensor, what improved the most was my understanding of post-production, which muddies the waters somewhat. Going from the 5D classic to the RP has been extraordinary as far as AF capability goes (which is of primary important to me as a portrait photographer). How about your own journey?

EDIT: God, and auto ISO. Ohhhhh, auto ISO, how did I ever live without it?


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yeah it comes down to the subjective difference,



No, it comes down to two mistakes. One is magnifying the higher resolution cameras more then complaining they have more noise (or motion blur or CA or whatever). Two is assuming that the exposures and/or profiles are identical when it's clear the 5D IV and A7r4 either got a bit more light or have profiles that open the shadows more (most likely the latter). Crushed shadows are a problem with Adobe's default profiles for the 5Ds/sR, and it was even worse with the first profiles released in 2015. I use the Huelight profiles in part because of this. You're also complaining about color noise _which literally disappears on any of these cameras at CNR 20 with no loss of color fidelity._

Here's the section you chose, but with the Huelight Portrait v170 profile on the 5Ds (left). Both cameras: no sharpening, no LNR, CNR 20.

Now I'm sure you'll zoom in and complain that the 5Ds has more luminance noise. But it's also a lot sharper. And if we were in a different section of this image, a section that stresses fine detail more, a lot more detailed. At this point I can choose any balance of sharpness/NR I want for the intended print size. I can make it as smooth as the 5D IV sample, or preserve some of the sharpness/detail advantage. On my monitor (216 ppi) 100% is roughly equal to 20x30. And I can tell you at 216 ppi / 20x30 the 5Ds side simply looks sharper, not noisier. I have to zoom to 200% to see the noise difference (which would be closer to the 100% view on a FHD monitor). This would not get better for the 5D IV if I scaled up to 5Ds dimensions rather than down for the comparison.

So I'll stand by my original statement: I have ISO 3200 files from the 5Ds that I would not hesitate to print 24x36.


----------



## AEWest (Feb 5, 2020)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup. I can remember debating with myself as to what to get. At the time, the 60D looked like it was still a great camera to me. In the end, I went for the 70D due to dual pixel AF and the articulating screen because I was doing youtube videos at the time for my Google+ page. It was a nice camera.


The 60D also had the articulating screen, just no DPAF.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> One is magnifying the higher resolution cameras more then complaining they have more noise (or motion blur or CA or whatever).



That wasn't magnification, that was viewing 1:1. You can click on Comp button and see similar results, slightly imroved for 5Ds because of downscaling.



dtaylor said:


> it's clear the 5D IV and A7r4 either got a bit more light or have profiles that open the shadows more (most likely the latter)



I don't see shadows in 5DIV any brighter tbh. Moreover, to me it feels like 5Ds image is actually a bit brighter than 5DIV on DPR, same in your sample.



dtaylor said:


> Now I'm sure you'll zoom in and complain that the 5Ds has more luminance noise. But it's also a lot sharper



It is sharper, but if you apply any noise reduction (LNR) you'll loose a lot of detail. 

What actually disappoints me though is this modified comparison with 90D https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...t=1&x=0.8574631217392756&y=0.2192025092867554

Again at 1:1 90D also produces messy shadows, worse than 5DIV. If this is what new-gen Canon sensors are capable of, I'm concerned. They still haven't caught up with Nikon D810 from 2014.


----------



## slclick (Feb 5, 2020)

navastronia said:


> I was shocked by the leap from 7D to 5D, but more than the full-frame sensor, what improved the most was my understanding of post-production, which muddies the waters somewhat. Going from the 5D classic to the RP has been extraordinary as far as AF capability goes (which is of primary important to me as a portrait photographer). How about your own journey?
> 
> EDIT: God, and auto ISO. Ohhhhh, auto ISO, how did I ever live without it?


I really hadn't been a big Auto iso person until I started thinking how I could use it in narrow ranges depending on the exposure triangle and how I'd nail it all down and use the iso for a little more latitude, wiggle room. i.e. 100-400 or 400-800. Serves me well unlike when I first tried it and kept it wide open, ugh.

2010 was huge for me digitally and I was shooting a fair amount of self dev'd B&W at the time as well. I was firing on all cylinders creatively. With the T2i color and stabilized shooting were eye opening, I started using 'pods more and more. I was never heavy handed in the beginning with Aperture, for some reason that didn't transfer over to LR and I had to release myself from the crushing blacks and blown highlights of the style of B&W I was used to with Tri-X.

The 60D did nothing for me. Dunno. Short lived.I did keep shooting the T2i which is sort of backwards. Also tried a SL1 (too small) So it became a Goldilocks type story. The 7D was a revelation in ergonomics, not imaging. I hated the noise ceiling of 6400 iso. Then the 5D3 came out, my just right porridge and I early adopted. Wow. Latitude, DoF, more features than I could ever think to configure.

Since then I have been all about glass and working on me and my vision... not the camera body, and chasing megapixels and rez- reading about everyone wanting more more more drives me nuts. As most here know, I can't hold up my end of the sensor tech talk arguments...That's not my thing. However, I have had lens G.A.S. since buying my first L lens the OG 70-200 f/4L, still a great lens. Currently have none which is nice with a very good set and since my camera body itself is getting long in the tooth I really want to upgrade prior to having any service issues. It will be a 2nd body.

Edit* Film bodies...Vivitar 220 SL, Nikon EM, Nikon FM2 (long break) EOS 5, Elan 7e, EOS 3, Holga 120


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That wasn't magnification, that was viewing 1:1.



I can't believe I have to explain this but 1:1 magnifies higher resolution files more because it's a one-to-one mapping of image pixels to screen pixels. Why else do you think her head was larger in some of the squares? 

A 50mp 2:3 ratio file at 1:1 on a typical 4k monitor is the equivalent of a 40" print. On a typical FHD monitor it's equivalent to a 90" print.



> I don't see shadows in 5DIV any brighter tbh. Moreover, to me it feels like 5Ds image is actually a bit brighter than 5DIV on DPR, same in your sample.



I can measure it on screen with Digital Color Meter. In the section you're complaining about the hair is darker on the 5Ds, almost certainly due to profile differences. Like I said, Adobe's profiles tend to crush the blacks on the 5Ds/sR. (It was disgustingly bad when the cameras first came out.)



> Again at 1:1 90D also produces messy shadows, worse than 5DIV.



Of course it does. It's a crop sensor. The same pixel density in a FF sensor would have FF noise characteristics when viewed at the same print size.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> What did you find was the biggest leap for you? (I know the leap in a body purchase may not coincide with big leaps in technique and artistic vision though ...)


For me it was AE1 > A1 > EOS 620 > EOS 3 > EOS 1v HS > 10D > 1D Mk II > 1Ds Mk II > 5D > 1D Mk III > 5D2 > RS?

AE1 taught me the fundamentals
A1 allowed me to capture more due to better/more useful metering
620 was a setback as the AF sucked, but the technical back was fun
EOS 3 eye control did not work well for me, I should have just got the 1V
1V HS was great way to waste film, but I got very good at reloading
10D was the biggest leap for me, with the instant feedback of chimping
1D Mk II increased my keepers
1Ds Mk II was a great increase in printable images
5D was a great landscape body for me
1D Mk III was the biggest setback due to AF failures, I should have dumped it, it sits on a shelf with 6x7 gear
5D2 is a great body and was my last after the career impact of the 1D Mk III
RS will be my first new gear in over a decade, and now that I am retired I can focus on landscapes again


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2020)

slclick said:


> The 7D was a revelation in ergonomics, not imaging. I hated the noise ceiling of 6400 iso.



I produced some of my best work with a 7D. But I really didn't like it at ISO 3200 and 6400. High key shots worked alright at 3200, but anything else...yeah.

It was pretty darn good for a crop camera at lower ISOs though. And like you said, fantastic ergonomically.


----------



## slclick (Feb 5, 2020)

Gloads said:


> For me it was AE1 > A1 > EOS 620 > EOS 3 > EOS 1v HS > 10D > 1D Mk II > 1Ds Mk II > 5D > 1D Mk III > 5D2 > RS?
> 
> AE1 taught me the fundamentals
> A1 allowed me to capture more due to better/more useful metering
> ...


Oh snap, I forgot to entertain with my film bodies.... Thanks for going way back and sharing, here's your chip.


----------



## RobbieHat (Feb 5, 2020)

I went 20D -> 5DM3 -> 5DSR. These were each significant jumps and the last one required me to upgrade quite a bit of glass. Will be interested to see what this year holds and what my upgrade path will include. I am hoping for a mirrorless MP monster with great DR and a 7dmII replacement for wildlife. Will consider the new R5 if it ticks all the right boxes as a wildlife rig.


----------



## Gloads (Feb 5, 2020)

RobbieHat said:


> I went 20D -> 5DM3 -> 5DSR. These were each significant jumps and the last one required me to upgrade quite a bit of glass. Will be interested to see what this year holds and what my upgrade path will include. I am hoping for a mirrorless MP monster with great DR and a 7dmII replacement for wildlife. Will consider the new R5 if it ticks all the right boxes as a wildlife rig.


I have been wondering if any of my older L glass (first gen IS) will hold up to a 70MP+ sensor. Did you have to upgrade any L glass for the 5DSR, and if so what?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

dtaylor said:


> I can't believe I have to explain this but 1:1 magnifies higher resolution files more because it's a one-to-one mapping of image pixels to screen pixels. Why else do you think her head was larger in some of the squares?


We're talking about different things. You're talking about visual sizes of objects, I'm saying that 1:1 doesn't magnify anything as you see 1 image pixel per 1 screen pixel.



dtaylor said:


> I can measure it on screen with Digital Color Meter. In the section you're complaining about the hair is darker on the 5Ds, almost certainly due to profile differences. Like I said, Adobe's profiles tend to crush the blacks on the 5Ds/sR. (It was disgustingly bad when the cameras first came out.)



Not sure about the brightness of shadows (to me they're very close and I've a calibrated monitor), but the highlights are brighter in 5Ds capture for some reason.



dtaylor said:


> Of course it does. It's a crop sensor. The same pixel density in a FF sensor would have FF noise characteristics when viewed at the same print size.



It shouldn't matter if it's a crop sensor or not, in terms of the noise viewed at 1:1.


----------



## jolyonralph (Feb 5, 2020)

Gloads said:


> I have been wondering if any of my older L glass (first gen IS) will hold up to a 70MP+ sensor. Did you have to upgrade any L glass for the 5DSR, and if so what?



Yes, for sure. The EF 24-105 (1st Gen) was unuseable (* meaning I couldn't accept the quality) on the 5DSR - I never tried the 2nd gen but I expect that wasn't much better. I would doubt the RF 24-105 would resolve adequately on a 70MP+ sensor.

The EF 17-40L was also traded in to get the superb EF 16-35 f/4L IS for the same reason.

Finally, and most disappointingly, the EF 24-70 f/2.8L 1st gen was clearly not up to the job of working with the 5DSR so I again traded mine in towards the Mark II of the same lens, which is great on the 5DSR.

Prime lenses such as the 50mm f/1.2L , 85mm f/1.2L II, 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro and 135mm f/2.0 were fine.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 5, 2020)

Freddie said:


> I would probably buy a R-series Canon camera body with a high-density full-frame sensor. It would replace the 5DSr for landscapes and macros. I wouldn't go for anything less than 70+ megapixels. Come on, Canon, get with it!


Canon sales and marketing : show us your money, Freddie.


----------



## SecureGSM (Feb 5, 2020)

joestopper said:


> The. market is changing rapidly. Good chance they reinvent themselves and break with past habits ...


Yeah, they are in an overdrive mode. It is absolutely and crystal clear at this stage. This has been communicated in a number of Canon interview where they confirmed. All available resources were allocated towards R project. RF is in focus, EF is a background. Once they have done with emergencies, they will adopt a proven moderate pace of development instead.


----------



## mppix (Feb 5, 2020)

davidhfe said:


> I can see a lot of fine print on the video specs (especially when you're at 60 and 120fps) but for what matters to me, I don't see how you can nerf 45mp with a 12fps mechanical shutter. All I've ever really wanted was for my 5D4 to hit the speeds of a 7D2. Add in some electronic shutter capability for faster or silent shooting and I can deal with a little rolling shutter or AF asterisks, etc. That stuff is all gravy compared to what's out there.



Probably they nerf mechanical shutter somehow. Maybe they decrease fps if you pick a shutter speed below 1/12.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> RF is in focus, EF is a background



What you're saying is EF effectively becomes a bokeh...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> ...
> Again at 1:1 90D also produces messy shadows, worse than 5DIV. If this is what new-gen Canon sensors are capable of, I'm concerned. They still haven't caught up with Nikon D810 from 2014.


That is a little unfair on the 90D sensor and Canon. Here is what Thom Hogan, the High Priest of Nikon (always worth a read for his unbiased and expert comments, one of my favourites) writes in his review of the Nikon Z50:
_"Since I mentioned APS-C sensors in general here, it’s probably a good thing to tell you what I think the current state-of-the-art is (beginning of 2020). Number one at the moment—which will be a surprise to all the Sony worshippers—is the Canon 32mp sensor in their two latest APS-C cameras. The Sony 26mp sensor—without the Fujifilm modifications—would be a very close second. Both the Nikon 20mp and Sony 24mp sensors tend to look very similar and would be in a very close third place. _"





Nikon Z50 Camera Review | Sans Mirror | Thom Hogan


Review of the Nikon Z50 mirrorless camera




www.sansmirror.com




My experience is that the Nikon 20 Mpx is very close to the Canon 32 Mpx, with the Canon winning at low iso <640, and the Nikon (and Canon 5DSR) at higher. This might be a fault with the DxO PL I use as it struggles with the luminance noise from the 90D at higher iso and so I use Noise Ninja to sacrifice some resolution when there is obtrusive noise. I've complained to DxO about it but they have shrugged it off. (They would, wouldn't they, MRD).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> That is a little unfair on the 90D sensor and Canon.



Ok... I downloaded raw files from DPR at ISO 100, pushed the exposure +2 stops and cropped the monotonic grey-ish area. It's all viewed 1:1 with no downscaling. We're just looking at the luminosity noise at 1:1 so crop sensor or FF doesn't matter.
Left to right: *5Ds, 5DIV and 90D*.
As you can see, 5DIV beats them all, 90D is better than 5Ds but not on par with 5DIV.
That's why I'm concerned, 90D was released 3 years after 5DIV and there's no improvement. Yes the pixel density is higher in 90D, but if the high-res RS has pixel density close to 90D _and the same design_, we'll get performance like in the image below (#3).

Yes I know I know! It's only one parameter. And all three have different pixel density. Just food for thought.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Ok... I downloaded raw files from DPR at ISO 100, pushed the exposure +2 stops and cropped the monotonic grey-ish area. It's all viewed 1:1 with no downscaling. We're just looking at the luminosity noise at 1:1 so crop sensor or FF doesn't matter.
> Left to right: *5Ds, 5DIV and 90D*.
> As you can see, 5DIV beats them all, 90D is better than 5Ds but not on par with 5DIV.
> That's why I'm concerned, 90D was released 3 years after 5DIV and there's no improvement. Yes the pixel density is higher in 90D, but if the high-res RS has pixel density close to 90D _and the same design_, we'll get performance like in the image below (#3).
> ...


Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If it's viewed 1:1 with no downscaling, does that mean you are looking at the same number of pixels for all of them? If that is so, then the 5DIV with its larger pixels must win by a real margin. If they are all viewed at the same output size, I would expect it to be much closer but with a small advantage to the 5DIV because of edge effects as the 5DIV has a truly excellent sensor. Sony's sensor act in a similar way with the lower res 7DRIII slightly better than the newer 7DRIV.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If it's viewed 1:1 with no downscaling, does that mean you are looking at the same number of pixels for all of them? If that is so, then the 5DIV with its larger pixels must win by a real margin. If they are all viewed at the same output size, I would expect it to be much closer but with a small advantage to the 5DIV because of edge effects as the 5DIV has a truly excellent sensor. Sony's sensor act in a similar way with the lower res 7DRIII slightly better than the newer 7DRIV.



Yes, roughly the same number of pixels, I might have cropped them a bit imprecise. But it's a 1:1 view. The area you see was pushed +2 stops, it was quite dark in the original scene.

I've added Nikon D850 with its 46Mp sensor, now there go *5Ds, 5DIV, 90D, D850*
You can see how Nikon with Sony sensor at 45.7Mp performs the same as 5DIV at 30.4Mp (even slightly better). That's what I'd like to see in the future R5. The high-res RS in question will likely perform worse at 1:1 but probably it'd be ideal if does least slightly better than 90D.

*

*


----------



## yeahright (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes, roughly the same number of pixels, I might have cropped them a bit imprecise. But it's a 1:1 view. The area you see was pushed +2 stops, it was quite dark in the original scene.
> 
> I've added Nikon D850 with its 46Mp sensor, now there go *5Ds, 5DIV, 90D, D850*
> You can see how Nikon with Sony sensor at 45.7Mp performs the same as 5DIV at 30.4Mp (even slightly better). That's what I'd like to see in the future R5. The high-res RS in question will likely perform worse at 1:1 but probably it'd be ideal if does least slightly better than 90D.
> ...


There is no point in a 1:1 (i.e. 1 sensor pixel = 1 screen pixel) comparison when you want to judge noise performance. Sensors of the same generation of technology but different pixel density will unsurprisingly have more noise if the pixel density is higher. But that doesn't make them worse performers. If you wanted to compare sensor performance, you'd have to compare images from equally sized areas on the sensor (therefore gathering an equal amount of light), and also resample each image to the same number of pixels.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

yeahright said:


> There is no point in a 1:1 (i.e. 1 sensor pixel = 1 screen pixel) comparison when you want to judge noise performance. Sensors of the same generation of technology but different pixel density will unsurprisingly have more noise if the pixel density is higher. But that doesn't make them worse performers. If you wanted to compare sensor performance, you'd have to compare images from equally sized areas on the sensor (therefore gathering an equal amount of light), and also resample each image to the same number of pixels.


It's true in general and you can do such a comparison at DPReview, if you like, by clicking the Comp button. 

But I did kinda grey card test at 1:1. It also has a value as it shows usability of the full sized raw files. If I buy a high-res camera, I want to know how the images will look like full sized, it's useful for postprocessing, cropping, printing large. In lightroom, I work with full sized raw files, not resampled.

Also, as you can see, there are examples of the sensors with higher pixel densities - 90D and D850 - perform better than 5Ds and 5DIV respectively.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 5, 2020)

Silvertt7 said:


> I know they have been doing well on the RF lenses but until I see it for myself and the reviews validate it, I simply do not care if Canon does a high res camera. I simply don't trust them. The 5DS has 50 megapixels and when it first came out people were excited. But the ISO on that camera is what, 6400? And you don't even want to go near that max for noise. To me they could do 70 megapixels they could do 80. Doesn't matter. The real question is how does the sensor handle noise? How is the dynamic range? Because megapixels alone as a criteria is absolutely foolish.


Your points are only partially correct. I assume you dont own the camera? 
In low light the 5DS doesn't shine in fact the 6D MKII does a much better job. However your missing the point of the camera which is all about resolution. I use the 5DS exclusively for portraiture with a mix of daylight and strobes. Im lucky enough to own the 5DS, EOS R, 6D MKII and use the 5D MKIV as well as the 1D X MKII that my company own. So why would I not use the 5D MKIV or the EOS R? Because I can crop & enlarge with the 5DS with better end results when Im setting the camera to ISO100. Cameras are tools, like all tools some are better at a certain jobs than others. I find the 6D MKII works well for me for landscapes, I like using the EOS R as a walk-around camera and if I want an "all-rounder" I use the 5D MKIV. 
This is exactly the same in my day job where we rent a number of different digital movie cameras & lens combinations to provide different looks. 

Why push a camera to where its weaknesses are? Better to exploit the strong points which equally applies to lenses or accessories. If you think and act positively rather than negatively I think your find your photography will greatly improve.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Ok... I downloaded raw files from DPR at ISO 100, pushed the exposure +2 stops and cropped the monotonic grey-ish area. It's all viewed 1:1 with no downscaling. We're just looking at the luminosity noise at 1:1 so crop sensor or FF doesn't matter.
> Left to right: *5Ds, 5DIV and 90D*.
> As you can see, 5DIV beats them all, 90D is better than 5Ds but not on par with 5DIV.
> That's why I'm concerned, 90D was released 3 years after 5DIV and there's no improvement. Yes the pixel density is higher in 90D, but if the high-res RS has pixel density close to 90D _and the same design_, we'll get performance like in the image below (#3).
> ...


Jesus, go and shoot something tests like this are pointless


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's a bold statement so I highlighted in *bold* the points where Canon wasn't the leader and actually followed someone else's innovations or trends.
> Adding video to a DSLR was something new, but DPAF is something very specific to Canon and it didn't change the 'decades of behaviour', and changing mounts isn't something Canon did first.
> 
> Your obviously sarcastic statement may in fact be (mostly) true. Only that I don't think Canon is really *******.


Apple is generally not the leader but I know what balance sheet I would prefer, same with Canon over Nikon.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Tripod landscape shooters still want low noise and good dynamic range. The more pixels Canon puts into this beast, the more I worry about the noise and overall performance. Time will tell but the 45Mp one may happen to be a sweeter spot for landscapes, especially low light/astroscapes.



Here we go again. More pixels only means more noise on a pixel level, not an image level. And there's no such thing as a sweet spot, unless you're talking just about your own needs (in which case fair enough).



Quarkcharmed said:


> That wasn't magnification, that was viewing 1:1. You can click on Comp button and see similar results, slightly imroved for 5Ds because of downscaling.



If you are viewing photos from two sensors of the same size with different resolutions at 100% _you are magnifying one more than another_. Because the pixels on the higher density sensor are _physically smaller_. This is pretty basic!


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

scyrene said:


> Here we go again. More pixels only means more noise on a pixel level, not an image level. And there's no such thing as a sweet spot, unless you're talking just about your own needs (in which case fair enough).



Of course I was talking about my own needs!



scyrene said:


> If you are viewing photos from two sensors of the same size with different resolutions at 100% _you are magnifying one more than another_. Because the pixels on the higher density sensor are _physically smaller_. This is pretty basic!



I've already explained in one of the following messages, we were talking about different 'magnifications'.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Jesus, go and shoot something tests like this are pointless



Looks like I'm not going to shoot until next week, so having fun here instead!
The tests are from DPReview so I don't think they're pointless btw, I just extracted some samples to check what I wanted to check.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> I find the 6D MKII works well for me for landscapes, I like using the EOS R as a walk-around camera


If you have both 6DII and R, why use 6DII for landscapes? The R should beat the 6DII in all regards for landscape photography.


----------



## riker (Feb 5, 2020)

I don't think we will ever see an EOS 3 "equivalent" DSLR/MILC. Canon is just refusing to produce such a camera which is an overall winner with high resolution, very good AF, high FPS etc. It should have higher resolution than R5 and/or higher FPS than R5 and/or better AF than R5 plus some other extra features which the R5 doesn't have. They just don't allow a camera to be clearly better than 5D/R5. If you want resolution (5DS), u lose FPS, DR, video features or whatever. For many years (12-15?) the structure of product lines is not a pyramid anymore, the top has been smashed and 5D - 5DS - 1DX are differentiated horizontally. 3D just doesn't fit. If they eventually do create one, it will not resemble to the original EOS 3 heritage/position.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Looks like I'm not going to shoot until next week, so having fun here instead!
> The tests are from DPReview so I don't think they're pointless btw, I just extracted some samples to check what I wanted to check.


If you are comparing noise on a pixel basis then the test are pointless to the extent that unless there are radical differences between the sensors, the larger pixels must win, with some exceptions, over the iso range, depending on the iso. At base iso, circuitry noise can dominate as photon flux is so high and a poor FF can be beaten by an APS-C. At higher isos, the S/N of a pixel depends the number of photons hitting and hence on the square root of its area and so an APS-C has a S/N 1.6x lower than that of FF. The earlier Canon sensors were weak at low iso, but from the 5DIV and 80D, they have been very good. The 90D is very good at base iso, and does as well as can reasonably be expected.


----------



## tron (Feb 5, 2020)

Treyarnon said:


> 5Ds does not have IBIS
> I'm sure IBIS will be a usefull to have feature, but not having it is not exactly the end of the world.


IBIS - assuming it works as expected - would be nice but I do not have an issue with my 5DsR. I use big white lenses with IS. Up to now I have used my 400DOII at 1/160 handheld and the result was excellent. I had even forgotten to chenge it afterwards for sometim but even so I got some keepers. And the ones that showed movement were from the treecreeper and not me.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If you have both 6DII and R, why use 6DII for landscapes? The R should beat the 6DII in all regards for landscape photography.


Simple. The R for some bizarre reason uses Canon cheaper remote control and I do lots a long exposure shots. The 6D MKII is a vastly underrated camera.


----------



## tron (Feb 5, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Simple. The R for some bizarre reason uses Canon cheaper remote control and I do lots a long exposure shots. The 6D MKII is a vastly underrated camera.


This is true. I do not understand why they did that. So my tc-80n3 is useless for EOS R. But I am sure there is a ton of similar 3rd party cheap controls out there.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Looks like I'm not going to shoot until next week, so having fun here instead!
> The tests are from DPReview so I don't think they're pointless btw, I just extracted some samples to check what I wanted to check.


Ive spent a big chunk of my life looking at film / digital tests on a movie screen including up to pixel level. Most were pretty pointless because tests are a zillion miles from real world shooting where you dont have a controlled environment. In theory film should be trounced every time by digital from a purely technical perspective. From an artistic point of view that's rarely the case in the film industry. 
Lenses are a different kettle of fish they do have the ability to completely change the look & character much more than the camera straight out of the camera. 
If you want a perfect technical match then pixel pitch to line pairs per mm (nyquist) i.e. matching lenses to sensors is the way to go not randomised sensor tests.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 5, 2020)

tron said:


> IBIS - assuming it works as expected - would be nice but I do not have an issue with my 5DsR. I use big white lenses with IS. Up to now I have used my 400DOII at 1/160 handheld and the result was excellent. I had even forgotten to chenge it afterwards for sometim but even so I got some keepers. And the ones that showed movement were from the treecreeper and not me.




For me, IS in all forms is a win as it lets me get away with longer shutters and keep the ISO down to earth. I'm frequently in tough lighting with my camera (indoor event no flash allowed, museum/church interior no flash / no tripod, nighttime walk handheld, etc.). So for me, more stops let's me take an ISO 6400+ shot back down into a higher IQ sort of place (ISO 400-1600). I'm a fan.

But with a supertele like yours I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you are dealing with moving subjects, so cranking down your shutter speed even further with IBIS might be possible but not very practical. It may not help you with portraiture or the odd bird on the tree once 1/160 (without IBIS) becomes 1/30 (with IBIS) shutter -- branches and leaves may move, the subject may move, etc.

- A


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

But that's what I was trying to check, the differences between the sensor tech on per-pixel level. 
If you look carefully you'll see 90D and D850 with smaller pixels outperform 5Ds and 5DIV respectively.
That shows the difference and progress in noise control.

90D may have the same pixel density as the rumoured RS, so one of the questions is if such a noise level will be satisfactory for an 80Mp monster.



AlanF said:


> If you are comparing noise on a pixel basis then the test are pointless to the extent that unless there are radical differences between the sensors, the larger pixels must win, with some exceptions, over the iso range, depending on the iso. At base iso, circuitry noise can dominate as photon flux is so high and a poor FF can be beaten by an APS-C. At higher isos, the S/N of a pixel depends the number of photons hitting and hence on the square root of its area and so an APS-C has a S/N 1.6x lower than that of FF. The earlier Canon sensors were weak at low iso, but from the 5DIV and 80D, they have been very good. The 90D is very good at base iso, and does as well as can reasonably be expected.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> If you want a perfect technical match then pixel pitch to line pairs per mm (nyquist) i.e. matching lenses to sensors is the way to go not randomised sensor tests


Very good points and lenses are important, but I was checking just one specific aspect of sensor performance. I'm a pixel-peeper and I spend quite some time in 1:1 view mode when editing. More noise means less room for certain things such as shadow lifting, sharpening, noise reduction, heavy or not so heavy crop etc.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But that's what I was trying to check, the differences between the sensor tech on per-pixel level.
> If you look carefully you'll see 90D and D850 with smaller pixels outperform 5Ds and 5DIV respectively.
> That shows the difference and progress in noise control.
> 
> 90D may have the same pixel density as the rumoured RS, so one of the questions is if such a noise level will be satisfactory for an 80Mp monster.


If you output to the same size as a low resolution sensor, then a very high resolution sensor will give you similar noise to the low level one with greater detail, at the expense of a larger initial file. This is why posters here are telling you that comparing pixel level noise is irrelevant for that case. If you are cropping, then you put up with the extra noise for the sake of extra detail. If you don't need the detail, then get the lower resolution sensor.


----------



## tron (Feb 5, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> For me, IS in all forms is a win as it lets me get away with longer shutters and keep the ISO down to earth. I'm frequently in tough lighting with my camera (indoor event no flash allowed, museum/church interior no flash / no tripod, nighttime walk handheld, etc.). So for me, more stops let's me take an ISO 6400+ shot back down into a higher IQ sort of place (ISO 400-1600). I'm a fan.
> 
> But with a supertele like yours I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you are dealing with moving subjects, so cranking down your shutter speed even further with IBIS might be possible but not very practical. It may not help you with portraiture or the odd bird on the tree once 1/160 (without IBIS) becomes 1/30 (with IBIS) shutter -- branches and leaves may move, the subject may move, etc.
> 
> - A


Exactly but IBIS on another camera like an R5 or 5D5 equivalent would help. I bought the R system to have access to RF15-35 and RF24-70 due to IS. Similarly with you I like shooting interiors like museums, churches, etc. So there IBIS would be welcome.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Very good points and lenses are important, but I was checking just one specific aspect of sensor performance. I'm a pixel-peeper and I spend quite some time in 1:1 view mode when editing. More noise means less room for certain things such as shadow lifting, sharpening, noise reduction, heavy or not so heavy crop etc.


Never had a problem heavily cropping with the 5DS that's one of its strengths thanks to the resolution. I only shoot at ISO100 generally at most ISO200. We have a wall with a 50ft x 20ft poster from the 5DS and its as sharp as a tack with great tonal range. I know at least two fashion photographers that use the 5DSr in the studio (along with Phase One) and their shots end up on billboards.


----------



## RobbieHat (Feb 5, 2020)

Gloads said:


> I have been wondering if any of my older L glass (first gen IS) will hold up to a 70MP+ sensor. Did you have to upgrade any L glass for the 5DSR, and if so what?


I upgraded the 28-70 and 70-200 as well as replaced the 400 5.6 with a 100-400. I added a number of others along with way. I felt the upgrades were worth it and needed with the higher resolution revealing softness in those older versions.


----------



## dtaylor (Feb 5, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Never had a problem heavily cropping with the 5DS that's one of its strengths thanks to the resolution.



I've got a beach volleyball shot that's cropped in more than 2x and still makes a sharp 16x20. High resolution has its advantages. I hope the rumor is true that the R5 is 45mp and I'll still be looking forward to an 83mp monster. Canon just might squeeze two camera sales out of me this year.


----------



## colorblinded (Feb 5, 2020)

I'm on board for the EOS R3 name. I'd love to see it fit in to the roughly 5D price point and push the R series cameras that are replacing the 5D down in price a bit but that's probably asking for too much.

The EOS 3 was my first major EOS camera and I have fond memories of it. Should charge a battery or find the AA carrier and run a roll or two through it.


----------



## landscaper (Feb 5, 2020)

As a landscape photographer I've been waiting for over 2 years through hundreds of rumours of the upcoming Canon High Megapixel Camera:
(CANON-RS)
touted to be 75 to 100 Megapixels 
this would be a huge
benefit for me as I print 40x60 inches and larger mostly

If Canon doesn't announce a high megapixel camera body in February 2020 I will be reluctantly jumping ship to Sony and buying the a7riv or the Nikon D900 (with the Sony 64 Megapixel Sensor) or even possibly the upcoming 100 megapixel Fuji GFX Lite Body

I would rather stick with Canon I love their hardware
and have been a Canon Aficionado since 1980 when I got my Canon A1 film camera.

I think Sony can be consistently relied upon to upgrade their camera bodies every 24 months and they have more resources in their sensor fabrication to stay on the
cutting edge

I don't give a Rat's Ass about video.
A 45 megapixel catch-all generalist body is not what I'm looking for

Please Canon if you're listening give the studio and landscape photographers a reason to stay with you.


----------



## BillB (Feb 5, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Tripod landscape shooters still want low noise and good dynamic range. The more pixels Canon puts into this beast, the more I worry about the noise and overall performance. Time will tell but the 45Mp one may happen to be a sweeter spot for landscapes, especially low light/astroscapes.


It looks like we are going to see a 45mp F5 before we see a high res mirrorless, which may well be an indication where Canon thinks the market sweetspot is. On the other hand, Canon seems to think that there is room in the pricier part of the FF mirrorless space for 20mp, 45mp and high res cameras.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> If you output to the same size as a low resolution sensor, then a very high resolution sensor will give you similar noise to the low level one with greater detail, at the expense of a larger initial file. This is why posters here are telling you that comparing pixel level noise is irrelevant for that case.



But I don't want to resize to the smaller sensor's resolution. For a start I want to check how the sensor performs at its native resolution. Next step I might normalise and compare at the same size, but why cannot I check the noise at the native resolution?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 5, 2020)

tron said:


> This is true. I do not understand why they did that. So my tc-80n3 is useless for EOS R. But I am sure there is a ton of similar 3rd party cheap controls out there.


There are, Canon also make the RA-E3 Remote Controller Adapter, though they are in short supply.


----------



## tron (Feb 6, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> There are, Canon also make the RA-E3 Remote Controller Adapter, though they are in short supply.


Thanks! I didn't know such adapter existed.


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 6, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That wasn't magnification, that was viewing 1:1. You can click on Comp button and see similar results, slightly imroved for 5Ds because of downscaling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



!!!!NEWS FLASH!!!!

1:1 is a different enlargement.magnification ratio for sensors with differently sized pixels.

If you are enlarging 4.14µm x 4.14µm pixels (5Ds) to the size of one pixel on your monitor it is being magnified/enlarged more than enlarging 5.36µm x 5.36µm pixels to the size of one pixel on your monitor.

In the case of an FHD 23.5" monitor with 96 ppi:

The 5Ds image is being enlarged to an equivalent 90.5" x 60.3" size at 1:1 
The 5D Mark IV image is being enlarged to an equivalent 70" x 46.7" size at 1:1


----------



## Michael Clark (Feb 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Please correct me if I have misunderstood you. If it's viewed 1:1 with no downscaling, does that mean you are looking at the same number of pixels for all of them? If that is so, then the 5DIV with its larger pixels must win by a real margin. If they are all viewed at the same output size, I would expect it to be much closer but with a small advantage to the 5DIV because of edge effects as the 5DIV has a truly excellent sensor. Sony's sensor act in a similar way with the lower res 7DRIII slightly better than the newer 7DRIV.



7DRIII and 7DRIV? What are those? Do you mean the α7rIII and α7rIV?


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> 7DRIII and 7DRIV? WHat are those? Do you mean the α7rIII and α7rIV?


Yes. Thanks.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 6, 2020)

It's all true but as I said we were talking about different 'enlargement ratios'.
I was talking about *digital conversions. *When you view 1:1, there's *no compression and no enlargement* of the data from your raw file. Anything other than 1:1 requires additional digital conversion (resampling). Most of the time it's downsampling so that you can fit large size image into the screen or a window on the screen.
Because there's *no resampling at 1:1*, you see the sensor noise as it is and that was important for my particular test.



Michael Clark said:


> !!!!NEWS FLASH!!!!
> 
> 1:1 is a different enlargement.magnification ratio for sensors with differently sized pixels.
> 
> ...


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's all true but as I said we were talking about different 'enlargement ratios'.
> I was talking about *digital conversions. *When you view 1:1, there's *no compression and no enlargement* of the data from your raw file. Anything other than 1:1 requires additional digital conversion (resampling). Most of the time it's downsampling so that you can fit large size image into the screen or a window on the screen.
> Because there's *no resampling at 1:1*, you see the sensor noise as it is and that was important for my particular test.


Can we just agree on that your test is relevant to the extent that we should not expect the same signal to noise or DR in say a 1000x1000 pixel crop from a 80Mpx as from a 20Mpx sensor but for most purposes, like viewing a full image on a screen or printing it at the same size form both sensors, that it is not relevant.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Can we just agree on that your test is relevant to the extent that we should not expect the same signal to noise or DR in say a 1000x1000 pixel crop from a 80Mpx as from a 20Mpx sensor but for most purposes, like viewing a full image on a screen or printing it at the same size form both sensors, that it is not relevant.


We dont shoot subjects in a lab. The majority of people never enlarge larger than an A3 print with the vast majority of shots these days being digitally viewed we actually oversampling our output. It amuses me these types of conversation for years in Digital video the colour space was REC.709 now we have REC.2020 with a far greater luminance & colour gamut. These parameters have done more for picture quality as the colour space is greatly expanded. Its colour space that brings the greatest benefits, its pointless creating a 120MP camera if affordable lenses cannot exploit the resolution or if refraction minimises the benefits. Pixel matching to line pairs per mm makes far more sense that ever greater MPs. 

Let me explain another way. The average multi-screen theatre in Europe has a 56ft diagonal screen. To actually see true 4K you need to sit in the front three rows, if in the future that screen upgrades to 6K or even 8K then you would need to stand in the area between the front row and the screen to actually see 6K or 8K which is totally impractical. We make 6K and 8K movie cameras now but the images are output at 4K, we oversample to retain the colour space but sacrifice some resolution. 

Most modern camera electronics do a good job of minimising photon shot noise so the S/N ratio has improved vastly and the old argument between small & large pixels is less of an issue than it was and is still improving. So where can it improve? Lenses still have room for improvement and are improving, by this I mean aberrations and vignetting rather than all out resolution improvements. Dynamic range is improving and will continue to do so and with it so will colour gamut. 

In reality the test charts are a guide, cameras & lenses are tools and tools are only as good as the people that use them. Forget charts, forget pixel peeping and go and shoot as often as you can and experiment that way your level of photography grows and you can enjoy the output not technical specs.


----------



## Joules (Feb 6, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Because there's no resampling at 1:1, you see the sensor noise as it is and that was important for *my particular* test.


I think if you could just stress that bit, that it is your particular test and that it does not have to impact the opinions of others on high resolution sensors, it could have reduced the number of back and forth posts on the subject drastically.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Can we just agree on that your test is relevant to the extent that we should not expect the same signal to noise or DR in say a 1000x1000 pixel crop from a 80Mpx as from a 20Mpx sensor but for most purposes, like viewing a full image on a screen or printing it at the same size form both sensors, that it is not relevant.



It's relevant when your target is large sized file or print and when you pixel-peep (and you pixel-peep when your target is large). Also it's relevant to things like amount of postprocessing you can apply; say noise reduction amount and parameters will depend on the noise, and then the noise limits certain types of digital manipulations.
It's absolutely true that in many cases for sensor comparison you have to normalise to the same size.



Joules said:


> I think if you could just stress that bit, that it is your particular test and that it does not have to impact the opinions of others on high resolution sensors, it could have reduced the number of back and forth posts on the subject drastically.



Yeah I had to, although I tried to emphasise that in the previous posts. 



jeffa4444 said:


> The majority of people never enlarge larger than an A3 print



5DIV with 30Mp sensor can be printed at 300ppi on up to A2. If cropped, it won't reach 300ppi. So if your target is a large high quality print, you'll likely be pixel-peeping.
I know though that 200-240ppi is also ok and in many cases indistinguishable from 300ppi.


----------



## AlanF (Feb 6, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> We dont shoot subjects in a lab. The majority of people never enlarge larger than an A3 print with the vast majority of shots these days being digitally viewed we actually oversampling our output. It amuses me these types of conversation for years in Digital video the colour space was REC.709 now we have REC.2020 with a far greater luminance & colour gamut. These parameters have done more for picture quality as the colour space is greatly expanded. Its colour space that brings the greatest benefits, its pointless creating a 120MP camera if affordable lenses cannot exploit the resolution or if refraction minimises the benefits. Pixel matching to line pairs per mm makes far more sense that ever greater MPs.
> 
> Let me explain another way. The average multi-screen theatre in Europe has a 56ft diagonal screen. To actually see true 4K you need to sit in the front three rows, if in the future that screen upgrades to 6K or even 8K then you would need to stand in the area between the front row and the screen to actually see 6K or 8K which is totally impractical. We make 6K and 8K movie cameras now but the images are output at 4K, we oversample to retain the colour space but sacrifice some resolution.
> 
> ...


You are looking from just one perspective and missing that there is a very large community of nature shooters, especially bird photographers, who frequently have to crop and view or print a tiny portion of the image! Just look at the Bird Portraits and BIF threads, they are nearly all crops. What you consider as pixel peaking is an actual practical reality in that world. Pixel-level sharpness does matter there. As they say YMMV as each type of photography has its own needs.


----------



## BillB (Feb 6, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> 5DIV with 30Mp sensor can be printed at 300ppi on up to A2. If cropped, it won't reach 300ppi. So if your target is a large high quality print, you'll likely be pixel-peeping.
> I know though that 200-240ppi is also ok and in many cases indistinguishable from 300ppi.


If you had said this earlier this sub thread might have been shorter. It is often hard for a reader to guess the implicit qualifications in the mind of the poster.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 6, 2020)

AlanF said:


> You are looking from just one perspective and missing that there is a very large community of nature shooters, especially bird photographers, who frequently have to crop and view or print a tiny portion of the image! Just look at the Bird Portraits and BIF threads, they are nearly all crops. What you consider as pixel peaking is an actual practical reality in that world. Pixel-level sharpness does matter there. As they say YMMV as each type of photography has its own needs.


Im not missing that at all. Optimisation is the name of the game its pointless having a 120MP camera if your not using lenses that match the pixel pitch of the sensor. Equally defraction becomes an issue the more you raise the MP as does camera shake particularly if you cropping for birding. 
Its no mistake that Canon fast RF primes are at least a 1/3rd more expensive than their EF cousins, quality costs. I would also image they have raised the line pairs per MM for the RF mount especially as they know their forward road map. No such thing as a free lunch.


----------



## tron (Feb 6, 2020)

jeffa4444 said:


> Im not missing that at all. Optimisation is the name of the game its pointless having a 120MP camera if your not using lenses that match the pixel pitch of the sensor. Equally defraction becomes an issue the more you raise the MP as does camera shake particularly if you cropping for birding.
> Its no mistake that Canon fast RF primes are at least a 1/3rd more expensive than their EF cousins, quality costs. I would also image they have raised the line pairs per MM for the RF mount especially as they know their forward road map. No such thing as a free lunch.


1. I agree about DLA. But the drop of IQ is gradual both for DLA and for lenses that do not cope 100% with very high Mpixel cameras.
2. The higher price can be mainly due to the fact that the lenses are new and not many years old like the EF versions.
3. We do not know if the RF versions are better. TDP shows the top 2.8L zooms 15-35 and 24-70 as equal with the RF versions having even more vignetting. The only clear advantage is the use of IS.


----------



## mppix (Feb 6, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Very good points and lenses are important, but I was checking just one specific aspect of sensor performance. I'm a pixel-peeper and I spend quite some time in 1:1 view mode when editing. More noise means less room for certain things such as shadow lifting, sharpening, noise reduction, heavy or not so heavy crop etc.


Then it is simple. The 1DXiii (and rumored R6) with their "low" 20mp sensors are the cameras for you.
More pixels, more noise. At an extreme a theoretical 1 pixel sensor has the highest accuracy of luminosity. Another theretical sensor with infinite pixels will have infinite noise (it is essentially a binary on/off /pixel). Real sensors are in the middle and you get to choose your preference. As tech improves, noise is reduced (sensitivity, adc, software etc.)


----------



## cayenne (Feb 6, 2020)

Romain said:


> I have a question. Do you think next very high res FF bodies will extinguish the MF market? Or is there a future for it? With all the new techs coming in mirrorless bodies, the prices and the flexibility it provides in real life, how could MF shooters resist to switch?..



Well, there still is something to be said for MF's larger physical sensors and >= PM counts for resolution, etc....

I don't think that market is going to go away very soon....but who knows.

Interesting times we live in.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 6, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, there still is something to be said for MF's larger physical sensors and >= PM counts for resolution, etc....
> 
> I don't think that market is going to go away very soon....but who knows.
> 
> Interesting times we live in.



Indeed it's quite easy to get 200mp equivalent resolution out of a 6x7 MF piece of film and without the diffraction limit that's going to plaque those seeking maximum resolution from 100 mp + in FF format.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 6, 2020)

mppix said:


> Then it is simple. The 1DXiii (and rumored R6) with their "low" 20mp sensors are the cameras for you.


So if I complain about noise in a car when it speeds above 60, your suggestion would be to buy a car that has a hard limit of 40?



mppix said:


> More pixels, more noise.



It simply is not true, had you actually read my message. It shows examples of sensors with smaller pixels and less noise.


----------



## mppix (Feb 6, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So if I complain about noise in a car when it speeds above 60, your suggestion would be to buy a car that has a hard limit of 40?
> 
> It simply is not true, had you actually read my message. It shows examples of sensors with smaller pixels and less noise.



No, I'm merely saying that if you spend a lot of time in 1:1, you are going to have a better time with the 20mp sensor compared to a higher resolution sensor (given same generation of sensor tech).

What I and some others say is physics. An 80mp sensor receives 1/4th of photons/pixel compared to a 20mp one, while maintaining a similar noise level (if its same tech). However it also enables a less intrusive noise canceling at same correction levels.
Down-converting to the same resolution should yield a similar noise performance (this is why DXO normalizes resolution).

Your comparison is mood, because it varies sensor tech and resolution. It simply shows that not all sensors are created equal. I'd even go so far as to say that random noise is less of an issue in general (easily corrected) but other sensor properties can be a lot harder to deal with e.g. banding

Hope this helps.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 7, 2020)

mppix said:


> No, I'm merely saying that if you spend a lot of time in 1:1, you are going to have a better time with the 20mp sensor compared to a higher reaolution sensor (given same generation of sensor tech).


If I buy a high-res camera, I intend to use this high resolution somehow. Print large or crop heavy etc. If I'm *always* to downsample, you're right, I can buy a lower-res camera.

But I'm interested in high resolution *and* noise performance *at native resolution*. I'm not interested in sensor performance at an arbitrary downsampling ratio.



mppix said:


> It simply shows that not all sensors are created equal.



Exactly. It shows what I get at different *native* resolutions and different sensor designs from different manufacturers.



mppix said:


> Downconverting to the same resolution should yield a similar noise performance (this is why DXO normalizes resolution).



First of all, it doesn't yield similar performance even after normalisation, and that allows to compare sensors using a different metric that eliminates sensor resolution. Normalisation is good if you want to compare sensors with different resolutions and rank them. It's also a useful metric, but can only be used within DxO ranking system. *But you lose information on how sensors perform at their native resolution. *

You can use different metrics/rankings for different aspects of camera performance, DxO, Photostophotos, pixel noise at 1:1, whatever, why do you see a problem there?


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 7, 2020)

FWIW...recently bought an older EF 100-300 lens and took some shots on my R in crop mode. Then took the same shots - same composition, same ISO, same f-stop (wide open at 5.6 on this lens) - using the M5. Yes, I know not the same sensor, but similar generation. Images from the crop camera (and smaller pixels) definitely had more noise at the image (not pixel) level. Your results may differ.


----------



## mppix (Feb 7, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> If I buy a high-res camera, I intend to use this high resolution somehow. Print large or crop heavy etc. If I'm *always* to downsample, you're right, I can buy a lower-res camera.
> But I'm interested in high resolution *and* noise performance *at native resolution*. I'm not interested in sensor performance at an arbitrary downsampling ratio.
> 
> Exactly. It shows what I get at different *native* resolutions and different sensor designs from different manufacturers.


That all good and well. We all would like a high-res high-iso sensor but they have to be traded off against each other. So it looks like we get 3 different cameras with 3 vastly different resolutions. I'm trying to explain that high-res will have limitations at high iso (see 5Ds) and lower res will do antiproportionally do better in low light (see 5Div and 1DXiii). This is entirely based on the assumption that Canon will use similar sensor tech, otherwise this statement is mood (see 6Dii vs 5Div)



Quarkcharmed said:


> First of all, it doesn't yield similar performance even after normalisation, and that allows to compare sensors using a different metric that eliminates sensor resolution. Normalisation is good if you want to compare sensors with different resolutions and rank them. It's also a useful metric, but can only be used within DxO ranking system. *But you lose information on how sensors perform at their native resolution. *
> 
> You can use different metrics/rankings for different aspects of camera performance, DxO, Photostophotos, pixel noise at 1:1, whatever, why do you see a problem there?


I don't when the statemet refers to SNR of each pixel/signal (as you do in this post). The argument becomes a bit misleading if this is used as a basis to compare sensor performance (e.g. by plotting them side-by-side) of cameras build for largely different use cases. Higher res is just not universally better (or worse) and Canon's flagship uses the lowest resolution sensor of them all for a reason.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 7, 2020)

mppix said:


> The argument becomes a bit misleading if this is used as a basis to compare sensor performance (e.g. by plotting them side-by-side) of cameras build for largely different use cases.


But there's the same problem with DxO and normalisation. You can compare score for different cameras but the comparison becomes a bit misleading as you're probably not buying a hypothetical low-res but high-ranked camera when you absolutely need a 80Mp one which ranked lower on DxO. Also the absolute value of the 'landscape dynamic range' from DxO becomes useless if you want to print your 80Mp at max size, that dynamic range value wasn't calculated for your conditions.

After normalisation like they do on DxO and Photonstophotos, you deal with just one parameter (measured dynamic range or landscape score) and you can rank cameras/sensors. Their ranking is useful but still has limitations.

When you look at per-pixel performance, you can't easily rank sensors because you have to consider two parameters: noise and resolution. However you can (say in the future) look at per-pixel noise on R5 vs R5s and decide if you want to trade resolution for noise.

So both methods are useful within their scope and when you understand their limitations.


----------



## SteveC (Feb 7, 2020)

Czardoom said:


> FWIW...recently bought an older EF 100-300 lens and took some shots on my R in crop mode. Then took the same shots - same composition, same ISO, same f-stop (wide open at 5.6 on this lens) - using the M5. Yes, I know not the same sensor, but similar generation. Images from the crop camera (and smaller pixels) definitely had more noise at the image (not pixel) level. Your results may differ.



It would be interesting to see what you get when one compares those to the newer sensor in the 90D and M6 mk 2


----------



## Czardoom (Feb 9, 2020)

SteveC said:


> It would be interesting to see what you get when one compares those to the newer sensor in the 90D and M6 mk 2


It looks like - based on photons to photos website - that the new cameras you mention have approximately 1/2 stop improvement in DR compared to the M5. Will be interesting to see if the new R models will have a similar improvement.

My guess is that 1/2 stop will not significantly alter my results. Again, others may have different results. Without a tripod, as I mentioned in a different thread, I also had no noticeable increase in resolution shooting at 1/500th of a second. Some pics with the FF crop were better, some with the more pixels of the M5 were. How still I could hold the camera seemed to be the deciding factor. Again, just my conclusion, but my guess is that many folks shooting very high MPs aren't actually getting much better resolution that if they were shooting with a much lower MP camera if shooting hand held.


----------

