# The Canon EOS ‘R5s’ may be in the hands of testers [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 7, 2020)

> One of the most talked-about future EOS R camera bodies is the RF mount replacement for the EOS 5DS and EOS 5DS R cameras. Which means a lot more megapixels than the 45mp of the Canon EOS R5.
> We’re naming the camera ‘R5s’ for now.
> I have been told that again, a small group of photographers have the high-megapixel body in their hands as it’s going through the first phase of testing as a finished product. This source claims that the new sensor is “around 90mp”, which would be quite the bump in resolution over the EOS R5, and would put the cameras into two completely different segments.
> Beyond the increased megapixels, I was also told that the EVF will be larger and higher resolution than the EOS R5.
> I wasn’t told when we could expect to see this camera announced, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Canon doesn’t yet know either. They are going to have to remedy the production quantity issues for both the...



Continue reading...


----------



## Southstorm (Sep 7, 2020)

Nice!


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Sep 7, 2020)

Please give us 12k video!


----------



## DrToast (Sep 7, 2020)

This is the only thing preventing me from ordering an R5.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 7, 2020)

I mean, 90 mp makes sense. Just over double the R5's resolution, and the 5DS was just over double the 5D's resolution.

I wonder what frame rate they'll pull off with 90 mp. I would bet on the high end maybe around 8-9, 10 would make sense because double the data at half the speed, but the R5 only does 12 bit silent at 20 so with even more data I doubt they'll hit 10 fps.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 7, 2020)

Same EVF as the A7s3 maybe? 9-10MP....would be really nice for landscape I think. Maybe also higher res. for the back display?

But lets hope they will bring finally back the M & S Raw option to the R system...

90MP sounds realistic for me! There were already rumors about this in the last year.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 7, 2020)

Good on one head Canon is trying to trump Sony A7R MK 4 and rumored Z8 from Nikon but 90mp is seriously Hi-res.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 7, 2020)

I'm afraid it will have a severe crop in 8k.


----------



## Billybob (Sep 7, 2020)

Severe GAS. This is definitely not the camera for me. I would be far better served with a second R5. Yet, I find this rumored camera intriguing. I have the Sony a7r3 and a7r4 (I tried to sell the r4, but it came back!) and was quite disappointed by how little difference the rIV's additional resolution makes. Doubling the R5's resolution should matter. Yet, I don't need a high resolution body, but the siren song of greater resolution keeps calling...


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 7, 2020)

I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?


----------



## toodamnice (Sep 7, 2020)

I hope they do get their production issues worked out soon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 7, 2020)

I wonder if it would even try to do 8K video, it sounds like a more stills oriented type of usage. I'd expect it would do 4K.


----------



## melgross (Sep 7, 2020)

I’m concerned at what the s/n and dynamic range would be. When the 5s models came out, both were slightly better than what Canon had, but it really wasn’t that much better. Canon, at the time, was struggling with those specs. Now that the R5 and 6 have finally overcome the deficit, what will this do? It’s fully double the rez. I was interested in the 5s, but because of that and the lack of some other 5D features, waited for the Mk IV, and bought that instead.

I haven’t ordered an R5 yet, because I’m not going anywhere just yet, so I can wait for whatever “fixes” Canon is working on for later this year. Will I wait for this? Probably not, if it isn’t out when I’m ready to buy. If, somehow, this does come out sometime, and by some amazing tech, the s/n and dynamic range aren’t lacking, maybe I’ll get it too. But at what cost?


----------



## _rob (Sep 7, 2020)

I would just like to get my preordered R5 about now. I keep seeing updates and new releases on new cameras but can't even get the current one. BH said 9/16


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 7, 2020)

toodamnice said:


> I hope they do get their production issues worked out soon.


I'm not sure that there are production issues so much as a error on the part of the sales department in predicting the customer demand. The sales people predict customer demand and estimate the number of sales. This info is used to order components, set aside factory space, reserve shipping, its a huge chain of preparations for production and some items are long lead and difficult to speed up deliveries. Its even harder when you are introducing two new models at once. They obviously share some of the tooling and components so do you rob one to provision the other?

With camera sales slowing down, and Canon as well as other manufacturers having to drastically lower prices due to overstocks, they were likely very conservative at provisioning for the new models. The R6 was expected to be the biggest seller, so a lot more of them hit the pipeline.


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 7, 2020)

Sounds like a HarryFilms post!


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Sep 7, 2020)

It does not make sense to me to think this camera will be design for video in mind. It is more about printing big, zooming ability, which was the way I used my former 5dsr


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2020)

As someone who is always fighting for more resolution, I have to admit that 45-50 Mpx is a sweet spot compromise for resolution vs file size and speed of capture and processing.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 7, 2020)

If my math is right, the crop mode on a 90 megapixel camera would still give you 34 megapixels to work with  That would be insane for wildlife. The R5 has already been lifechanging for me in its ability to be both a great full frame 45mp camera and a great 17mp crop sensor, but that would still be more resolution than a friggin' 5D mark IV even when you crop in to 1.6x...


----------



## addola (Sep 7, 2020)

90 MP is huge, so I hope the sensor would do great at base ISO compared to Medium Format cameras. I doubt that type of camera is for low light or high ISO.
I remember there was once a rumor about a 63 MP sensor (35MM63MXSCD) last year, so that's what I thought a high-res RF camera would have!


----------



## festr (Sep 7, 2020)

AlanF said:


> As someone who is always fighting for more resolution, I have to admit that 45-50 Mpx is a sweet spot compromise for resolution vs file size and speed of capture and processing.



how this can be file size compromise as compressed 45Mpix raw is 20MB which is like nothing.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2020)

festr said:


> how this can be file size compromise as compressed 45Mpix raw is 20MB which is like nothing.


The compressed RAW is decompressed back to full size RAW when you process it on your computer. And more data has to be collected by the sensor electronics before it's compressed.


----------



## TAF (Sep 7, 2020)

BurningPlatform said:


> I'm afraid it will have a severe crop in 8k.



No, but it will probably overheat in about 30 seconds, so you have to compose the photo really fast!

Of course, the memory card will be full in 15 seconds, so it doesn't really matter...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Sep 7, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> Same EVF as the A7s3 maybe? 9-10MP....would be really nice for landscape I think. Maybe also higher res. for the back display?
> 
> But lets hope they will bring finally back the M & S Raw option to the R system...
> 
> 90MP sounds realistic for me! There were already rumors about this in the last year.



I don't think it'll get a EVF update. I am expecting if they do push this out that it'll just have a the higher MP sensor. This push to have the higher MP model being up market is a bit weird.

(I am also quite against the R6 having a lower build, It should have just been the 'cheeper' sensor.)


----------



## jvillain (Sep 7, 2020)

This camera would excite me far more than the R5 even though I shoot more video than stills these days. It would be great for product work if it isn't $12,000.


----------



## djack41 (Sep 7, 2020)

Frame rate and noise performance will be interesting.


----------



## bergstrom (Sep 7, 2020)

until the specs match the sony a7s4 for video and iso, then forget it and wait until you have that.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 7, 2020)

Billybob said:


> This is definitely not the camera for me. ...
> Yet, I don't need a high resolution body, but the siren song of greater resolution keeps calling...


Not mine either. But good so the MP freaks could get their puppy, too.

Hopefully everything could get cheaper. Otherwise it's not my party.


----------



## Stanly (Sep 7, 2020)

90mp sounds great, but will there ever be something for hybrid shooters? )= the window for switching to RF is closing for me and I know many others have already gone the a7S III route ... I doubt C70 will have photo capabilities / full frame and Canon is silent on the R5 issues ... gonna wait till October and pull the trigger on whatever works best for me ... really wish there was a capable RF hybrid camera, but otherwise a7S III and upcoming full frame FX6 might also do the job.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


For 90MP you need a monster I-B-I-S !!! 

I don't think anyone can take bird pictures with such a sensor though.


----------



## lglass12189 (Sep 7, 2020)

No Video Please


----------



## lglass12189 (Sep 7, 2020)

Stanly said:


> 90mp sounds great, but will there ever be something for hybrid shooters? )= the window for switching to RF is closing for me and I know many others have already gone the a7S III route ... I doubt C70 will have photo capabilities / full frame and Canon is silent on the R5 issues ... gonna wait till October and pull the trigger on whatever works best for me ... really wish there was a capable RF hybrid camera, but otherwise a7S III and upcoming full frame FX6 might also do the job.


Really??? with its monster 12 MP sensor.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 7, 2020)

90MP is Ok, but I'd like to see sensor shift multi-shot as well. Just under 400 MP 
For anyone concerned about card size/file size/shooting speed/ 'too many' MP/Video performance/ etc. etc. etc. please move on, this is not the camera you were looking for...


----------



## Nick L (Sep 7, 2020)

Like some others have said I want this stills camera, but will be happy if the video does not affect the cost. e.g. make it a stills camera and do not add too much video that affects the cost.

This sensor would mean a high res EVF would make sense, please make it a stills monster!!


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 7, 2020)

I don’t think we are getting this camera any time soon so wouldn’t hold off R5 purchases thinking this is just around the corner IMO. 

The high resolution Rs has been rumoured for so many years now and originally speculated for a before the end of 2019 announcement. Same stories of in testers hands just like the this new rumour.. The Rs rumours (80 Mpix +) went dark this time last year only for hints of what Canon just announced (R5) surfacing instead.

I don’t think we will see a high resolution Rs for at least another 12 months, probably more.


----------



## Stanly (Sep 7, 2020)

lglass12189 said:


> Really??? with its monster 12 MP sensor.


There are different types of professionals with different priorities. What would you choose if you needed a full frame hybrid camera with IBIS that recorded 10bit 4K at least at 60fps?


----------



## Iain L (Sep 7, 2020)

Similar pixel density to the 90D sounds possible, sure. But even the old 5DS required a list of which lenses Canon considered sharp enough to deliver that level of detail, so this could be a messaging issue.

Though the best RF glass seems to be super sharp, so this may not be quite that much of a problem.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 7, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?


use cloud storage and expess bus, SSD etc


----------



## twoheadedboy (Sep 7, 2020)

Billybob said:


> Severe GAS. This is definitely not the camera for me. I would be far better served with a second R5. Yet, I find this rumored camera intriguing. I have the Sony a7r3 and a7r4 (I tried to sell the r4, but it came back!) and was quite disappointed by how little difference the rIV's additional resolution makes. Doubling the R5's resolution should matter. Yet, I don't need a high resolution body, but the siren song of greater resolution keeps calling...



I mean, 45 MP is friggin' "high res" as-is! It's as good as the current 5DSR. I'm with you in that I'd love to shoot this camera and use for certain applications, but realistically the R5 is everything I would ever, aside from things that would be better suited by a different body/format. 90 MP would probably be a studio/tripod-only body for me.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2020)

masterpix said:


> For 90MP you need a monster I-B-I-S !!!
> 
> I don't think anyone can take bird pictures with such a sensor though.


Why is that?


----------



## sanj (Sep 7, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?


The most common reaction when high MP cameras are announced. I totally understand. But somehow eventually many want to get it. Me, personally, think 45 mpx is enough. But times change - computers become more powerful, HDD's continue to become cheaper. And with such high MP, we do not have to shoot bursts....


----------



## Zee44 (Sep 7, 2020)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Please give us 12k video!


I will be happy with 8k with a 2.0 crop. In that way they don't have to worry too much about overheating and pixel binning. You can use it for those times when you need to be up and close with your subjects. Then R5 and R5s wound be a great combo.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 7, 2020)

Stanly said:


> There are different types of professionals with different priorities. What would you choose if you needed a full frame hybrid camera with IBIS that recorded 10bit 4K at least at 60fps?



If 12 is acceptable, then this is CLEARLY not the camera for you, and you're in the position of the guy who wants a Chevy Truck logging onto a Corvette forum and complaining about its cargo capacity.


----------



## zim (Sep 7, 2020)

Stanly said:


> 90mp sounds great, *but will there ever be something for hybrid shooters*? )= the window for switching to RF is closing for me and I know many others have already gone the a7S III route ... I doubt C70 will have photo capabilities / full frame and Canon is silent on the R5 issues ... gonna wait till October and pull the trigger on whatever works best for me ... *really wish there was a capable RF hybrid camera*, but otherwise a7S III and upcoming full frame FX6 might also do the job.


There is, it's just not for your needs, like for my needs 12mp is utter trash


----------



## amorse (Sep 7, 2020)

Honestly, this sounds like the one for me as far as rumours go. Hopefully there's some truth to it! 90mp is certainly overkill for most people, but not all cameras are made for every use case and this certainly sounds like a specialized tool. Looking forward to learning the fine details as they become available.


----------



## DBounce (Sep 7, 2020)

Sounds amazing, but in not feeling like 45MP is too few. I’ll pass.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 7, 2020)

Southstorm said:


> Nice!


Is it ?

I run two 5DSs because after getting the first one I always want two identical cameras. However I'm beginning to think maybe I should have got a 5DIV.

The high mp, ultra high resolution crammed into a FF size sensor can cause problems. Diffraction becomes an issue at some practical apertures on the 5DS, with the resolution / definition falling off a cliff after f/11 on standardish focal lengths. Shoot the 5DS with a good quality lens and a solid tripod in the f/4 - f/5.6 region and the results at full output size are stunningly good, but shoot at f/13 and it's a different story with the full size image looking like you've applied a huge amount of luminous noise reduction. I'm not sure at what aperture a 90mp sensor is going to have the same problem, but if it's into the f/8 region then that really is going to impinge on practically when aiming for the full technical quality the camera is theoretically capable of. For those that think a very high mp camera suffering from severe diffraction is going to be better than a diffraction free 'low' mp one when downsampled, I can assure you it isn't. So TS-E lenses on standby for landscapes with the FF 90mp camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 7, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> 90MP is Ok, but I'd like to see sensor shift multi-shot as well. Just under 400 MP
> For anyone concerned about card size/file size/shooting speed/ 'too many' MP/Video performance/ etc. etc. etc. please move on, this is not the camera you were looking for...


The problem with sensor shift technology is it is always going to have the same potential issues any multi shot solution will have only more so, if alignment isn't perfect at the pixel level you get a sharpness and detail tradeoff. Great for product and still life work, not so good for landscapes and portraits with any movement at all. I'd take stitching over pixel shifting any day.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 7, 2020)

I'll make this simple. This will be the 2nd body to join my R5 when it comes out.
I'm primarily a stills shooter.
90MP? - Bring it on!
Sharper & bigger EVF? - Bring it on!
I'm guessing 1st shipment to buyers in Q2 of 2021, at $4,499.

Summer Olympics, 2021? - Bring it on!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 7, 2020)

I would have been happy with the R5 with a 35MP (or so) sensor. As such this is not just "too much" but it's also got a viable alternative that is less "too much": the R5. So no reason _for me_ to get this.

But this is great news for those who need/want a megapixel beast! I'm still guessing it will be a pixel density consistent with the M 6II and 90 D, which would be (if I recall correctly) 83MP.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The problem with sensor shift technology is it is always going to have the same potential issues any multi shot solution will have only more so, if alignment isn't perfect at the pixel level you get a sharpness and detail tradeoff. Great for product and still life work, not so good for landscapes and portraits with any movement at all. I'd take stitching over pixel shifting any day.


The biggest problem I see with the current implementation of pixel shift for product and still life is basically all (maybe not Olympus) only allow pixel shifting under ambient lighting and not flash rendering it very limiting for evem those subjects.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 7, 2020)

Gazwas said:


> The biggest problem I see with the current implementation of pixel shift for product and still life is basically all (maybe not Olympus) only allow pixel shifting under ambient lighting and not flash rendering it very limiting for evem those subjects.



Yowza, as I was reading this I never considered flash...would you need four pulses of flash to do this right?


----------



## sobrien (Sep 7, 2020)

There’s your 7D Mark ii replacement, folks.


----------



## Stanly (Sep 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> If 12 is acceptable, then this is CLEARLY not the camera for you, and you're in the position of the guy who wants a Chevy Truck logging onto a Corvette forum and complaining about its cargo capacity.


Taken out of context – I was saying that many of my hybrid-shooting colleagues chose the 12MP compromise over completely non-functioning camera in most cases. I did not complain about this upcoming camera, just wondering if Canon is planning to also deliver on their promise for hybrid shooters.



zim said:


> There is, it's just not for your needs, like for my needs 12mp is utter trash


There is an RF camera that shoots full frame with IBIS and does 10bit 4K?


----------



## tpatana (Sep 7, 2020)

TAF said:


> No, but it will probably overheat in about 30 seconds, so you have to compose the photo really fast!
> 
> Of course, the memory card will be full in 15 seconds, so it doesn't really matter...



Reminds me of the Top Gear review on Veyron top speed. He was driving at ~400km/h and said to camera "At this speed, the tires only last 15 minutes. But it doesn't matter, the fuel tank lasts only 12 minutes"


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I would have been happy with the R5 with a 35MP (or so) sensor. As such this is not just "too much" but it's also got a viable alternative that is less "too much": the R5. So no reason _for me_ to get this.
> 
> But this is great news for those who need/want a megapixel beast! I'm still guessing it will be a pixel density consistent with the M 6II and 90 D, which would be (if I recall correctly) 83MP.


I'd be fascinated to see a comparison of the M6II with the 32mm shot at f/5.6 and f/11 ! Give an idea of how the 90mp FF camera would handle smaller apertures !


----------



## SteveC (Sep 7, 2020)

tpatana said:


> Reminds me of the Top Gear review on Veyron top speed. He was driving at ~400km/h and said to camera "At this speed, the tires only last 15 minutes. But it doesn't matter, the fuel tank lasts only 12 minutes"



Hence pit crews doing the fastest tire changes you've ever seen.

I was helping a show set up one time and realized I had left the exhibitor packets at home. I got into my car, had to put air in the tire once, then when it went flat again did a tire change in about three minutes WITHOUT power tools. I made it back to the show, drenched in sweat. They had only had to wait about 35 minutes.


----------



## tigers media (Sep 7, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


im guessing if i have to ask the price i can't afford it but would 10 grand usd be out of the realms ?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 7, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I'd be fascinated to see a comparison of the M6II with the 32mm shot at f/5.6 and f/11 ! Give an idea of how the 90mp FF camera would handle smaller apertures !



In principle two pictures taken from the same location with the same focal length, aperture, shutter and ISO should look identical--once you crop the FF one. Any difference seen consistently would have to be better/worse sensor.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 7, 2020)

tigers media said:


> im guessing if i have to ask the price i can't afford it but would 10 grand usd be out of the realms ?



I doubt that--it would then be more expensive than the 1 series, which is supposed to be the "king" or flagship. (The 1 series is actually worse for _my purposes_ than the R5...I'm always happy to find myself preferring the less expensive item for reasons other than the price!)


----------



## Bdbtoys (Sep 7, 2020)

tigers media said:


> im guessing if i have to ask the price i can't afford it but would 10 grand usd be out of the realms ?



If you compare the 5DS to 5D it's about a 1k difference. At the price of the R5.. it's a shame that the S version might come out so soon w/o notice (for those that would have been interested in that vs the 5).


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ...Canon as well as other manufacturers having to drastically lower prices due to overstocks...


Wait! What! When did they drastically lower prices due to overstocks????


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> If my math is right, the crop mode on a 90 megapixel camera would still give you 34 megapixels to work with  That would be insane for wildlife. The R5 has already been lifechanging for me in its ability to be both a great full frame 45mp camera and a great 17mp crop sensor, but that would still be more resolution than a friggin' 5D mark IV even when you crop in to 1.6x...


A 34 mp crop with 10 fps would be a far better option for birding than an R7 in my opinion (Contingent on the autofocus speed and accuracy of course) and with the R series you can set the body to crop to 1.6, so there should be no need to worry about all that extra data slowing things up.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 7, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The problem with sensor shift technology is it is always going to have the same potential issues any multi shot solution will have only more so, if alignment isn't perfect at the pixel level you get a sharpness and detail tradeoff. Great for product and still life work, not so good for landscapes and portraits with any movement at all. I'd take stitching over pixel shifting any day.


I'm basing my desire on quite a bit of testing with the S1R. The S1R worked very well with the TS-E50. Sure, I'll take stitching for some applications and multishot for others. Hey, and perhaps just the odd single 90MP shot ;-)
For 'detail tradeoff' I'll accept ~200MP in place of the ~400
It is great for some uses - very much not so for others
Once again a feature of relatively limited use to many photographers, but I can see Canon marketing having fun with a 400MP option ;-)
That and people will whinge, but where would a cutting edge Canon camera be without that ;-)


----------



## unfocused (Sep 7, 2020)

masterpix said:


> ...I don't think anyone can take bird pictures with such a sensor though.


?????????


----------



## AlanF (Sep 7, 2020)

unfocused said:


> ?????????


I've asked the same question. I for one could certainly take bird photos with a 90 mpx sensor. I do that in effect already when I use my 90D.


----------



## xps (Sep 7, 2020)

Would be great for birding. If the AF is as good, or even better than the R5´s, then 7 fps would be great.
I expect 7fps, because data transfer technology moved on. And I heared one expert (other brand) talking about an bigger cache or built in RAM to store pictures ans send them to the card afterwards. Maybe Canon will do something similar.
The R5S will be - IMO - a lot more pricy than the R5 is. 5500-6500 Euros to expect. Just think of the fanboys with GAS? (Like me, if I can still hold an camera  )

BTW the pixel-shift mode is fine. I used it with the 5D4 with indoorshots of church domes and buildings. My oldest great-grandson won an photographic school-competition and his pixel-shift-shot was printed on an about 10m long tarp. and it looks great, as there you can see so many details.


----------



## RobbieHat (Sep 7, 2020)

I will add this to my R5 in a heartbeat. I only hope the low light handling and DR are similar to the R5. This will be a landscape/Astro beast if so.


----------



## Gazwas (Sep 7, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Yowza, as I was reading this I never considered flash...would you need four pulses of flash to do this right?


Yep, 4, 8 or 16 per shot depending on the method used with a few seconds delay between each shot for recharge. Pixel shift should work with flash to be truly useful. I’m not holding my breath it ever working with flash even if Canon did decide to add it via firmware as the current R5’s focus bracketing doesn’t allow flash either.


----------



## syder (Sep 7, 2020)

Stanly said:


> There is an RF camera that shoots full frame with IBIS and does 10bit 4K?



No. There are two, the R5 & R6 both do that.

The A7S3 barely qualifies as a hybrid. Its a video camera without some core video features (XLRs, NDs etc.). Its 12mp stills option gives you just over half the resolution of a 5d mark ii from 2008. Fine if the extent of your photography is Instagram I guess.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 7, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?


I think my first HDD was 40 *MB, *so, eventually, a lot further. We're just gettin' started!


----------



## SteveC (Sep 8, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I think my first HDD was 40 *MB, *so, eventually, a lot further. We're just gettin' started!



I like you started with 40 MB hard drive, MFM (not RLL which was more expensive)

I remember buying a 1 GB SD and realizing that that was 25 of those drives.


----------



## wyotex43n (Sep 8, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'm not sure that there are production issues so much as a error on the part of the sales department in predicting the customer demand. The sales people predict customer demand and estimate the number of sales. This info is used to order components, set aside factory space, reserve shipping, its a huge chain of preparations for production and some items are long lead and difficult to speed up deliveries. Its even harder when you are introducing two new models at once. They obviously share some of the tooling and components so do you rob one to provision the other?
> 
> With camera sales slowing down, and Canon as well as other manufacturers having to drastically lower prices due to overstocks, they were likely very conservative at provisioning for the new models. The R6 was expected to be the biggest seller, so a lot more of them hit the pipeline.


I just wish they would ship some ef-rf adapters. I have been waiting 5 weeks. Silly me I ordered the adapter the same days as the camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

I don't understand all the angst over file size, these high MP cameras are not supposed to be generalist cameras but specialized for those situations where the MP are of primary concern. Captures for big prints, archival purposes etc etc. I have many images that are over 1GB a piece, indeed I have many that are over the ,psd file size and was very happy when LR started recognizing .psb files.


----------



## BradL (Sep 8, 2020)

_rob said:


> I would just like to get my preordered R5 about now. I keep seeing updates and new releases on new cameras but can't even get the current one. BH said 9/16


Ordered my R5, July 13th. End ofJuly, B&H said mid August, then mid August they told me first week of September, then September 3rd they said more like the end of September, now they're saying they don''t even have a next shipment date. No wonder they want us talking about a new camera so we can forget about this R5!


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't understand all the angst over file size, these high MP cameras are not supposed to be generalist cameras but specialized for those situations where the MP are of primary concern. Captures for big prints, archival purposes etc etc. I have many images that are over 1GB a piece, indeed I have many that are over the ,psd file size and was very happy when LR started recognizing .psb files.



R6 too few. R5 and R5s too many. Goldilocks eventually got chased out of the bears' house.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 8, 2020)

BradL said:


> Ordered my R5, July 13th. End ofJuly, B&H said mid August, then mid August they told me first week of September, then September 3rd they said more like the end of September, now they're saying they don''t even have a next shipment date. No wonder they want us talking about a new camera so we can forget about this R5!



I ordered mine Friday morning, and I'm expecting it to ship any day now. Not based on an official estimate, mind you, just mindless optimism.

(Full disclosure: I ordered the R6, but a few days later changed my mind. Who wants just 20 MP?  )


----------



## MrToes (Sep 8, 2020)

THIS MAKES ME VERY HAPPY IF IT IS TRUE ! ! ! !

I'll FINALLY MAKE THE SWITCH OVER TO RF IF THEY COME OUT WITH THIS . . . . . . . .


----------



## bellorusso (Sep 8, 2020)

Knowing Canon this will be released never or when Sony will have three 120 Mp cameras.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 8, 2020)

xps said:


> BTW the pixel-shift mode is fine. I used it with the 5D4


??
Do you mean the Dual-Pixel RAW?


----------



## RoscoeVanDamme (Sep 8, 2020)

Exciting news to be sure. Not exactly in my wheelhouse but the new tech is always exciting.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 8, 2020)

I'm really torn about so many pixels. Would we be better served with 16-bit color and incredible DR? I wish I knew. Are giant numbers of pixels really better or is it just hype and bragging rights? Magazine covers are shot with 20MP. So why 90?


----------



## yestostills (Sep 8, 2020)

I hope Canon keeps us commercial studio stills types in mind and turns out a photocentric stills camera. Hassle free, no video, that's what the R5 is for. I'll pick up a couple.


----------



## slclick (Sep 8, 2020)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Please give us 12k video!


Oh, is it going to have video?


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Sep 8, 2020)

If it could do 6fps and have a decent 30+ shot buffer, and also offer a APS-C crop mode ~ 35MP at 12fps and doesn’t have a lot of the useless video guff of the R5 then I’m tempted.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 8, 2020)

yestostills said:


> I hope Canon keeps us commercial studio stills types in mind and turns out a photocentric stills camera. Hassle free, no video, that's what the R5 is for. I'll pick up a couple.


How do video features on the R5 negatively affect stills shooting?


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

bellorusso said:


> Knowing Canon this will be released never or when Sony will have three 120 Mp cameras.


What an ignorant comment, how long was the 5DS/r the highest resolution FF camera?


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> What an ignorant comment, how long was the 5DS/r the highest resolution FF camera?


Clearly bellorusso is a troll.. do not feed but for accuracy, Canon had 2 full frame cameras with the highest native resolution for >4 years before Sony. Ignoring pixel shift modes of course.
5DS/R had 20% more pixels than A7Riii and A7Riv has 20% more than 5DS/R
5DS/R announced on 6-Feb-2015 with availability around June-2015
A7Riv announced 16-July-2019 with availability around September-2019


----------



## canonnews (Sep 8, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


As i said on twitter.. just STFU and take muh money! 

oh .. and hurry up on those F4's I want to go to Peru with this baby.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 8, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> If my math is right, the crop mode on a 90 megapixel camera would still give you 34 megapixels to work with  That would be insane for wildlife. The R5 has already been lifechanging for me in its ability to be both a great full frame 45mp camera and a great 17mp crop sensor, but that would still be more resolution than a friggin' 5D mark IV even when you crop in to 1.6x...


the scary thing is that could technically still shoot up to 10 fps in full 90MP (reduced bit depth).


----------



## canonnews (Sep 8, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> I'm really torn about so many pixels. Would we be better served with 16-bit color and incredible DR? I wish I knew. Are giant numbers of pixels really better or is it just hype and bragging rights? Magazine covers are shot with 20MP. So why 90?


you forget the amount of data you have to oversample with.
so you get that color accuracy back via oversampling those 90MP's down to something more reasonable or print,etc,etc.

there's just alot of good you can do when you have more data.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 8, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> ...The high mp, ultra high resolution crammed into a FF size sensor can cause problems. Diffraction becomes an issue at some practical apertures on the 5DS, with the resolution / definition falling off a cliff after f/11 on standardish focal lengths. Shoot the 5DS with a good quality lens and a solid tripod in the f/4 - f/5.6 region and the results at full output size are stunningly good, but shoot at f/13 and it's a different story with the full size image looking like you've applied a huge amount of luminous noise reduction. I'm not sure at what aperture a 90mp sensor is going to have the same problem, but if it's into the f/8 region then that really is going to impinge on practically when aiming for the full technical quality the camera is theoretically capable of. For those that think a very high mp camera suffering from severe diffraction is going to be better than a diffraction free 'low' mp one when downsampled, I can assure you it isn't. So TS-E lenses on standby for landscapes with the FF 90mp camera.



Focus stacking.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 8, 2020)

canonnews said:


> the scary thing is that could technically still shoot up to 10 fps in full 90MP (reduced bit depth).



Now that would be *insane.* I would love a camera like that some day, but at the moment even the R5 has been giving me so many gigabytes of photos that I think I'm good for a while with 45 megapixels. 

What I'd also love to see Canon do is also allow higher FPS with the crop-sensor mode, it would be sweet if a 90mp camera could do 20+ FPS when in a 34mp crop mode. I know Canon hasn't done something like that yet though, and I don't blame them if their goal is to not muddy the waters about which specs are available when.


----------



## Adelino (Sep 8, 2020)

tigers media said:


> im guessing if i have to ask the price i can't afford it but would 10 grand usd be out of the realms ?


Yes.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 8, 2020)

This is a simple geometric issue, the more pixels you have on a sensor, the smaller the angle each pixels covers, therefore, when an object moves while you take a picture, the more pixles you have on the sensor, the more pixles will be effected by the same move. For example, if your object moves in one degree per second, and you have 10 pixels per degree, you will get a "still" image if you take the image in less than 1/10 of a second, if you have 100, then you needd to be faster than 1/100 of a second. if you have 1000 and so on. So when a bird fly or move (as they uauly do) the more pixels you have, the shorter the time needed to get a "still" of them is needed (remember that you take those pictures hand held, so you also needs to account for your own movement at the same time). While birds tend to move much fater, than eventually, you won't be able to have a "still" image of them flying cause once you have so many pixels, the spees you will need to capture them will be beyond 1/8000 of a second.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> This is a simple geometric issue, the more pixels you have on a sensor, the smaller the angle each pixels covers, therefore, when an object moves while you take a picture, the more pixles you have on the sensor, the more pixles will be effected by the same move. For example, if your object moves in one degree per second, and you have 10 pixels per degree, you will get a "still" image if you take the image in less than 1/10 of a second, if you have 100, then you needd to be faster than 1/100 of a second. if you have 1000 and so on. So when a bird fly or move (as they uauly do) the more pixels you have, the shorter the time needed to get a "still" of them is needed (remember that you take those pictures hand held, so you also needs to account for your own movement at the same time). While birds tend to move much fater, than eventually, you won't be able to have a "still" image of them flying cause once you have so many pixels, the spees you will need to capture them will be beyond 1/8000 of a second.


right, but the angle of the pixels is no different in this case to a 90D or a M6 Mark II. and it's perfectly fine on the m6 Mark II and that's without IBIS. This is, IMO, a pretty overrated problem.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 8, 2020)

This is a simple geometric issue, the more pixels you have on a sensor, the smaller the angle each pixels covers, therefore, when an object moves while you take a picture, the more pixles you have on the sensor, the more pixles will be effected by the same move. For example, if your object moves in one degree per second, and you have 10 pixels per degree, you will get a "still" image if you take the image in less than 1/10 of a second, if you have 100, then you needd to be faster than 1/100 of a second. if you have 1000 and so on. So when a bird fly or move (as they uauly do) the more pixels you have, the shorter the time needed to get a "still" of them is needed (remember that you take those pictures hand held, so you also needs to account for your own movement at the same time). While birds tend to move much fater, than eventually, you won't be able to have a "still" image of them flying cause once you have so many pixels, the spees you will need to capture them will be beyond 1/8000 of a second. Same goes to IBIS, the more pixels you have, the shaling of the hand becomes more noticed, for the same reason.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 8, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Is it ?
> 
> I run two 5DSs because after getting the first one I always want two identical cameras. However I'm beginning to think maybe I should have got a 5DIV.
> 
> The high mp, ultra high resolution crammed into a FF size sensor can cause problems.



you're raising problems that don't really exist.

you can test this with MTF calculations if you want a high MP camera will still capture a truer image than a low MP camera, every, single, time. It will also resolve more with every single lens you own.

diffraction ONLY appears based upon your level of magnification and observer distance. It's an over-exaggerated problem because people look at monitors at 100%. That's not really .. well, real-life presentation of an image.

If you shoot an image at F/16 on a 30MP camera and then F/16 on a 90MP camera, the airy disc of diffraction will be far less pixelated and less digital at 90MP than at 30MP. You also get to oversample your color data as well, as you print or display on 8K monitor, etc.


----------



## degos (Sep 8, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> Magazine covers are shot with 20MP. So why 90?



Magazine covers are dimensionally small and their absolute numbers are declining, so I don't think they're a good measure of what resolution is appropriate. 

When you think in 2D, a 90MP image is just over twice the size of a 20MP image in width and height which would give fabulous croppability.


----------



## _rob (Sep 8, 2020)

BradL said:


> Ordered my R5, July 13th. End ofJuly, B&H said mid August, then mid August they told me first week of September, then September 3rd they said more like the end of September, now they're saying they don''t even have a next shipment date. No wonder they want us talking about a new camera so we can forget about this R5!


I ordered mine on July 9th at 6:02am PST which is an hour and two minutes after preorders started. I never had much info but it was pushed back from first week of September to September 16.


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> If my math is right, the crop mode on a 90 megapixel camera would still give you 34 megapixels to work with  That would be insane for wildlife. The R5 has already been lifechanging for me in its ability to be both a great full frame 45mp camera and a great 17mp crop sensor, but that would still be more resolution than a friggin' 5D mark IV even when you crop in to 1.6x...


Canon could use a downsized version of this in the rumoured R7 aps-c camera to give 34mp with high frame rates and priced similar to the R6 or hopefully a bit cheaper , this would be my dream replacement for my 7D mark ii


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2020)

sobrien said:


> There’s your 7D Mark ii replacement, folks.


I’d rather have an aps-c version with 34mp and hopefully slightly cheaper than the R6 but similar specs


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2020)

unfocused said:


> A 34 mp crop with 10 fps would be a far better option for birding than an R7 in my opinion (Contingent on the autofocus speed and accuracy of course) and with the R series you can set the body to crop to 1.6, so there should be no need to worry about all that extra data slowing things up.


I disagree especially as this will be priced higher the R5 
An R7 with a 34mp sensor and similar specs to the R6 would be a perfect replacement for the 7D ii and hopefully priced about USD 2000


----------



## canonnews (Sep 8, 2020)

Chig said:


> Canon could use a downsized version of this in the rumoured R7 aps-c camera to give 34mp with high frame rates and priced similar to the R6 or hopefully a bit cheaper , this would be my dream replacement for my 7D mark ii


actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.

say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.

That is oh I don't know.. probably a 15K lens if Canon ever made it. You essentially have a built in .6x focal reducer every time you slap a lens on a camera. Even better at times for framing as well, because you can switch in between 1x and 1.6x

You may be changed 2K more for a camera body, but you gain far more versatility when it comes to lenses.

Say canon makes / re-makes the 200-400F4L for the RF mount. That becomes a 200mm to 560mm F4L. Pretty freaking nice. You basically turn a 2x 10K lens into a 3x 20K lens for 2K more and still have the premier optical quality of the 2x lens.

While reach is nice, don't forget the versatility that you lose with it as well.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 8, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?



Seems we have been here so many times before. 5DS/R was "far too much", "impossible to hand hold", "bad high iso" (all points proven false). R5 almost the same MPIX as the 5DS/R and suddenly no one complains - in stead they praise the extra resolution and detail and clean images. Now 80-90 MPIX is suddenly "too much". How many here are still shooting 4 MPIX?


----------



## Chig (Sep 8, 2020)

canonnews said:


> actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.
> 
> say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.
> 
> ...


Well the other approach is to use a RF-ef speed booster on a R7 aps-c camera to give you wide angle FF capacity as well as reach when using EF lenses
I’m not convinced that Canon’s ridiculously overpriced RF lenses offer much improvement over their EF versions : eg the RF100-500 is just under twice the price of the EF100-400 mark ii and only very modest gains in performance So personally I just want a crop sensor version of the R5 to use with an EF100-400 lens plus 1,4x and 2x extenders for my Birds in Flight obsession 
I couldn’t care less about wide angle performance or video


----------



## Fischer (Sep 8, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Is it ?
> 
> I run two 5DSs because after getting the first one I always want two identical cameras. However I'm beginning to think maybe I should have got a 5DIV.
> 
> The high mp, ultra high resolution crammed into a FF size sensor can cause problems. Diffraction becomes an issue at some practical apertures on the 5DS, with the resolution / definition falling off a cliff after f/11 on standardish focal lengths. Shoot the 5DS with a good quality lens and a solid tripod in the f/4 - f/5.6 region and the results at full output size are stunningly good, but shoot at f/13 and it's a different story with the full size image looking like you've applied a huge amount of luminous noise reduction. I'm not sure at what aperture a 90mp sensor is going to have the same problem, but if it's into the f/8 region then that really is going to impinge on practically when aiming for the full technical quality the camera is theoretically capable of. For those that think a very high mp camera suffering from severe diffraction is going to be better than a diffraction free 'low' mp one when downsampled, I can assure you it isn't. So TS-E lenses on standby for landscapes with the FF 90mp camera.



A rare, valid concern for high-megapix shooting.

My own take on this is that there may be an ultimate purely optical trade-off where we need to shoot a wider focal range lens to get ultrasharp DOF in certain situations. Maybe focus stacking will be the way to solve this (when applicable). However, on a day-to-day basis on lower F-stops we will enjoy the full advantage of all those MPIX. I for one can hardly wait for a high MPIX R. I have not shot the R5 but use the R along side the 5DS/R - but based on the many reviews it seems the R5 has taken care of many of the downsides of the R while improving further on the advantages of mirrorless shooting and introducing key features such as IBIS. Good times with great choices ahead.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I doubt that--it would then be more expensive than the 1 series, which is supposed to be the "king" or flagship. (The 1 series is actually worse for _my purposes_ than the R5...I'm always happy to find myself preferring the less expensive item for reasons other than the price!)


2-400 USD more than the R5 - just like the 5DS/R was a little more expensive than the 5DIV.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> This is a simple geometric issue, the more pixels you have on a sensor, the smaller the angle each pixels covers, therefore, when an object moves while you take a picture, the more pixles you have on the sensor, the more pixles will be effected by the same move. For example, if your object moves in one degree per second, and you have 10 pixels per degree, you will get a "still" image if you take the image in less than 1/10 of a second, if you have 100, then you needd to be faster than 1/100 of a second. if you have 1000 and so on. So when a bird fly or move (as they uauly do) the more pixels you have, the shorter the time needed to get a "still" of them is needed (remember that you take those pictures hand held, so you also needs to account for your own movement at the same time). While birds tend to move much fater, than eventually, you won't be able to have a "still" image of them flying cause once you have so many pixels, the spees you will need to capture them will be beyond 1/8000 of a second.


The geometrical constraints described will not give you a worse image from a high resolution sensor than from a lower resolution when they are both output to the same size. What it does mean is that you may not get the full or even any advantage of the higher density sensor if the conditions are not right. If the conditions are right - good lighting, high shutter speed for a moving subject or good tripod for a static at low speeds, and a good wide lens, the higher resolution sensor will give better images that can be used at larger output size or greater cropping. Whether it will be of any advantage to you personally, that is another matter.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 8, 2020)

degos said:


> Magazine covers are dimensionally small and their absolute numbers are declining, so I don't think they're a good measure of what resolution is appropriate.
> 
> When you think in 2D, a 90MP image is just over twice the size of a 20MP image in width and height which would give fabulous croppability.


If you look at older photo-sharing sites where the majority of pictures are in the 4-8 MPIX range you will jump at the chance to get a 90 MPIX camera before its too late.


----------



## Joules (Sep 8, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> What I'd also love to see Canon do is also allow higher FPS with the crop-sensor mode, it would be sweet if a 90mp camera could do 20+ FPS when in a 34mp crop mode. I know Canon hasn't done something like that yet though, and I don't blame them if their goal is to not muddy the waters about which specs are available when.


Somebody probably has already told that to you, but:

The M6 II does 14 FPS 32 MP mechanical and has a 30 FPS 18 MP electronic crop mode (which even saves pictures from before you press the release). So they have absolutely done this already and honestly I am surprised we didn't get that on the R5. The next M body will certainly have it as well if it is the rumored higher end one.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 8, 2020)

Good to see so many of the 2003 arguments about the 11MP of the 1Ds repurposed for 2020... ;-)


_Have we had 'outresolving lenses' mentioned yet?_


----------



## Joules (Sep 8, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Good to see so many of the 2003 arguments about the 11MP of the 1Ds repurposed for 2020... ;-)
> 
> 
> _Have we had 'outresolving lenses' mentioned yet?_


Don't think so.

To spice it up with something new, we also didn't get overheating yet  90 MP high FPS will give those blistering CFexpress cards a nice work out.


----------



## Todd (Sep 8, 2020)

Everyone is talking about the specs of the camera bodies, but Canon has done a superb job improving their lens lineup with so many high quality RF lenses. I wonder how many MP the new lenses can resolve?


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Sep 8, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?


Get an R6 then. Different cameras for different needs.


----------



## Hector1970 (Sep 8, 2020)

Hopefully it’s buffer will be able to cope with the file size. My 5DSR is very slow. If you take a number of shots together you have to wait a few seconds to see them on the screen. This can be frustrating at times. I just hope if they produce such a high mp camera that it can cope. It just needs a reasonable FPS that it can easily cope with. Crop mode that can be visualised through the eyepiece would be useful to check focusing.They should just leave the video at 4K.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 8, 2020)

I like options.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 8, 2020)

So, just thinking about this a bit more, when the 5Ds/sR came out, the ISO was limited. I've always thought that it was limited as Canon's file size increases with increasing ISO. Using the R5 as the basis here at ISO 100, the 45 MP RAW files are 51.6 MP (using TDP review as reference), ISO 12,800 the file size is 66.4 MP, and ISO 102,400 the file size is 79 MP. 

I suspect that FPS decreases with increasing ISO, but I have not seen that confirmed. But, assuming that the R5 can do 20 fps at ISO 12,800, then the throughput it can handle is 1,328 MB/sec. Playing with the math, if the 90 MB (I still suspect this is the 82.5 MP scaled up from the 90D/M6 II) file size is ~1.5x the resolution size in MP, that would be 135 MB per image at ISO 12,800. Divide 1,328/135 and we are looking at just under 10 fps. 

If this had 10 fps with mechanical shutter and say the ability to go faster in crop mode maybe CRAW, limit it to ISO 12,800, and that is a heckuva camera. For those concerned about file size (which includes me, to an extent) CRAW is impressive.

I would have to do some mental gymnastics as to why I (personally) would need this many MP as I am very happy with the 30 MP on my 5DIV. But, still...I like options.


----------



## analoggrotto (Sep 8, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> _Have we had 'outresolving lenses' mentioned yet?_



That one is a classic tho!


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 8, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> I can’t deal with more megapixels. Memory cards already cost a fortune. My computer is bogged down with large files. How far can this go?



Then don't buy one! And don't waste your time complaining about something you don't need but others do.


----------



## Eclipsed (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> This is a simple geometric issue, the more pixels you have on a sensor, the smaller the angle each pixels covers, therefore, when an object moves while you take a picture, the more pixles you have on the sensor, the more pixles will be effected by the same move. For example, if your object moves in one degree per second, and you have 10 pixels per degree, you will get a "still" image if you take the image in less than 1/10 of a second, if you have 100, then you needd to be faster than 1/100 of a second. if you have 1000 and so on. So when a bird fly or move (as they uauly do) the more pixels you have, the shorter the time needed to get a "still" of them is needed (remember that you take those pictures hand held, so you also needs to account for your own movement at the same time). While birds tend to move much fater, than eventually, you won't be able to have a "still" image of them flying cause once you have so many pixels, the spees you will need to capture them will be beyond 1/8000 of a second. Same goes to IBIS, the more pixels you have, the shaling of the hand becomes more noticed, for the same reason.


Is that the long way to say that higher resolution is more sensitive to motion blur?


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 8, 2020)

canonnews said:


> actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.
> 
> say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.
> 
> ...


And if Canon added 1.3X crop to the R5, it would be even more versatile.


----------



## Bob Howland (Sep 8, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> Who wants just 20 MP?  )


Apparently a lot of professional news photographers, although I suspect that the reason has less to do with resolution and more to do with getting the image to the customer rapidly.


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 8, 2020)

Bob Howland said:


> Apparently a lot of professional news photographers, although I suspect that the reason has less to do with resolution and more to do with getting the image to the customer rapidly.


I do hope you know I was being facetious. The day my current R gives up the dust, I'll be right on the R6 as a second shooter for events and our kids' sports, etc.

But I have to have some crazy rationale for my G.A.S. 

And, seriously, I just see the R5 as more of a jack-of-all-trades. Plus, I have already spent on a few Rf lenses, so I'd like to get the most out of them. And, with the ability to crop more on the R5, I can maybe get back into birding a bit, plus have more post-processing options when cropping.


----------



## Aaron Lozano (Sep 8, 2020)

-RS owner taking a portrait
-Zooms in 300%
-Ohhhh Hello Mr Covid
-Wut!! the humans came up with a 1 second test!
-Change the model! Please go home and drink plenty of fluids and VitD.

My 5DIII is looking soooooo sooo ready to become backup.


----------



## pmjm (Sep 8, 2020)

FINALLY! For years I've been waiting for the camera that will let me crop into the spinach stuck between my model's teeth and blow that up into a billboard. THANK YOU CANON!


----------



## zim (Sep 8, 2020)

Stanly said:


> Taken out of context – I was saying that many of my hybrid-shooting colleagues chose the 12MP compromise over completely non-functioning camera in most cases. I did not complain about this upcoming camera, just wondering if Canon is planning to also deliver on their promise for hybrid shooters.
> 
> 
> There is an RF camera that shoots full frame with IBIS and does 10bit 4K?


So the definition of a hybrid camera is that it does 10bit 4 k? 
Maybe yours but not mine and that's the point about sweeping statements.


----------



## Busted Knuckles (Sep 8, 2020)

IBIS but at a completely different level of precision? Diffraction becomes an issue - perhaps software like they have in the cool NCIS shows . 

IBIS might be applied ON the tripod vs. mirror lock up, remote shutter release, etc, etc. 

RE: low light - different NR approach,


----------



## Fischer (Sep 8, 2020)

docsmith said:


> So, just thinking about this a bit more, when the 5Ds/sR came out, the ISO was limited. I've always thought that it was limited as Canon's file size increases with increasing ISO. Using the R5 as the basis here at ISO 100, the 45 MP RAW files are 51.6 MP (using TDP review as reference), ISO 12,800 the file size is 66.4 MP, and ISO 102,400 the file size is 79 MP.
> 
> I suspect that FPS decreases with increasing ISO, but I have not seen that confirmed. But, assuming that the R5 can do 20 fps at ISO 12,800, then the throughput it can handle is 1,328 MB/sec. Playing with the math, if the 90 MB (I still suspect this is the 82.5 MP scaled up from the 90D/M6 II) file size is ~1.5x the resolution size in MP, that would be 135 MB per image at ISO 12,800. Divide 1,328/135 and we are looking at just under 10 fps.
> 
> ...


The in-camera iso settings were limited. Big mistake by Canon imho as it proved to produce as good iso >640 as the 5DIV (even with a pinch better detail). Higher iso adjustments could achieved just by underexposing with no adverse results (except what comes from using a higher iso setting).


----------



## Fischer (Sep 8, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Is that the long way to say that higher resolution is more sensitive to motion blur?


No. Its a long way to say that enlarged to 100% during your editing you may detect more blur in the shot than in a smaller file viewed at 100% during your edit, but that your final result - whether for print or screen viewing - will show _*exactly *_the same amount of blur regardless if you shoot 1 MPIX or 10.000 MPIX. So nothing to consider or worry about except to be happy that the higher MPIX the more detail and the sharper pictures you will have if you avoid motion blur. What's important is that you will never have more blur in your pictures - only possibly less.


----------



## AaronT (Sep 8, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> I'm really torn about so many pixels. Would we be better served with 16-bit color and incredible DR? I wish I knew. Are giant numbers of pixels really better or is it just hype and bragging rights? Magazine covers are shot with 20MP. So why 90?


Canon makes 24, 36, 44 and 60 inch large format printers. Any photographer who owns one of these would like 90 MP. The photo below I have printed at 24 x72 inches @ 300dpi. It is stitched together from 19 photos from a 5DsR (50 MP). With 90 MP I could probably do it with half the number of photos. While taking the photos clouds move, people and cars move. Below I also have two 100% crops of the full photo. The less photos I have to take the less time I spend on the computer afterwards fixing things.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 8, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Diffraction becomes an issue at some practical apertures on the 5DS, with the resolution / definition falling off a cliff after f/11 on standardish focal lengths.



How can effective resolution 'fall off a cliff' when diffraction is proportional to the other factors? Surely it's gradual.


----------



## AaronT (Sep 8, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Good to see so many of the 2003 arguments about the 11MP of the 1Ds repurposed for 2020... ;-)
> 
> 
> _Have we had 'outresolving lenses' mentioned yet?_


If they owned and used a large format printer we wouldn't hear them complain.  BTW, I really like your website, printer reviews and all. I have been going there for Many years for info. Also for Canon rumours.


----------



## AaronT (Sep 8, 2020)

Aaron Lozano said:


> -RS owner taking a portrait
> -Zooms in 300%
> -Ohhhh Hello Mr Covid
> -Wut!! the humans came up with a 1 second test!
> ...


My 5DII is my backup to my 5DsR which I got about 3 years ago. It served me well.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 8, 2020)

AaronT said:


> If they owned and used a large format printer we wouldn't hear them complain.  BTW, I really like your website, printer reviews and all. I have been going there for Many years for info. Also for Canon rumours.


Thanks - I get an R5 to test this week - mainly looking at using TS-E lenses (and to compare with my 5Ds)


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 8, 2020)

scyrene said:


> How can effective resolution 'fall off a cliff' when diffraction is proportional to the other factors? Surely it's gradual.


yes, and [heresy] I've never found it to be as serious a problem as it appears to be for some [/heresy]
Of course, it is there, but sometimes the overall image improvement from stopping down outweighs the slight softening - I'm thinking corner detail in shifted images for example. 
I'm sure it had some effect when I used a TS-E24 with multishot mode (~170MP) on a S1R - two (multi) shots stitched after up/down shift, but it's the sort of thing I worry about on forums, not taking photos ;-)


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Thanks - I get an R5 to test this week - mainly looking at using TS-E lenses (and to compare with my 5Ds)


Now that is a review i look forwards to reading.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 8, 2020)

Fischer said:


> The in-camera iso settings were limited. Big mistake by Canon imho as it proved to produce as good iso >640 as the 5DIV (even with a pinch better detail). Higher iso adjustments could achieved just by underexposing with no adverse results (except what comes from using a higher iso setting).


I think they limited the ISO because of the throughput (max MB/file from TDP):
5DSr (2x Digic 6): 88MB x 5 fps = 440 MB/sec
5DIII (Digic 5+): 50MB x 6 fps = 300 MB/sec
5DIV (Digic 6+): 60MB x 7 fps = 420 MB/sec
1DX II (2x Digic 6+): 45 MB x 14 fps = 630 MB/sec

A behind the scenes aspect of the R5/1DX III is that the DIGIC X can handle significantly higher throughputs than the previous digics.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 8, 2020)

scyrene said:


> How can effective resolution 'fall off a cliff' when diffraction is proportional to the other factors? Surely it's gradual.


Because it’s gradual until it reaches a point where it becomes noticeable. I’ll post some examples later.


----------



## Tremotino (Sep 8, 2020)

Stanly said:


> 90mp sounds great, but will there ever be something for hybrid shooters? )= the window for switching to RF is closing for me and I know many others have already gone the a7S III route ... I doubt C70 will have photo capabilities / full frame and Canon is silent on the R5 issues ... gonna wait till October and pull the trigger on whatever works best for me ... really wish there was a capable RF hybrid camera, but otherwise a7S III and upcoming full frame FX6 might also do the job.


Lol...

You are talking about hybrid shooting and the cameras that comes to your mind are the a7s and the fx6...


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 8, 2020)

canonnews said:


> there's just alot of good you can do when you have more data.



Yeah, and I guess that’s my curiosity about bit depth. I’m wondering if ‘better apples’ is best, or if ‘oranges’ isn’t a route worth considering.

When I look at hasselblad X series it’s the 16 bits I envy more so than resolution. 

But I’m coming around. I’d be happy to settle for loads of pixels if I had to.


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 8, 2020)

AaronT said:


> The photo below I have printed at 24 x72 inches @ 300dpi.



So now I’ve got printer envy, thanks. 

I certainly would like to do less stitching. Mainly I do top-bottom ‘panoramas’, but the idea of cropping instead and ‘wasting’ pixels makes me cringe. I’ll probably still paste ‘em together even when I get a future 600MP camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

AaronT said:


> Canon makes 24, 36, 44 and 60 inch large format printers. Any photographer who owns one of these would like 90 MP. The photo below I have printed at 24 x72 inches @ 300dpi. It is stitched together from 19 photos from a 5DsR (50 MP). With 90 MP I could probably do it with half the number of photos. While taking the photos clouds move, people and cars move. Below I also have two 100% crops of the full photo. The less photos I have to take the less time I spend on the computer afterwards fixing things.
> 
> View attachment 192674
> 
> ...


I have the Pro-2000 and absolutely love it and the prints it makes. Possibly my only regret is that I didn’t get the 4000 but I really don’t have the space and rarely want larger than 24” on the short side.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 8, 2020)

How would the pixel density of that compare to the 7Dii.......


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 8, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> If my math is right, the crop mode on a 90 megapixel camera would still give you 34 megapixels to work with  That would be insane for wildlife. The R5 has already been lifechanging for me in its ability to be both a great full frame 45mp camera and a great 17mp crop sensor, but that would still be more resolution than a friggin' 5D mark IV even when you crop in to 1.6x...




Dumb question....when you use the crop mode, does that reduce the quality of the RAW image?


----------



## AaronT (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I have the Pro-2000 and absolutely love it and the prints it makes. Possibly my only regret is that I didn’t get the 4000 but I really don’t have the space and rarely want larger than 24” on the short side.


Sometimes I would like a 44 inch wide printer, but, I would rarely use it. Printers sometimes have to be justified. I want vs I need. I have the iPF6400 and am very happy with it.


----------



## Joules (Sep 8, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> How would the pixel density of that compare to the 7Dii.......


Upscaled to FF the 20 MP in the 7D II would be 51 MP. That's why you'll often read about people using a 5Ds or 5Dsr for similar subjects, as it is virtually the same pixel density.

A 90 MP FF sensor would have even greater density than the 32.5 MP sensor found in the 90D and M6 II, which scales up to 83 MP.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Sep 8, 2020)

Chig said:


> Canon could use a downsized version of this in the rumoured R7 aps-c camera to give 34mp with high frame rates and priced similar to the R6 or hopefully a bit cheaper , this would be my dream replacement for my 7D mark ii



Winner winner chicken dinner


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 8, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> yes, and [heresy] I've never found it to be as serious a problem as it appears to be for some [/heresy]


I never said that it is a "serious problem" but it is there under some practical circumstances, reducing the appeal of a very high mp sensor IMO and I'll put up a few examples of this when I get a minute.

I concede that in hindsight on a tech-centric forum like CR it was unwise to use the expression "fall off a cliff" but I can quite easily demonstrate what I mean


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

AaronT said:


> Sometimes I would like a 44 inch wide printer, but, I would rarely use it. Printers sometimes have to be justified. I want vs I need. I have the iPF6400 and am very happy with it.


The differences between the 2000/2100 and 4000/4100 really are just a another 20”, but in a home office it is difficult to fit. The running costs and everything else are the same and you get bigger start up cartridges with the 4000/4100 which offsets the higher price somewhat.

I paid $2,150 for my printer on special offer from B&H not that long after it came out, I now have close to $3,000 worth of ink in it!


----------



## masterpix (Sep 8, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Is that the long way to say that higher resolution is more sensitive to motion blur?



Yes,

Thanks for making the long story short!


----------



## masterpix (Sep 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The geometrical constraints described will not give you a worse image from a high resolution sensor than from a lower resolution when they are both output to the same size. What it does mean is that you may not get the full or even any advantage of the higher density sensor if the conditions are not right. If the conditions are right - good lighting, high shutter speed for a moving subject or good tripod for a static at low speeds, and a good wide lens, the higher resolution sensor will give better images that can be used at larger output size or greater cropping. Whether it will be of any advantage to you personally, that is another matter.


I was talking about fthe fact that 90MP sensor will make it harder to capture fast moving objects (birds), not a steady tripod with good light conditions. As said in a much simpler way than I described it, by Eclipsed: Motion blur is stronger when you increase sensor resolution.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> Yes,
> 
> Thanks for mathing the long story short!


Only if you enlarge more.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

Eclipsed said:


> Is that the long way to say that higher resolution is more sensitive to motion blur?


Only if you enlarge more. At the same enlargement size any motion blur, camera or subject, is just as noticeable even if that motion is limited to pixel level motion.


----------



## AaronT (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The differences between the 2000/2100 and 4000/4100 really are just a another 20”, but in a home office it is difficult to fit. The running costs and everything else are the same and you get bigger start up cartridges with the 4000/4100 which offsets the price higher somewhat.
> 
> i paid $2,150 for my printer on special offer from B&H not that long after it came out, I now have close to $3,000 worth of ink in it!


I am really lucky. I found a used iPF6400 in like new condition (a repo I think) with basically full 300 ml ink cartridges for only $1000 Cdn.  I had to drive 3 hours away to pick it up but it was worth it!


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> I was talking about fthe fact that 90MP sensor will make it harder to capture fast moving objects (birds), not a steady tripod with good light conditions. As said in a much simpler way than I described it, by Eclipsed: Motion blur is stronger when you increase sensor resolution.


Only if you enlarge more. But high resolution aps-c can be handheld and used at the pixel level easily enough.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Only if you enlarge more. But high resolution aps-c can be handheld and used at the pixel level easily enough.


Why use a 90MP sensor if you don't want to enlarge/crop more? The motion blur is also noticed in APS-C sensors.


----------



## Joules (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> Motion blur is stronger when you increase sensor resolution.


If you measure the strength of motion blur as the number of pixels a feature is smeared across, then yes. But if you measure it relative to the total sensor width (so geometrically, as you put it), your statement is wrong.

Given the same magnification (viewing size for a given sensor format), a high and a low resolution sensor will look identical in terms of motion blur (and noise, too, if we want to mention another unnecessary controversy). It is only when you want to make use of the higher resolution by enlarging further that you will notice motion blur more easily. But if you shot with a lower res sensor, you would get blur just from the lack of detail regardless of shutter speed at such high magnifications.

High resolution sensors are not inferior to low resolution ones.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 8, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I never said that it is a "serious problem" but it is there under some practical circumstances, reducing the appeal of a very high mp sensor IMO and I'll put up a few examples of this when I get a minute.
> 
> I concede that in hindsight on a tech-centric forum like CR it was unwise to use the expression "fall off a cliff" but I can quite easily demonstrate what I mean


"as serious a problem" not "serious problem" - sorry for not being specific enough - my concern is also directed at a much wider audience influenced by spurious 'becomes a problem at f/5.7" I've seen in some 'reviews'

Yes, it can be an issue, but perhaps not as often as some doomsayers (elsewhere!) would posit -


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> Why use a 90MP sensor if you don't want to enlarge/crop more? The motion blur is also noticed in APS-C sensors.


I was pointing out that the blanket statement is incorrect without a caveat. Unfortunately the statement is too often repeated without that caveat so is misunderstood by many.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I was pointing out that the blanket statement is incorrect without a caveat. Unfortunately the statement is too often repeated without that caveat so is misunderstood by many.


That is often happens when there is a chain responces and the original post is not mentioned anymore.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 8, 2020)

AccipiterQ said:


> Dumb question....when you use the crop mode, does that reduce the quality of the RAW image?


It's the same thing as using a crop sensor, the high ISO noise will be more apparent due to the crop, which will make it look like the ISO quality of a crop sensor, but it's the same thing as reading a 1.6x version of the same sensor as the R5


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The compressed RAW is decompressed back to full size RAW when you process it on your computer. And more data has to be collected by the sensor electronics before it's compressed.


With which Software?


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> For 90MP you need a monster I-B-I-S !!!
> 
> I don't think anyone can take bird pictures with such a sensor though.


Only with really short exposure time! 
so we need faster lenses then... hopefully a new 200-400 f4.0 maybe DO for less weight.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2020)

masterpix said:


> I was talking about fthe fact that 90MP sensor will make it harder to capture fast moving objects (birds), not a steady tripod with good light conditions. As said in a much simpler way than I described it, by Eclipsed: Motion blur is stronger when you increase sensor resolution.


To reinforce Joules' post, if, as I pointed out, you output the image from the low density sensor to the same size as that from a high density sensor, the fast moving subject will have moved an identical amount across the same-sized photos from both and have the same motion blur. 
You also missed out the key part of my sentence and quoted only the irrelevant part to this discussion: "If the conditions are right - *good lighting, high shutter speed for a moving subject* or good tripod for a static at low speeds, and a good wide lens, the higher resolution sensor will give better images that can be used at larger output size or greater cropping. Whether it will be of any advantage to you personally, that is another matter. "


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2020)

fox40phil said:


> With which Software?


To be more precise, a lossless compressed RAW file will be decompressed by a RAW converter to give the same size as the output from an uncompressed RAW file. You can see this in Adobe Camera Raw working on a CRAW to give a DNG, jpeg etc.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 8, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> It's the same thing as using a crop sensor, the high ISO noise will be more apparent due to the crop, which will make it look like the ISO quality of a crop sensor, but it's the same thing as reading a 1.6x version of the same sensor as the R5


The noise from using the crop mode in camera will be the same as that from using the FF mode for the same scene and cropping to APS-C in post.


----------



## dancan (Sep 8, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Thanks - I get an R5 to test this week - mainly looking at using TS-E lenses (and to compare with my 5Ds)


I did make a very, very fast comparison with these two cameras with the TSE 17: IQ was not that much different despite an improvement in the shadows.
However, I am curious what you will find out, Keith!!


----------



## Dragon (Sep 8, 2020)

jvillain said:


> be great f





Zee44 said:


> I will be happy with 8k with a 2.0 crop. In that way they don't have to worry too much about overheating and pixel binning. You can use it for those times when you need to be up and close with your subjects. Then R5 and R5s wound be a great combo.


Pixels are an area function. That would be a 1.4 crop.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 8, 2020)

I love the flexibility of 5DSr files and this will be even cooler. Glass is going to get expensive. The list of fully capable glass for the 90D is pretty short. DLA at about f/5.1 for 34 MP, so glass will also be big.


----------



## H. Jones (Sep 8, 2020)

AlanF said:


> The noise from using the crop mode in camera will be the same as that from using the FF mode for the same scene and cropping to APS-C in post.


Yes, that's also what I meant, but upon cropping in 1.6x the pixel level noise is more visible, giving the cropped image the appearance of more noise and looking like a crop sensor camera


----------



## Dragon (Sep 8, 2020)

Perfect body upgrade for your EF-s 55-250 .


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 8, 2020)

dancan said:


> I did make a very, very fast comparison with these two cameras with the TSE 17: IQ was not that much different despite an improvement in the shadows.
> However, I am curious what you will find out, Keith!!


Well, I asked for a TS-E50 to go with it, but they're also sending a 15-35, 24-70 70-200 and the adapter with the filter which is nice.
I have my TS-E17 and 24ii as well, so I'm hoping the weather is kind...
From an image quality POV I'm not expecting a huge difference - those days have long gone. However I am curious to see how it is to actually use. I've had the RP for a while to experiment with and get used to EVF etc.
I've had people ask about using tilt/shift on mirrorless - my experiments with the RP (and S1R) suggest that tilt is somewhat easier to use creatively (focus peaking helps) but until new tilt/shift lenses for RF appear, not a lot changes (manual operation and no movements info in EXIF)


----------



## Iconimage (Sep 8, 2020)

It's a 24bit internal signal path, 16 bit RAW file, 17 stop d/r, shooting 12 fps mechanical shutter, buffer size x2 of R5.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 8, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Well, I asked for a TS-E50 to go with it, but they're also sending a 15-35, 24-70 70-200 and the adapter with the filter which is nice.
> I have my TS-E17 and 24ii as well, so I'm hoping the weather is kind...
> From an image quality POV I'm not expecting a huge difference - those days have long gone. However I am curious to see how it is to actually use. I've had the RP for a while to experiment with and get used to EVF etc.
> I've had people ask about using tilt/shift on mirrorless - my experiments with the RP (and S1R) suggest that tilt is somewhat easier to use creatively (focus peaking helps) but until new tilt/shift lenses for RF appear, not a lot changes (manual operation and no movements info in EXIF)


I absolutely love my TS-E 50, I think it is an absolute stand out optic with a heck of a lot varied and flexible uses. It might not be as 'sexy' as a white super-telephoto or a crazy wide angle zoom but the images from it are just sublime.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I absolutely love my TS-E 50, I think it is an absolute stand out optic with a heck of a lot varied and flexible uses. It might not be as 'sexy' as a white super-telephoto or a crazy wide angle zoom but the images from it are just sublime.



There may be a tilt-shift in my distant future; all sorts of very special things to be done with one...but they run expensive and I can't justify it. I'd probably want to stick with EF on that one just so it can go on everything I own.

Actually I did come up with an interesting (though perhaps silly) idea--an EF --> EF-M adapter with the tilt-shift stuff in it. Someone pointed out that the image circle edges would be to close...which would be true, if you were adapting to an RF mount, but perhaps NOT with an EF-M mount. You could, in principle put any full frame EF lens onto this thing and have at least some play to tilt and shift onto the crop sensor.


----------



## BradL (Sep 9, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> I ordered mine Friday morning, and I'm expecting it to ship any day now. Not based on an official estimate, mind you, just mindless optimism.
> 
> (Full disclosure: I ordered the R6, but a few days later changed my mind. Who wants just 20 MP?  )


I like your optimism, I need a little of that!


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2020)

masterpix said:


> I was talking about fthe fact that 90MP sensor will make it harder to capture fast moving objects (birds), not a steady tripod with good light conditions. As said in a much simpler way than I described it, by Eclipsed: Motion blur is stronger when you increase sensor resolution.


not any more difficult than a 90D or a M6 Mark II. I've heard no complaints about that.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2020)

AlanF said:


> To reinforce Joules' post, if, as I pointed out, you output the image from the low density sensor to the same size as that from a high density sensor, the fast moving subject will have moved an identical amount across the same-sized photos from both and have the same motion blur.
> You also missed out the key part of my sentence and quoted only the irrelevant part to this discussion: "If the conditions are right - *good lighting, high shutter speed for a moving subject* or good tripod for a static at low speeds, and a good wide lens, the higher resolution sensor will give better images that can be used at larger output size or greater cropping. Whether it will be of any advantage to you personally, that is another matter. "


Yes!
Everything is determined by your observer distance and image magnification. Shake, motion blur, diffraction,etc.
just because it's a higher resolution doesn't change if you print / display at the same level of magnification (ie: 20x30 prints) you won't see a difference, but you will see (maybe) a difference in the accuracy of color information, finer detail, and most likely less noise with the higher MP version.

Your subject speed AND your observer distance/image magnification determine shutter speed, just as the image magnification/observer distance choose your diffraction limit.

Per pixel qualities in either of these is chasing something that is simply not needed anymore.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 9, 2020)

Aaron D said:


> Yeah, and I guess that’s my curiosity about bit depth. I’m wondering if ‘better apples’ is best, or if ‘oranges’ isn’t a route worth considering.
> 
> When I look at hasselblad X series it’s the 16 bits I envy more so than resolution.
> 
> But I’m coming around. I’d be happy to settle for loads of pixels if I had to.


16 bit is just a spec. it really depends on the amount of noise and how much data you lose to noise. I haven't seen anywhere that the cameras need 16 bit ADC's yet.
Then we have the SPEED. that would be 4 times slower than 14 bit to deliver the data.

so instead of looking at 10 fps max from the 5Ds, you're looking at around 2.5 fps.


----------



## Zee44 (Sep 9, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Pixels are an area function. That would be a 1.4 crop.


How do you come up with a crop of 1.4 on a 90mp sensor without oversampling? EOS R has a crop of almost 1.8 on a 30mp for 4K


----------



## Aaron D (Sep 9, 2020)

canonnews said:


> it really depends on the amount of noise and how much data you lose to noise. I haven't seen anywhere that the cameras need 16 bit ADC's yet.



Did some homework and found this, a good discussion on bit depth: https://petapixel.com/2018/09/19/8-12-14-vs-16-bit-depth-what-do-you-really-need/. So yeah, never mind the 16 bits.

But I'd love to see an R5s built purposely for studio and tripod use (architectural). We've got a beautiful camera now (R5) for super versatility, but I think there's more than a couple of us who would buy one that's aimed at super image-quality above all else; meaning speed, video and even the holy IBIS are not required. Sure that's a niche relative to the R5's mass appeal, but it's a niche that Hasselblad and Phase One occupy with some success. I bet Canon could do it AND charge less than $30 grand for one. And isn't that the path a 90MP camera is headed down?


----------



## Pascal Parvex (Sep 9, 2020)

I wonder what happened to the 120 megapixel (and 250 Megapixel) sensor. I know, APS-H, but the 5Ds line had the full 50 megapixel of the prototype APS-H.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 9, 2020)

Pascal Parvex said:


> I wonder what happened to the 120 megapixel (and 250 Megapixel) sensor. I know, APS-H, but the 5Ds line had the full 50 megapixel of the prototype APS-H.



I think those were pre dual pixel, the rumoured 90MP would be 180MP if you could both sides, which is getting fairly close to that.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 9, 2020)

lglass12189 said:


> No Video Please


And no JPEG!


----------



## hugebob (Sep 9, 2020)

DrToast said:


> This is the only thing preventing me from ordering an R5.



I just hope you don't end up having to wait as long as I have for the R5!


----------



## Dragon (Sep 9, 2020)

Zee44 said:


> How do you come up with a crop of 1.4 on a 90mp sensor without oversampling? EOS R has a crop of almost 1.8 on a 30mp for 4K


Because starting with the R5, Canon is scaling from 8k or quad binning or line skipping (depending on mode) . The R5 uses the full width of the sensor for 4k DCI and even in crop mode, it does 5:4 scaling. If the RS uses a similar 8k pixel width, with twice the pixels total, then the crop would be [email protected] or 1.414. Not to say they won't do something different now that they have the scaling power in digicx, but they already have the firmware to do that.


----------



## todddominey (Sep 9, 2020)

Speaking as someone who primarily shoots landscapes, this would be HUGE. They could take video capabilities out of the camera for all I care. This would be my primary photography camera.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 10, 2020)

todddominey said:


> Speaking as someone who primarily shoots landscapes, this would be HUGE. They could take video capabilities out of the camera for all I care. This would be my primary photography camera.


I'd say take the video right out of it just to see EOSHD lose his mind that a stills camera was developed without video


----------



## YuengLinger (Sep 10, 2020)

canonnews said:


> I'd say take the video right out of it just to see EOSHD lose his mind that a stills camera was developed without video


EOSHD already lost his mind some time ago. And his credibility.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> EOSHD already lost his mind some time ago. And his credibility.



The latter isn't true enough--he has entirely too many people who find him credible.


----------



## Dragon (Sep 10, 2020)

SteveC said:


> The latter isn't true enough--he has entirely too many people who find him credible.


Roger's thermal measurements at Lens Rentals permanently blow EOSHD's cripple theory out the window. Yes, the camera does get hot when you are shooting a processing 8k! What a surprise.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 10, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Roger's thermal measurements at Lens Rentals permanently blow EOSHD's cripple theory out the window. Yes, the camera does get hot when you are shooting a processing 8k! What a surprise.



Don't try to confuse EOSHD's followers with actual facts.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 14, 2020)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Please give us 12k video!



16K240 or bust, and no cripple-hammering the recording time.


----------



## Iain L (Sep 16, 2020)

Are full-frame sensors really this expensive, then? Because from the spec speculation both here and on Tony Northrup’s video it seems to boil down to “what if a camera that’s worse in megapixels, frame rate and video options than an old 750D, with no viewfinder at all, and people will give us a THOUSAND DOLLARS for it because they desperately want the full frame RF mount.”


----------



## Kit. (Sep 16, 2020)

Iain L said:


> Are full-frame sensors really this expensive, then? Because from the spec speculation both here and on Tony Northrup’s video it seems to boil down to “what if a camera that’s worse in megapixels, frame rate and video options than an old 750D, with no viewfinder at all, and people will give us a THOUSAND DOLLARS for it because they desperately want the full frame RF mount.”


I don't take Northrups seriously.

But when I use TS-E 17L, I don't care at all about frame rate and video options, usually don't care much about megapixels or viewfinder... but FF is a must.


----------



## Iain L (Sep 16, 2020)

For your use that makes sense, I agree. Though how many aren’t going to pay the extra to get an R rather than this minimalist exercise, if they’re sticking $2000 lenses on the front?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 16, 2020)

hugebob said:


> I just hope you don't end up having to wait as long as I have for the R5!


Perhaps we should put in a pre-order for the R5s now.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 16, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Perhaps we should put in a pre-order for the R5s now.



No, you should have preordered this back in August.


----------



## tron (Sep 19, 2020)

So 90D with 32.5Mp crop sensor would have the same pixel density of a 83 mpixel (32.5 X (1.6)^2 = 32.5 * 2.56) FF sensor.
With this pixel density DLA according to TDP is f/5.2 A 90mpixel camera would have a DLA f/4.8 to f/5 tops. Which means it needs f/4 lenses or up to f/5.6 as the worst case. Maybe an 80mpixel would be a better choice? 

Or this is the rumor of 500mm f/2.8 is all about


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 20, 2020)

tron said:


> So 90D with 32.5Mp crop sensor would have the same pixel density of a 83 mpixel (32.5 X (1.6)^2 = 32.5 * 2.56) FF sensor.
> With this pixel density DLA according to TDP is f/5.2 A 90mpixel camera would have a DLA f/4.8 to f/5 tops. Which means it needs f/4 lenses or up to f/5.6 as the worst case. Maybe an 80mpixel would be a better choice?
> 
> Or this is the rumor of 500mm f/2.8 is all about


I think when people like TDP start talking about the theoretical DLA, the practical effects in actual use can be misunderstood, and leaves people thinking that there is more of a problem than there really is. However.............


As the pixels get smaller and smaller diffraction does begin to bite, and I'm about to put up up a tread to justify my comments in this thread earlier about the 5DS at around f/16, which in itself is not a greatly used aperture, but as the same diffraction begins to creep in at more common-or-garden apertures, like f/8 for example, it is going to become as real issue where people are looking to achieve full DOF and the full IQ potential of their very high resolution FF cameras. 

It's written all over the web how an ultra high mp DLA camera will still record more detail than a lesser one that is not diffraction limited, people - even - leave - a - space between their words to emphasis their point, and indeed this can be demonstrated by shooting a suitable test target three metres from the camera in good light and viewing the high mp cameras at it's full output size. However get away from studios and test targets and shoot in real "landscape" light and view the image at real, practical output sizes and the picture is not quite so rosy. ( Or more accurately, not so blue  ).


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 20, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you're raising problems that don't really exist.
> 
> you can test this with MTF calculations if you want a high MP camera will still capture a truer image than a low MP camera, every, single, time. It will also resolve more with every single lens you own.
> 
> diffraction ONLY appears based upon your level of magnification and observer distance. It's an over-exaggerated problem because people look at monitors at 100%. That's not really .. well, real-life presentation of an image.



No, I am specifically NOT looking at the _full size_ image at 100% and I am specifically referring to real-life presentation of an image. If you do look at 'monitors at 100%' then it is true that the greater output size of the higher mp camera shows a "truer" image even with diffraction over a lower mp one. What I am referring to is viewing am image from the 50 mp 5DS at a realistic output size, say about 42cm / 300dpi long side, so specifically NOT high magnification, when it has suffered from strong diffraction. Here are some examples. My iMac that I use for my photography has died, so these screen grabs are from my 21.5" machine. 

The first is the 100% of the full size image, one at f/5, the other at f/16. So this is the comparison where you say above, that you only see it when looking at 100%, and the difference is quite clear to see, as we would expect. All these images are straight ACR conversions from raw with just 80% of 0.3 px sharpening to correct the AA filter. 






This was taken on a Manfrotto 058 placed on a hard surface, no wind, no traffic so there is no vibration to give a difference between 1/250th and 1/20th. Live View, 2 sec timer. 

I don't have a 20mp full frame camera anymore, but I used a 28mm prime which is same FOV on crop as 45mm on FF, and shot it to give the same DOF as f/16 on the FF shot, so in other words I was using the 19 mp cropped-in 5DS as a crop camera, so f/9. 19 mp at 300 dpi gives an output size of 18" across long size so a _pretty normal viewing size._ I then downsampled the FF shot taken at f/16 to compare. I hope that this will show up true when uploaded to CR, but the FF f/16 image has lost it's sparkle - clarity, definition, compared with the 'crop' sensor shot at larger aperture. This clearly shows on an 18" 300 dpi print, and that is most salient point. 





Below is the FF image shot at f/5 comparing agains the crop one shot at f/9 as a comparison and to see that the 50mp camera downsized to 19mp has quite an advantage in clarity, as we would expect. 










So how can you say this "doesn't exist" ? The diffraction at f/16 has reduced the 5DS's IQ against a ( simulation of ) much cheaper, lower resolution camera significantly. This is why I said "falls off a cliff". 

Now I can edit the f/16 shot to improve the clarity, contrast and definition of course. Here's a shot below, compared with the unaltered 19 mp crop shot. 




I'm not saying that this is a big issue with the 5DS as I rarely want to use f/16 or over, but it does compromise the IQ, and isn't that why we buy a high mp camera, for IQ ? Or is a 50 mp camera only ever supposed to output 36" images ? 

But as the FF sensor becomes even more crammed with pixels this "non" issue will creep down the f stop scale, and once it becomes apparent at everyday apertures like f/8, then I think it's going to be a real "issue". 

Just for a laugh here's a comparison between the 5DS at f/16 downsized to the same native output as the old G1X, and the same shot from that 'point and shoot' camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

Stanly said:


> There are different types of professionals with different priorities. What would you choose if you needed a full frame hybrid camera with IBIS that recorded 10bit 4K at least at 60fps?



An actual cinema camera?


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

Bdbtoys said:


> If you compare the 5DS to 5D it's about a 1k difference. At the price of the R5.. it's a shame that the S version might come out so soon w/o notice (for those that would have been interested in that vs the 5).




Introductory price for the 5Ds/5Ds R ($3,699/$3,899) were only $200/$400 higher than the introductory prices of the 5D Mark III and 5D Mark IV that both released at $3,499 in 2012 and 2016, respectively. The 5D Mark IV price has fallen about $1K in the four and one-half years since it was introduced while the 5Ds/5Ds R price has remained near what it was at introduction in 2014.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Wait! What! When did they drastically lower prices due to overstocks????



5D Mark IV at introduction in 2016: $3,499

5D Mark IV in late 2020: $2,499

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II in 2010: $2,399

EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III in 2018: $2,199

EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III in 2020: $1,899

EOS 6D Mark II in 2017: $2,199
EOS 6D Mark II in 2020: $1,399

Compare that to historical prices of previous models that were still close to introductory price when they were replaced by their successor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

unfocused said:


> A 34 mp crop with 10 fps would be a far better option for birding than an R7 in my opinion (Contingent on the autofocus speed and accuracy of course) and with the R series you can set the body to crop to 1.6, so there should be no need to worry about all that extra data slowing things up.




Each line of the sensor that is used in the crop would have to be read all the way from one side to the other, so the data processing savings at the ADC would only be for the 37.5% of the lines that do not need to be read, rather than for the 60.9% of photosites that would not be used.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> I like you started with 40 MB hard drive, MFM (not RLL which was more expensive)
> 
> I remember buying a 1 GB SD and realizing that that was 25 of those drives.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

canonnews said:


> actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.
> 
> say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.
> 
> ...



Except that when you crop you demand more from the lens for the same number of lines per image height.

The same lens will always give 1.6X more lines per image height on a FF sensor than on a 1.6X crop sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 28, 2020)

SteveC said:


> There may be a tilt-shift in my distant future; all sorts of very special things to be done with one...but they run expensive and I can't justify it. I'd probably want to stick with EF on that one just so it can go on everything I own.
> 
> Actually I did come up with an interesting (though perhaps silly) idea--an EF --> EF-M adapter with the tilt-shift stuff in it. Someone pointed out that the image circle edges would be to close...which would be true, if you were adapting to an RF mount, but perhaps NOT with an EF-M mount. You could, in principle put any full frame EF lens onto this thing and have at least some play to tilt and shift onto the crop sensor.



Seems like Canon filed a patent for just such an EF → EF-M adapter with tilt and/or shift on the adapter a few years ago.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> ...Compare that to historical prices of previous models that were still close to introductory price when they were replaced by their successor.



My point was to question the cause of price reductions being traced to "overstocks." That prices change over time isn't in dispute. I am more inclined to believe that price changes reflect market pressures, rather than overstocks.Overstocks implies a failure to accurately predict the demand. I don't think Canon generally makes those kinds of mistakes.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 28, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Except that when you crop you demand more from the lens for the same number of lines per image height.
> 
> The same lens will always give 1.6X more lines per image height on a FF sensor than on a 1.6X crop sensor.


maybe i'm misunderstanding you here.

if it's the same lp/mm then it wouldn't make a difference. ie: a 32MP asp-c crop that already exists would be around 80mp full frame. usually the center out resolves the extremities anyways.


----------



## Joules (Sep 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Each line of the sensor that is used in the crop would have to be read all the way from one side to the other, so the data processing savings at the ADC would only be for the 37.5% of the lines that do not need to be read, rather than for the 60.9% of photosites that would not be used.


Are you sure that's how it works?

The M6 II currently is the only body with a crop mode that boots speed, as far as I'm aware. And it does 32.5 MP * 14 FPS * 14 bit = 6370 ~ 6480 = 18 MP * 30 FPS * 12 bit. So either, the data Bottleneck in this camera is higher than what either mode uses, or they actually are able to reduce the data proportional to the sensor area they are reading.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 29, 2020)

Joules said:


> Are you sure that's how it works?
> 
> The M6 II currently is the only body with a crop mode that boots speed, as far as I'm aware. And it does 32.5 MP * 14 FPS * 14 bit = 6370 ~ 6480 = 18 MP * 30 FPS * 12 bit. So either, the data Bottleneck in this camera is higher than what either mode uses, or they actually are able to reduce the data proportional to the sensor area they are reading.



IIRC you can't read single pixels in a CMOS, only complete rows. So a 1.6x crop would speed up reads by 1.6x. Processing after that could cut off the sides and only work on the reduced area.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

canonnews said:


> maybe i'm misunderstanding you here.
> 
> if it's the same lp/mm then it wouldn't make a difference. ie: a 32MP asp-c crop that already exists would be around 80mp full frame. usually the center out resolves the extremities anyways.



A FF sensor has a greater image height than a crop sensor. Thus, the same lp/mm gives a higher number of lines per image height when the full sensor height of each is used.

When you crop, either by using a smaller sensor or by cropping the output of a larger sensor and then display an image at the same size as the uncropped image is displayed, you enlarge the size of the image projected onto the sensor by a greater factor. Thus you enlarge the size of the smallest line pairs that can be resolved by the lens. So the optical quality of the cropped image from the same lens will not be equal to the optical quality of the uncropped image when both are viewed at the same display size. This is because when you enlarge by a higher factor you enlarge everything more, including blur.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 29, 2020)

Joules said:


> Are you sure that's how it works?
> 
> The M6 II currently is the only body with a crop mode that boots speed, as far as I'm aware. And it does 32.5 MP * 14 FPS * 14 bit = 6370 ~ 6480 = 18 MP * 30 FPS * 12 bit. So either, the data Bottleneck in this camera is higher than what either mode uses, or they actually are able to reduce the data proportional to the sensor area they are reading.



The total data from each line must be read and go through ADC. From that point the parts not needed can be discarded before other processing operations, such as demosaicing, WB corrections, NR, sharpening, etc. are done. It all depends on where the bottleneck(s) are in the camera's path from the sensor to the memory card.

The reduction from 14-bit to 12-bit at higher frame rates with multiple cameras (R5, R6, 1D X Mark III, M6 Mark II) would indicate that at least one bottleneck is at the ADC.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 29, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> A FF sensor has a greater image height than a crop sensor. Thus, the same lp/mm gives a higher number of lines per image height when the full sensor height of each is used.
> 
> When you crop, either by using a smaller sensor or by cropping the output of a larger sensor and then display an image at the same size as the uncropped image is displayed, you enlarge the size of the image projected onto the sensor by a greater factor. Thus you enlarge the size of the smallest line pairs that can be resolved by the lens. So the optical quality of the cropped image from the same lens will not be equal to the optical quality of the uncropped image when both are viewed at the same display size. This is because when you enlarge by a higher factor you enlarge everything more, including blur.


i see what you are doing.

but in essence, you have this reversed from what I was stating.

if you take a R7 with a 32MP sensor and outputting at 30x20" using a 400mm lens, versus a full frame 83MP sensor outputting at 30x20. The R7 will give you an equivalent focal of 640mm at 32MP.

The worst an 83MP full frame camera can do is the same as 32MP crop camera, and from 400mm to 639mm it's going to resolve more than the R7 would.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 1, 2020)

canonnews said:


> i see what you are doing.
> 
> but in essence, you have this reversed from what I was stating.
> 
> ...



If all one has is the 400mm lens then cropping the 82MP R5s to 32 MP does not give "full frame" quality that is better than the "crop body quality" of the 32MP R7. That is what your original comment above seemed to be implying.

If one uses a 400mm lens on the R7 and a 640mm lens on an R5s to get the same angle of view from the same camera position, and if both lenses can resolve the same number of lines per millimeter as projected onto the sensor, then the R5s will have 1.6X more lines of resolution per image height than the R7. *But that requires a longer and presumably more expensive lens that can resolve the same number of lines per millimeter as the shorter focal length lens.*

If one is concerned with putting the maximum number of pixels on the subject with the same lens from the same shooting position, then the size of the sensor has no effect on image quality. It's the pixel density of the sensor that gives higher or lower quality. If the pixel density of two differently sized sensors is the same, then there's no difference assuming the subject is small enough to fit within the frame of the smaller sensor and both sensors are from the same generation of technology. There's no "higher quality" from the FF sensor in that scenario.


----------



## canonnews (Oct 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> If all one has is the 400mm lens then cropping the 82MP R5s to 32 MP does not give "full frame" quality that is better than the "crop body quality" of the 32MP R7. That is what your original comment above seemed to be implying.
> 
> If one uses a 400mm lens on the R7 and a 640mm lens on an R5s to get the same angle of view from the same camera position, and if both lenses can resolve the same number of lines per millimeter as projected onto the sensor, then the R5s will have 1.6X more lines of resolution per image height than the R7. *But that requires a longer and presumably more expensive lens that can resolve the same number of lines per millimeter as the shorter focal length lens.*


you are totally missing the point and making this way to complicated. I'm talking about ONE lens here.

A R5s (of 83mp) has the inherent benefit of cropping 83MP down to 32MP (1.6x) crop which effectively gives a "ZOOM" of 400mm to 640mm.

An R7 can only see the field of view equivalent of 640mm with the *same *400mm lens. Since it can't go wider (not a full frame sensor) it can't give you a FOV of 400mm. *Ever.*

In conclusion ..

If you have a *Canon EF 400mm F2.8L IS USM*;


A R5s of 83mm will allow you to shoot down to a 1.6x crop of 32MP image size to effectively give you a FOV of 640mm - allowing essentially a 400-640mm F2.8-4.0 zoom. At no point is the lp/mm or lp/image height less than an R7. It's impossible.
An R7 will allow you to use that *same *400mm F2.8 lens to get you an equivalent reach of 640mm F4. and that's it.
So when people quibble about the price of a R5s versus an R7 - they arent taking into account the abilities that a Full frame high MP sensor allows - because a Canon RF 400-640mm F2.8-4.0 wouldn't be cheap, or light. It would be an insane lens that would probably cost in excess of 20K.

That was my point. People that complain about a 4K USD camera body instead of a 2K camera body aren't thinking about all the possibilities.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 21, 2020)

I can't get any of my programs to open the R5 raw files. My Lightroom 6 is up to date but lacking the raw support. Running Windows 7. Any ideas or suggestions?
Thanks.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I can't get any of my programs to open the R5 raw files. My Lightroom 6 is up to date but lacking the raw support. Running Windows 7. Any ideas or suggestions?
> Thanks.


Download Adobe DNG converter. It's free, will convert R5 to .dng, which you can open in your LR.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Oct 21, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Download Adobe DNG converter. It's free, will convert R5 to .dng, which you can open in your LR.


I tried that. It isn't supporting Windows 7.


----------



## Joules (Oct 21, 2020)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I tried that. It isn't supporting Windows 7.


Well to be fair, you should probably not be using that anymore 

If you have to stick to 7, but need acess to a 10 machine for conversion, you could try a virtual machine. There are free ones, and if converting Canon files to DNG is all you're doing, their performance should not be too bad.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 21, 2020)

KeithBreazeal said:


> I can't get any of my programs to open the R5 raw files. My Lightroom 6 is up to date but lacking the raw support. Running Windows 7. Any ideas or suggestions?
> Thanks.


Keith, I strongly recommend DxO PL 4 that was released today. It handles RAW from the R5 really well.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 23, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you are totally missing the point and making this way to complicated. I'm talking about ONE lens here.
> 
> A R5s (of 83mp) has the inherent benefit of cropping 83MP down to 32MP (1.6x) crop which effectively gives a "ZOOM" of 400mm to 640mm.
> 
> ...



None of that has anything to do with "full frame quality", though.

Cropping the 83MP R5s to match the 32MP R7 will give the _same exact_ image quality.


----------



## tigers media (Nov 24, 2020)

A great landscape camera my guess basic video this will be for the landscape fraternity. Sony proved high megapixels for video is a waste. Especially if they are making evf bigger video people dont care about that. Will be cool and i already know i can't afford it


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 24, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> None of that has anything to do with "full frame quality", though.
> 
> Cropping the 83MP R5s to match the 32MP R7 will give the _same exact_ image quality.


Regarding the ongoing posts of CanonNews and MichaelClark, I would like to add my 2 cents (which is about what it's worth  ). CanonNews made a (hopefully unintentional) typo in saying the 400mm f2.8 lens with a 1.6x crop in post becomes 640mm f4.0, when a calculator shows it becomes 640mm f4.48. As I think I understand what you've said, you are both correct in what you are saying, but you are both arguing about a different issue.

Michael is correct in that if you have a FF body, 400mm f2.8 FF lens and crop it in post by 1.6x then you will get the same (640mm f4.48) f# & IQ image as a 1.6x crop body using the same FF lens (assuming the same technology in both sensors) and thus neither of them will have "FF quality" as neither of them use all of the lens.

CanonNews is not arguing that but is saying that in addition to that, the FF camera has the "option" of also *not* cropping and then it will get a 400mm f2.8 image and full "FF quality" image. And in addition to that, you can crop in post by any value between 1.6 and 1x to get an image appropriately between those two ranges with the f# and IQ varying between them accordingly. So you have the option of zooming (in post) from 400 to 640mm (with the f# and IQ varying according), which you can't do with the crop body using the same FF lens. Using the FF 400mm f2.8 would be less expensive, smaller & lighter than a FF 400-600mm f2.8-4.48 (again: CanonNew mistakenly said f2.8-4.0) zoom lens which a typical person couldn't afford (but it would use less sensor pixels and have less IQ as you zoomed out towards 640mm and thus it would not be "FF quality" as it zoomed). But having something (a 400-640 zoom of varying quality in post) is better than having nothing.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 24, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Keith, I strongly recommend DxO PL 4 that was released today. It handles RAW from the R5 really well.


I'll second this. I love using DXO Photolab4 and it handles R5 files great (I have a Mac). The new addition of "deep prime" seems quicker than regular prime which is a significant benefit although the IQ difference is debatable.


----------



## Chig (Nov 25, 2020)

canonnews said:


> you are totally missing the point and making this way to complicated. I'm talking about ONE lens here.
> 
> A R5s (of 83mp) has the inherent benefit of cropping 83MP down to 32MP (1.6x) crop which effectively gives a "ZOOM" of 400mm to 640mm.
> 
> ...


Well an R5s and a EF400 f/2.8 lenses are far beyond my budget (and ridiculously heavy too) so I'd much prefer an R7 and EF100-400 ii plus 1.4x and 2x extenders


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 25, 2020)

By far the best news for me are the improved EVF features.
If there is anything I dislike about the EOS R, it's the poor EVF resolution, color rendition and exaggerated contrast. The R5's EVF is already really good, but further improvements are always welcome, especially for macro, landscapes and using vintage lenses.

Finally, a silly question: will -could- it be possible to use the EOS Rs with 32MP sensor definition WITHOUT any cropping ??? (is there a way to "bundle" the sensor's pixels in order to lower the definition ?)


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 25, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> Finally, a silly question: will -could- it be possible to use the EOS Rs with 32MP sensor definition WITHOUT any cropping ??? (is there a way to "bundle" the sensor's pixels in order to lower the definition ?)


I’d have thought so, the (ultra) high mp R will surely have at least one C-RAW mode


----------



## tron (Nov 25, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> I’d have thought so, the (ultra) high mp R will surely have at least one C-RAW mode


C-RAW means compressed but not with less megapixels. But I understand why this could be useful in some occasions.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 25, 2020)

tron said:


> C-RAW means compressed but not with less megapixels. But I understand why this could be useful in some occasions.


Ah OK I didn’t realise this was working on heavy compression. The question prompted me to look at TDP’s review of C-RAW and if it’s as good as Brian says then I guess that would do the job for a smaller file.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 28, 2020)

canonnews said:


> actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.
> 
> say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.
> 
> ...


Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful .


----------



## slclick (Nov 28, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful .


Why do you need to say that crap? Poking the bear? Lame.


----------



## zim (Nov 28, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful .


Well 7d user here and providing you're putting the same number of pixels/duck you'll get no argument from me. At the very least FF then gives you a much more flexible camera. For me the only thing APS-C has (or perhaps had) in it's favour was price. That is the question only Canon can answer, will Canon play hardball and decide that the price of admission for 7d users has just gone up or will they love us and introduce a price/spec equivalent mirrorless FF


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 30, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful .


No 7d2 user has a problem with a wider feild of view. What most 7d2 users want is the pixel density at a lower price than you can get a high MP FF at. You know. Like you got with a 7d2. Pixel density of a 5dsR at a much lower price.


----------



## Joules (Nov 30, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view.


In the end, it only matters if the value a user puts on the flexibility of a FF sensor with the same pixel density of an APS-C is great enough to compensate for the cost.

In absolute terms of flexibility with regards to image manipulation and quality, FF is better than any smaller format, as long as the pixel density is equal. But without global shutter, an actual APS-C body may still be at an advantage when it comes to real life performance. And it certainly has an advantage in terms of value per dollar for users caring primarily about reach.

I expect the high res R (R5s) to cost more than the R5. Significantly so if they put a shutter in it that's capable of matching what you would expect from a 7 series successor - Slightly less FPS than the 1 series offering from the Era, so between 16 and 18 FPS based on the 1DX III. 

Does the market warrant the release of another such value oriented specialist camera? We will see. This is not politics, it's economics. It doesn't matter what you think about it, but there is a niche in the market that values paying just as much as necessary on the body to get access to the reach and speed required for certain types of photography. And that niche will be poorly served if Canon only release the high res R. Neither does it matter how the folks in that niche feel about that if no such camera is released because said niche is not big or lucrative enough to be supported under the modern market conditions.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 30, 2020)

Dragon said:


> Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful .



Some of us in the "7D2 crowd" use both FF and APS-C cameras, whichever is most appropriate for a specific task. 

If I'm going to crop to APS-C angles of view anyway, why should I waste using up a $3,500 FF camera that handles slower when I can use a cheaper, faster handling APS-C body for the vast majority of my "high mileage" shooting scenarios? 

At the same time, my wide and/or normal lenses are mounted and being used on the FF bodies. Shooting a typical American football game, I may take 2,000+ images using the "long" body while only taking 200-400 frames using the short body(s), and that's if I shoot the band at halftime. Otherwise I'll usually put well less than 200 frames on the odometer of the wider camera/lens combination(s). I'd much rather wear out a $1,500 APS-C "sports" specialty body when shooting 2,000+ frames per assignment than a $3,500 FF general purpose camera that I use for almost all of my other work when I rarely shoot more than a few hundred frames, and often only shoot a few dozen at those other assignments.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 30, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> Regarding the ongoing posts of CanonNews and MichaelClark, I would like to add my 2 cents (which is about what it's worth  ). CanonNews made a (hopefully unintentional) typo in saying the 400mm f2.8 lens with a 1.6x crop in post becomes 640mm f4.0, when a calculator shows it becomes 640mm f4.48. As I think I understand what you've said, you are both correct in what you are saying, but you are both arguing about a different issue.
> 
> Michael is correct in that if you have a FF body, 400mm f2.8 FF lens and crop it in post by 1.6x then you will get the same (640mm f4.48) f# & IQ image as a 1.6x crop body using the same FF lens (assuming the same technology in both sensors) and thus neither of them will have "FF quality" as neither of them use all of the lens.
> 
> CanonNews is not arguing that but is saying that in addition to that, the FF camera has the "option" of also *not* cropping and then it will get a 400mm f2.8 image and full "FF quality" image. And in addition to that, you can crop in post by any value between 1.6 and 1x to get an image appropriately between those two ranges with the f# and IQ varying between them accordingly. So you have the option of zooming (in post) from 400 to 640mm (with the f# and IQ varying according), which you can't do with the crop body using the same FF lens. Using the FF 400mm f2.8 would be less expensive, smaller & lighter than a FF 400-600mm f2.8-4.48 (again: CanonNew mistakenly said f2.8-4.0) zoom lens which a typical person couldn't afford (but it would use less sensor pixels and have less IQ as you zoomed out towards 640mm and thus it would not be "FF quality" as it zoomed). But having something (a 400-640 zoom of varying quality in post) is better than having nothing.



Flexibility with regard to angle of view does not equal "full frame quality", though. I've not been arguing that there is no increased flexibility (for an increased cost). 

I've been arguing that using the same number of the same sized pixels that use the same technology will give the same image quality. Thus, a FF sensor cropped to APS-C dimensions will not have better image quality than an APS-C sensor with the same pixel density and same generation of technology.


----------



## usern4cr (Nov 30, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Flexibility with regard to angle of view does not equal "full frame quality", though. I've not been arguing that there is no increased flexibility (for an increased cost).
> 
> I've been arguing that using the same number of the same sized pixels that use the same technology will give the same image quality. Thus, a FF sensor cropped to APS-C dimensions will not have better image quality than an APS-C sensor with the same pixel density and same generation of technology.


Yes, I'll second (again) what you've said. Cropping a FF lens and FF sensor to APS dimensions will be the same as the same lens on a APS sensor assuming the same per-pixel dimension & technology.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 1, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Some of us in the "7D2 crowd" use both FF and APS-C cameras, whichever is most appropriate for a specific task.
> 
> If I'm going to crop to APS-C angles of view anyway, why should I waste using up a $3,500 FF camera that handles slower when I can use a cheaper, faster handling APS-C body for the vast majority of my "high mileage" shooting scenarios?
> 
> At the same time, my wide and/or normal lenses are mounted and being used on the FF bodies. Shooting a typical American football game, I may take 2,000+ images using the "long" body while only taking 200-400 frames using the short body(s), and that's if I shoot the band at halftime. Otherwise I'll usually put well less than 200 frames on the odometer of the wider camera/lens combination(s). I'd much rather wear out a $1,500 APS-C "sports" specialty body when shooting 2,000+ frames per assignment than a $3,500 FF general purpose camera that I use for almost all of my other work when I rarely shoot more than a few hundred frames, and often only shoot a few dozen at those other assignments.


You just made my point.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 1, 2020)

slclick said:


> Why do you need to say that crap? Poking the bear? Lame.


I was merely pointing out the futility of the argument to the OP. OTOH, it is sometimes fun to poke a bear so long as you use a long stick and have the safety off on the 30-06. Look in the mirror and question where your sense of humor went. :--).


----------



## Joules (Dec 1, 2020)

Dragon said:


> You just made my point.


That point being?

Maybe you can express it in your own words instead of leaving it to others to interpret what your opinions are.



Dragon said:


> sometimes fun to poke a bear so long as you use a long stick and have the safety off on the 30-06. Look in the mirror and question where your sense of humor went.


I'm not sure where you are going with that analogy. Is poking the bear meant to be making a provocative statement and having a gun ready at hand meant to symbolise stepping away from a conversation without addressing the other side in a fair and respectful manner? That honestly sound just like trolling to me.

And that may be what you are going for, but you also mention humor. And I don't see any of that in there, so maybe you can elaborate what you actually meant to say.


----------



## slclick (Dec 1, 2020)

Dragon said:


> I was merely pointing out the futility of the argument to the OP. OTOH, it is sometimes fun to poke a bear so long as you use a long stick and have the safety off on the 30-06. Look in the mirror and question where your sense of humor went. :--).


No, the politix. I have a sense of humor longer than your stick and my posts are public to see... yours are just well, untimely and as we all know, in humor timing is everything.But as I see you interject gun references in as well so the source gray matter material is even more obvious.We're not on Parler here.


----------



## 10-8-244 (Jun 9, 2021)

Speaking for myself, I am excited for an R5s! I bought, used for two weeks and sent back today an R5. Coming from a 5DIV and as a prior 5DSR owner I was not impressed with the R5! I have never been into video, so those capabilities were wasted on me. I've learned to master quite well the autofocus options on the 5DIV and did not observe the R5 to be spectacular in comparison. The battery life was not what I would expect from a 5D series camera, the human face / pupil auto focus did not live up to my expectations; it struggled with dark brown or black colored pupils and with darker skin toned people. During my tests it would not lock onto the pupil and would revert to the face detect often. The first shot IBIS problem was very noticeable while reviewing numerous series of similar shots in post and as someone who will most likely never pay the premium wanted for RF glass I will eventually upgrade to any mirrorless camera maker who can produce a high megapixel camera that is compatible with EF glass utilizing an adaptor that has a mature IBIS and a BSI sensor without a low-pass filter. Because of the above and my opinion that the R5 is not worth $3899 or the $3699 I paid, I returned it and will not miss it. However, I do still miss my 5DSR that I sold years ago! The details and sharpness of landscape photos I took with that camera were absolutely stunning so that is why I am looking forward to an R5s.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jun 11, 2021)

H. Jones said:


> I mean, 90 mp makes sense. Just over double the R5's resolution, and the 5DS was just over double the 5D's resolution.
> 
> I wonder what frame rate they'll pull off with 90 mp. I would bet on the high end maybe around 8-9, 10 would make sense because double the data at half the speed, but the R5 only does 12 bit silent at 20 so with even more data I doubt they'll hit 10 fps.



The 50 MP 5Ds/5Ds R were introduced in 2015 and were just over double the resolution of the 22 MP 5D Mark III that had been around since 2012. But the next year after the 5Ds/5Ds R were released, the 30 MP 5D Mark IV was unveiled replacing the aging 5D Mark III. The 5D Mark III used DiG!C 5, the 5Ds/5Ds R and 5D Mark IV all used DiG!C 6.


----------

