Opinion: The R5 Mark II sounds cool – but where’s my Canon R5s?

Good post.
The modern RF lenses are more than up to the task.

Oh no....it will expose the weakness of my RF16

It is APS-H, meaning that they could make an even higher MP full-frame one.

EOS 4 Life said:

120 Megapixel High Resolution CMOS Sensor | Canon USA

Canon 120 megapixel high resolution CMOS sensor at 9.4 fps in APS-H format offers all new pixel structure for high resolution imaging. See what’s possible.

canon-cmos-sensors.com

It is APS-H, meaning that they could make an even higher MP full-frame one.

Click to expand...

But it’s not DPAF, an upscaled R7 sensor would have 165Msensels already.

I'll get one just to take photos of my pets.

Richard CR said:

Since this announcement 8.5 years ago, Canon has quietly forgotten about the camera they were at one time developing for us. This was the 120MP DSLR with a stunning resolution of around 13,400 x 8,900. That’s a lot of MegaPickles™. Canon was confident at the time that they would have the sensor technology, and the

See full article...

Click to expand...

After read your article and the Canon link, I can guess what's problem from Canon view.
The announcement has 8K cinema camera and monitor. But until now, all three items have not released.
The 8K camera should be the first priority to release but they have not talked anything.
R5c is from R5. It is the only 8k camera.
In these 8.5 years, including 3 years COVID.
It seems Canon couldn't find the right time to release.
After they released R mount camera, they need to release many lens every year. They have not released all range lens even now.
Then the first one EOS R just like R3.
They were not ready to release R5 and R6 so they released EOS R and RP...
They might have chance to release 5Ds mkii in 2019 if they didn't release R mount.
Long story short, 5Ds was released after EF mount released 15 years or released after 5D3.
I would say they may have time to release after R5 mkii or really wait after R5 mkiii.
As you said, calculate from R7 sensor, it can be 82mp sensor.
Between 2018-2024, Canon solved many technical problem.
1. Sensor speed. R7 sensor can prove they can have 82MP DPAF. More than 10 fps.
2. DIGIC X is fast enough for R5s.
3. CFexpress card is fast for big files.
4. IBIS for taking photos.(I went to one tokyo show at that time. Canon needed to lock the 120mp camera and took the photo to avoid shaking blur photo.)

So I said one old problem.
Schedule.
The other new problem is after covid, the meterial has not enough to make many new camera.
They may not have enough for R1 and R5 mkii.

So this stupid answer, they need to release R1, R5 mkii and 8K cinema cameras. At least we need to wait 2 more years.

Richard CR said:

yes around 202MP full frame, but that wasn't DPAF, so around 101MP with pixel pairs - and that's using ~120nm sensor tech.

Click to expand...

I remember they announced 250mp sensor also.
So I found this

Richard CR said:

hah. i stand corrected C700 was only 6K.

Yes, the 8K CINI camera that was shown off never did make it out into production outside of the R5C which wasn't really it either.

Click to expand...

Anyways Canon finally registered 2 cinema cameras. Hope they will show something exciting.

At this point in time if you want a bigger sensor get a FujiFilm medium format and forget Canon. With their slow rollouts and production issues Canon isn't likely going much bigger than 45mpx anytime soon. And they don't even have RF mount telephoto primes yet that can keep up with the new sensors unless you want to spend $13k-$20k per lens. Yes you can shoot at F11 if you want but that's a mismatch for what the newest sensors are capable of. Maybe in another 2-3 years they can get caught up.

I like megapixels. But people who ask for excessive amounts of it forget one very important factor - you are diffraction limited. It doesn't matter how sharp your lens is if diffraction is are softening your image. You can already see the effects of diffraction in sony's 60mp sensors at f11, while canon's R7 sensor which is 83mp equivalent when scaled up to full frame is already seeing diffraction at f8.

As a product photographer in studio i focus stack the heck out of my images taken at larger, sweet spot apertures to squeeze out so much detail that is not achievable with single shots, but that's not feasible for many other genres of photography.

I'm content with existing 45mp sensors and wouldn't buy anything with 24mp for my primary camera. 60mp+ is cool but I'm not sure if more than 10,000 pixels wide (i.e. Above 68mp) on a full frame sensor is something i want.

EXkurogane said:

I like megapixels. But people who ask for excessive amounts of it forget one very important factor - you are diffraction limited. It doesn't matter how sharp your lens is if diffraction is are softening your image. You can already see the effects of diffraction in sony's 60mp sensors at f11, while canon's R7 sensor which is 83mp equivalent when scaled up to full frame is already seeing diffraction at f8.

As a product photographer in studio i focus stack the heck out of my images taken at larger, sweet spot apertures to squeeze out so much detail that is not achievable with single shots, but that's not feasible for many other genres of photography.

I'm content with existing 45mp sensors and wouldn't buy anything with 24mp for my primary camera. 60mp+ is cool but I'm not sure if more than 10,000 pixels wide (i.e. Above 68mp) on a full frame sensor is something i want.

Click to expand...

People haven't forgotten diffraction, we know to use wide aperture lenses to minimise its effects.

Sony has more sensor R&D money than anyone else, and they haven't come out with a FF 120MP still camera either.

If I wanted a 100 MP camera I would use the Fuji GFX system. I did try the GFX system and the resolution is amazing, but for me I had really little use for such resolution. For me the most practical format is full frame 3:2 aspect ratio and 45 MP or even less is good enough.

I for one would really like to see a Canon camera with a higher resolution. Why?
I'm a full-time commercial photographer and the requests from clients have changed quite a bit just in the last decade. I find myself creating a lot of stuff for webpages, multimedia, social media etc. And it pays off to have high-resolution files, because of the different formats and sizes those images are used in.

A lot of times the same image gets printed on a poster in landscape format with lots of background and foreground around the main subject. Then the same image is heavily cropped and the main subject is printed vertically in a magazine. Clients zoom into images for multimedia presentations, crop them heavily for social media, they use all sorts of crop formats for web banners, vertical webpage backgrounds etc.



Another reason is I find retouching easier with high-resolution images, even if the images are downsized later.



I also shoot a lot of landscapes and exhibit large prints, and then, at first people look at them from far away, but then they step in closer to look at the details.



I shoot a lot of outdoor sports and a lot of times the in the picture athlete is pretty small surrounded by a magnificent landscape, and it is a huge benefit if you can still see some details on the athlete when you step closer to the print, make a multimedia zoom, or decide to crop the image for a magazine or whatever.



I also make time-lapses and the higher resolution enables zooming and panning across the frame without using motorized heads and on-the-site zoom movement.



I have some low res wide angle landscape shots with animals in their natural habitat and even though the shots look nice, I would love the ability to print them big and see the details on the wildlife or in some cases do a crop to present on my webpage and social media next to the whole frame.

---



I don't thinkndiffraction is that big of a deal.

In some cases, you can focus stack, in some cases you don't need everything sharp so you use wider apertures, and in some cases, you have everything basically in the same focus plane (shooting a model in front of a tapestry, doing a reproduction of a painting, shooting a building front, a climber on the wall etc)



And in the cases where diffraction is a limiting factor and you can't get around it, you are still no worse than shooting with a lower-resolution camera.



So for me, a Canon high res camera with more than 90MP, moderate fps and some basic video features would be a great addition to the R5 (or the future R5 II that I'm probably getting anyway)



______

As for the GFX system ...

I've used Fuji and the 102 MP files are great, with loads of detail, nice colors etc... however Fuji doesn't offer some of the lenses that I use daily.

Even if you buy their "trinity" lenses they don't cover the whole range from 16-200mm (which I find most useful)

They don't offer any bright ultra-wide primes, or telephoto zooms above 150mm (35mm eqv).

Also, their AF is a lot slower than what I'm used from Canon cameras and lenses.

Tell ‘em Richard!

I’m ready for the high resolution body.

Canon probably does not see a good market for a 120MP R5s at this stage. Also making a full frame version of the 90D sensor which would be around 82MP might be too slow of a readout time for the AF system. I think Canon would have lots of ideas but some just don't get released for various reasons.

The R5 does have the 400MP pixel shift feature for still subjects.

SnowMiku said:

[..] The R5 does have the 400MP pixel shift feature for still subjects.

Click to expand...

I'm curious if that will be present in the R5II and if so, will it still be limited to JPEG?