Opinion: The R5 Mark II sounds cool – but where’s my Canon R5s?
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
Thank you, but one thing that caught my attention was that he said he "was borrowing the lens for another video."Generally, the more recent 're-review' videos in the 'Canon lens playlist' contain the testing with an R5 and R7.
For example the 28-70 f/2 L. An epic lens although one which even appears to have some problems coping with the R7's very high resolution per sensor area:
Re-testing on an EOS R5 & R7: Canon RF 28-70mm f/2 'L' USM
Originally I tested it on a 30mp EOS R. This video is just in case you were curious how it performs on Canon's most demanding cameras.Original review:https:/...youtu.be
I had an ef 24-70mm that became soft after about seven years; it came back from Canon service sharper than it had ever been. They told me that over time, lenses that are bounced around in bags can become soft from slight misalignments that happen over time. They also said beware of keeping it day after day in a hot car.
My point is that Mr. Frost had a lens with a history he knew little or nothing about, made his video, and shared his outlier conclusion based on a single copy of the lens.
I do not own the 28-70mm, but I have the RF 24-70mm now. Love it.
I will accept, however, that some lenses are going to strain at the highest available sensor resolutions, but I'd have to see more testing than just this one to agree that Canon lenses aren't capable of handling more than 45MP. If an upcoming camera offers 60MP, say, I wouldn't be deterred. The 100% (and sometimes 200%!) views I use in LR Classic and PS CC for OCD editing leave me no doubt that my RF lenses are perfectly ready for a higher-res sensor. How high, I have no idea.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Have to say that I am not sure that the lenses can handle R5s with over 100-200MP sensors these days. The shift sensor can do the "trick" for most of the users need such resolution (architecture/landscape).
Upvote
0
sure they can. Every. Single. Lens. benefits from more resolution. Your maximum resolving power of the lens defines how much image magnification you can do - for print, or larger, etc. Just the same as the aperture is governed by your print dimensions. a poor lens? you can only print at say 24" wide with good results, an excellently resolving lens may be able to print at 40" wide or larger, with a very small observer distance. But each lens benefits.
and sensor shift can only work in some use cases. I'd rather have something that works all the time.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sensor shift was great for me when I used it >20 years ago on my Zeiss microscope cameras. Because the photosensitive region was only about 1/3 of the pixel and because the subjects were fixed specimens with the system on a vibration isolation table, a 2x2 or 3x3 sub-pixel shift meant a real increase in spatial resolution with low-magnification objectives.
With gapless microlenses, spatial resolution increases are much lower with pixel shift, and with moving subjects the method loses effectiveness.
Upvote
0
Have you tried the sensor shift? It's pretty much useless. Not only it's JPG only, even the slightest amount of motion will ruin the image - and by motion I mean any motion, including air turbulence motion, clouds moving, tiniest bit of wind on the grass, water flowing etc. So even if you're shooting a completely static subject, like a mountain or a house, it will in most cases cause more problems than you can anticipate, with all the strange artifacts and messed up jagged edges.
I tried it multiple times and concluded it to be 100% unusable both for architecture as well as landscape. You can get better results just by shooting RAW and upscaling with AI.
Upvote
0
But why? I mean, apart from the 16 bit vs 14 bit and the leaf shutter, which def can be important to photogs shooting a lot of flash photography, what other advantages does the X2D have?
The X2D autofocus is much slower compared to Fuji, battery life is worse than Fuji, it shoots no video at all, it's 3 fps vs 8 fps on Fuji, viewfinder is 40% less resolution compared to Fuji, it has a lower battery life etc.
Finally, the lens selection for the Hasselblad is limited. There's no native telephoto lens past 135mm for the Hass, meanwhile Fuji has a 500mm as well as 250mm primes and a zoom that goes up to 200 mm. For me personally, another major plus point are native tilt shift lenses for the Fuji system. It's impossible to ignore the fact that Fuji lenses are also quite cheaper compared to Hasselblad.
What am I missing?
Upvote
0
gdanmitchell
When in doubt, doubt.
When the R5 was introduced (and it is a fine camera), for my purposes it was at all a compelling upgrade from the 5DsR I have used since that camera was introduced. I continued to use the 5DsR with my excellent EF lenses.
Like you, I sat back and waited, figuring that eventually Canon would complete in the high—MP full frame space by increasing sensor resolution to about 80MP. As you point out, they obviously already have APS-C cameras with equivalent pixel density. My plan was to move to the R system when Cann introduced such a high-MP mirrorless camera.
And now we see what seems like essentially a moderately updated R5 in the rumored R5II, but no high MP body. Some will say that 45MP is not that different from 50MP, and that’s true. But being true — at least for this photographer who uses such cameras mostly for landscape photography — that’s the problem. It provides no major, significant benefits for the typical high-MP photographer. Yes, it is better than the 5DsR in some ways, but not in compelling enough fashion to be worth the update.
So, I continue now to look at the Sony option. Plenty of fine photographers use that system to do work similar to mine. I also continue to consider the Fujifilm GFX 100s II, though the need to use adapted lenses to cover some things that I rely on with Canon EF lenses is still a concern.
What I can say with certainty is that I have no plans to buy the rumored R5ii if it has the specs as described. This could well be the end of my 20+ year run with Canon.
Like you, I sat back and waited, figuring that eventually Canon would complete in the high—MP full frame space by increasing sensor resolution to about 80MP. As you point out, they obviously already have APS-C cameras with equivalent pixel density. My plan was to move to the R system when Cann introduced such a high-MP mirrorless camera.
And now we see what seems like essentially a moderately updated R5 in the rumored R5II, but no high MP body. Some will say that 45MP is not that different from 50MP, and that’s true. But being true — at least for this photographer who uses such cameras mostly for landscape photography — that’s the problem. It provides no major, significant benefits for the typical high-MP photographer. Yes, it is better than the 5DsR in some ways, but not in compelling enough fashion to be worth the update.
So, I continue now to look at the Sony option. Plenty of fine photographers use that system to do work similar to mine. I also continue to consider the Fujifilm GFX 100s II, though the need to use adapted lenses to cover some things that I rely on with Canon EF lenses is still a concern.
What I can say with certainty is that I have no plans to buy the rumored R5ii if it has the specs as described. This could well be the end of my 20+ year run with Canon.
Upvote
0
This is very similar to my story, except I did invest in the R5 and a whole set of RF lenses (migrating from 5DmkIV). I needed a reliable all-arounder with better video performance and the R5 didn't disappoint. Also, going from 30 mpix to 45 mpix was a significant step up. The lenses, while huge, did live up to their reputation.
And just like you, my thinking was that surely Canon will be increasing sensor resolution in the second generation.
Original 5D was 12 mpix, then 5Dmk2 was 21 mpix, mk3 was 23 mpix, mkIV was 30 and we had the 5DsR with the 50 megapixels. It made sense to expect a resolution bump, especially when the direct competitor from Sony is already on the market with 61 megapixels.
As I mentioned earlier, I will likely buy the R5 mk II, simply because I need a second RF body for my business. But instead of my planned investments into RF400, RF 600 and RF 800 mm, I will instead get the Fuji GFX 100 II because I also need a high res camera and I cannot wait another couple of years for Canon to maybe come out with one. It makes no sense when I can get Fuji immediately and at a price point similar to what R1 will most likely cost.
Upvote
0
Ditto for me but as I have been told numerous times on this forum, apparently Canon doesn’t care about folks like us as they are putting all their effort into sports photographers, portrait and wedding photographers and vloggers.
Disappointing and frustrating given the wait since the 5DsR. I too primarily shoot landscape (from 11 to 600mm) and astrophotography. I assume both would benefit from additional MPs and have too looked more seriously at Sony, Nikon and Fuji options. The one benefit I experienced with Canon vs Fuji was in extreme cold weather where the Fuji bricked immediately.
Since I am still a few years from full retirement I will likely wait to see what comes out before considering a change in system. I have the R5 and enjoy it. Won’t upgrade to the R5II and likely won’t buy any more lenses until I see what Canon does by that time. It will be a painful switch in many ways but I do intend to use the system quite a bit more at that time for my chosen style.
In order to feed my urge to explore I have acquired a drone and am having fun with that technology for both video and photos from new perspectives.
Upvote
0
It is well known that for any moving objects, taking multiple images is not going to work, but in such cases yo also want high iso and high shutter spedd which suffurs heavelity due to smaller pixel size on the sensor. This is way the R3 and R1 have "smaller" sensor resolution to the R6 and R5.
You mentiond using upscale and AI to increase the size of the picture, maybe this is the reason that Canon don't make a higher resolution sensor, the "answer" is already there and there is less need to develop high end resolutuon sensor, but focus in increasing the current sensor size capabilityes to allow upscal and AI to have a better "base" to work on?
Upvote
0
Sensor shift is a gimic from all concerned. But what about the up-resolution from topaz, etc? Do they work for you?
One of the conundrums I face is that if I have a 20MP pic from 10 years ago, do I need to reshoot it at 45MP to keep that shot usable?
Yup, they needed to be a disruptor to gain traction and it worked.
Is there a reference for that? I would have said that Canon started R&D on MILC prototypes when Sony splashed or earlier.
Maybe Canon want to do more MP with newer tech to get better images? And aren't happy with a FF version of the 90D sensor?
But if Canon is following the money and the money is with 24MP being shot at 30fps, what to do? Are those lusting for more MP in 35mm format simply unimportant? To answer your question, about where are the high MP sensors from Canon, who are the customers aside from pixel peepers on the Internet?
Upvote
0
I think people forget there is a whole market of professionals who regulary use tripods and actually don't need high shutter speed. What they do need is high resolution. I couldn't care less if the camera shoots 8 fps or 16 fps or 32 fps, or the depth of the buffer. I'm not going to shoot 300 raw bursts.
As for AI upscalers, I've used photoshop and Topaz. Photoshop is a beta feature, but Topaz is actually great if you're going to upscale an 8 mpix to 16 mpix, or even 24 to 48 mpix. But 45 to 90 mpix... that's a different story. And understandably so, because these algorythms have been trained on mostly mid-resolution photos, because those are widely available.
It also really depends on the motif. It did great to upscale an eagle portrait, but failed miserably when I gave it a go with landscape. AI upscalers are not there yet.
Upvote
0
There is no logical connection between those. One can use a tripod and not need high shutter speeds or high fps bursts, but that doesn't mean that person also needs high resolution.
I think people here think they know the market and what the market needs better than Canon does. Hubris at best, but plain foolishness is the more likely basis for such thoughts.
Upvote
0
it's really the other way around. Sony and Nikon are scrambling around doing things to stop significantly more losses to Canon.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
