A few Canon EOS R5 Mark II specifications [CR2]

[koenkooi]

That's true, but @koenkooi 's statement implies EFCS doesn't give 14 bits above ISO 800. And that would be incorrect.


Also - small correction - MS and ES in the R5 converge at ISO 800, not above
View attachment 216744

Yes, my phrasing conflated the 2 separate issues: different bitdepth during sensor readout and the ISO setting playing a role in the effective DR.

 

[JordanCS13]

Why on earth would it do 30fps in mechanical shutter mode. If it has a stacked sensor with faster readout than the R3, then it's likely over 1/200s, and probably closer to 1/250s....so why would it even need a mechanical shutter? The A1 is 1/240s, and Z8/Z9 are 1/270s, and none of those have mechanical shutters because they offer almost no advantage.

I guess the only reason would be if Canon still hasn't figured out how to do 14-bit RAW in electronic shutter mode. (Even my Zf does 14-bit RAW in electronic shutter).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Why on earth would it do 30fps in mechanical shutter mode.

Perhaps this spec rumor didn't come from Earth.

I guess the only reason would be if Canon still hasn't figured out how to do 14-bit RAW in electronic shutter mode. (Even my Zf does 14-bit RAW in electronic shutter).

Since my R3 has delivered 14-bit RAW files with electronic shutter (which is all I use) since the day I received it in Nov 2021, I'd say Canon has figured it out.

 

[tiggy@mac.com]

60MP is only 15.5% denser linearly than 45MP if both sensors are the same width & height. It's not really that significant of a difference.

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

 

[roby17269]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

What a beautiful wild cat and capture - but you can see the artifacts of enlargement (?) if you look close?

I agree with you by the way: there are circumstances where higher resolution is better. I shoot fashion and sometimes big crops are done to extract a detail. These circumstances may be niche or completely irrelevant for others, but are important for some.

I am sure someone will chime in soon to tell us that 24mp is all we need, because, reasons

 

[neuroanatomist]

These circumstances may be niche or completely irrelevant for others, but are important for some.

I am sure someone will chime in soon to tell us that 24mp is all we need, because, reasons

Everyone gets to decide what they need, for themselves. For me, 24 MP is generally enough. Even if I don’t often need more, I’m not opposed to having more. Downsampling is easy and basically penalty-free.

Canon has to decide what most people will actually buy.

 

[AlanF]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

@Michael Clark is correct, 45 to 60mp is only an increase in resolution by 15.5% though there are 33% more pixels on target, which is probably what you mean. I have to agree with @roby17269 that there are enlargement artefacts if you look up very close, but most don’t look up close. (I’ve spent too much time upscaling and staring at artefacts.) Best of luck getting it accepted as it’s a great shot.

 

[Talys]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

That is an amazing photo. Kudos, and I hope your photo is selected. Thank you for sharing

 

[roby17269]

Everyone gets to decide what they need, for themselves. For me, 24 MP is generally enough. Even if I don’t often need more, I’m not opposed to having more. Downsampling is easy and basically penalty-free.

Which is absolutely fine. And you're totally right about downsampling. At least you do not try to teach me the error of my high mp ways

Canon has to decide what most people will actually buy.

Indeed, same as with the upcoming (?) fast 35mm - sorry I need to go to another room and cry a little

View attachment 216749

Loved that movie, one of the best Star Trek movies IMHO

 

[JordanCS13]

Perhaps this spec rumor didn't come from Earth.


Since my R3 has delivered 14-bit RAW files with electronic shutter (which is all I use) since the day I received it in Nov 2021, I'd say Canon has figured it out.

Then yeah, it makes no sense for the R5 II to have a mechanical shutter if the other specs are accurate.

 

[sanj]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

Lovely post and photo. So who made it to the cover? Resolution or soul?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Then yeah, it makes no sense for the R5 II to have a mechanical shutter if the other specs are accurate.

Hopefully it's just the protective curtain/shield.

 

[justaCanonuser]

30 fps mechanical will shake your fillings loose

Heavy users of 30 fps mechanical may develop a new health problem which may be called "Canon Carpal Tunnel Syndrome" (CCTS).

Btw I got my RF 200-800mm yesterday - finally. The woman at the desk of my local shop said "oh, you've been waiting a long time" when she saw the date of my initial order. I just nodded. So this lens starts to hit even the new third world from Canon's perspective: Europe . Interestingly, this lens is "Made in Taiwan", so I guess it will not last as long as my nearly 30 years old club of an EF 500mm f/4.5 that still goes and goes and goes, like in the classic Volkswagen Beetle TV commercial.

 

[justaCanonuser]

Then yeah, it makes no sense for the R5 II to have a mechanical shutter if the other specs are accurate.

Well, it also makes no sense today to buy a new Harley for a lot of bucks to get a loud bangin' and shakin' motor that is on the technical level of 1928, but some people still love and want it . People have to get adjusted to the idea that the best cameras today don't come with that show-off rattle of high fps with which you could impress your environment acoustically.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

Really beautiful image, did you catch it in the wilderness? I shot a lot of bobcat images, but only in game parks, so I never would consider my images as the "real thing". In Germany, the wild ones are extremely shy. Btw, as an editor of a German physics magazine, I may reply: not every editor is a dork - at least I hope so

 

[justaCanonuser]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

2nd reply: consider the R7 as an addition to your R5, its pixel density would make an about 80 MP sensor in full frame. For wildlife with teles, it really makes a difference, in particular because one mostly shoots with more open apertures. The smaller pixels are, the more is the sweet spot moving towards lower f-stop numbers, because of diffraction blur kicking in. With actual de-noising software, even ISO 6400 images from the R7 offer surprisingly good quality.

 

[EricN]

Z8 doesn't have any kind of eye-CONTROLLED AF!

That person got confused and thought "I controlled AF with my thumb"

 

[EricN]

ISO doesn't matter for the specified bit depth of the recorded file, but it matters for the dynamic range of the actual image data recorded in that file. The point @koenkooi was making is that above ISO 800 there's no difference in the actual DR of images captured with MS vs. ES. You could save the file as 20-bits and it would still have only 9 stops of DR at ISO 800, or 5 stops of DR at ISO 12800. But at ISO 100 you'll get 12 stops of DR with MS and only 10.5 stops with ES.

Although I haven't done very extensive testing (because the difference is almost only noticeable when zooming in and increasing contrast beyond normal levels), I believe the gradations will be slightly smoother with the higher bits. Has anyone noticed this or am I imagining it?

 

[EricN]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

Wonderful shot. What's the name of the magazine?

 

[sanj]

And he calls himself a wildlife photographer. Ahm! He and his wife are sweet/well meaning people but he is NOT. a wildlife photographer... NO.