I agree that DP Raw is not for having more resolution, the subpixels (sensels?) share the same microlens and colour filter after all. I do wonder if quad-pixel would allow that, every bump in resolving power is welcome! It won't be a 2x or 4x improvement, more like a 10% bump.
Well there’s your issue - shoot rugby instead: the ball is odd shaped, so no one will notice!
I'm interested - you sound like you are squarely in the R5 'demographic'. The 5 series (and variants) having been Canon's higher MP vehicle for some time. Ignoring the upcoming R5 II for the moment (given the lack of detail available), what does the R5 not do that you would ideally like the R1 to provide?
When a photographer wears a TAG Heuer watch, it's safe to assume he knows a thing or two about his job, too.
To you. Not some of us. If 6 megapixels is meaningless, then why not include it? Yeah, the camera is built for speed, but not just that. There are all kinds of other features someone might want.
A naive, but likely correct way of calculating is to say 24 to 30 is 25% more, so things like fps and buffer size drop by 20%.
Maybe I am missing something...You say resolution is by and large paramount. And if the R1 had 30-36 MP you would buy it. And yet you have the 45MP R5. So, if Resolution is paramount, and you already have the higher MP camera that seemingly does everything you would need for advertising and catalog work, why would you buy the R1 if it had 30 MP? Makes no sense. It's like saying, I have the best camera for the job, but I would have spent $6,000 (or whatever it will be) to get a camera that does not do the job as well.
While it's 25% more pixels it's only 12% greater resolution (4,000 ppi versus 4,472 ppi)
@Canon Rumors Guy 's comment was in the context of whom the target market is and not to be taken literally for every purpose. @koenkooi's response on how it affects fps was appropriate in that context.
It is indeed a proper way to move numbers around. The chip can process a certain amount of MP/s.
I had in mind to answer but forgot about it untill I saw this picture posted in a cinema thread
Does the buffer size drop? Or does it fill quicker? I guess my next question is: Ok. The buffer fills quicker and empties slower. So it's maxed out for performance at 24mp? No extra room?A naive, but likely correct way of calculating is to say 24 to 30 is 25% more, so things like fps and buffer size drop by 20%.
I think I've been on this forum for at least 10 years. Just seems like the flagship would've made it to 30mp by now. I know Someone's gonna say, "Those files would be too big for pro sports photogs." Maybe true. But they can use the R3. They're a tiny group. They've gotten by with far less.
I get that. I just don't think 6mp is meaningless. Poor choice of words. I would think a birder would find that 6mp useful. But, maybe the R5 is better suited. I would think they are a portion of that target market. My memory might be incorrect, but it seems I remember lots of birders using the slr flagship 1DX series.. If the target is singularity pro sports photogs... Just seems doubtful. Of course, back then the 5 series was slow.
Depends on the birder. If you have a long enough lens, cropping becomes a diminishing return due to the combination of diffraction and atmospheric effects. Personally, with 1200mm f/8 available I don’t need to crop very deep into 24 MP and if I do, the distance is usually great enough that air distortion renders the shot unusable anyway.
Indeed, the R5 is the body of choice for most Canon birders although there are some who do use the R3 (as well as R7, R6 etc). The 1DX series was way ahead of the 5D series for AF and fps whereas the R5 AF and fps are relatively very good and it has nearly twice the pixels as R3.
Shooting little birds, like warblers, in the medium distance, swifts in flight (as well as dragonflies) does not suffer from air distortion (as does doing dragonflies in flight). Smaller, lighter lenses are also a big advantage for rapidly swinging the camera for tracking erratic small birds close by.
I suppose the problem is the word "flagship", which I think a lot of people consider means "the best in all ways" but Canon seems not to (nor surely did it mean that originally).Does the buffer size drop? Or does it fill quicker? I guess my next question is: Ok. The buffer fills quicker and empties slower. So it's maxed out for performance at 24mp? No extra room?
Like I said, this one will never be for me anyway. Just don't get 24mp. Oh well.
R5 Mark II. Maybe. Someday.
