Canon EOS R5 Mark II sensor resolution likely to stick at 45mp but with new AI features [CR2]

[David - Sydney]

While I’m pretty averse to subscription services, I understand a subscription fee when the provider continues to provide and maintain a service - like if they’re running servers to keep my product operating, I get there can be a cost attached to that. But when the subscription is for just having them let me use a feature or tool already installed and functional on a product I purchased in whole, then I have a hard time with that.

VNFs or even Oceanic's scuba diving algorithms are interesting subscription models.

The OEMs are distilling their secret sauce IP into a downloadable SW package that you effectively rent. Although their revenue is down as they are not selling networking boxes or watches, they don't have to worry about the cost of manufacture, installation, warranty/maintenance and disposal issues. They can focus on what they are good at which is the SW side of things.
Users get the choice of when they want to use it with a very short leadtime and no capital costs besides the initial generic 3rd party hardware.

It is good to see different models coming out to suit both manufacturers and users. Good models can work for both sides.

 

[David - Sydney]

We forget about the other side of SW which is hacking license keys with significant revenue leakage - especially in certain large markets.

When PS was so expensive, hacking it was worthwhile but these days, no one would bother buying a hacked version as the subscription model is comparably inexpensive.

 

[3kramd5]

the Tesla Acceleration Boost SW download is a one time purchase. Clearly the car hardware is already capable although it isn't clear what are the downsides to battery or other hardware components by using it.

I drive a model 3 performance; the biggest downside is tire wear.

 

[PhotoCadieux]

Spot metering that follows the focus point is what I would like to see.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Spot metering that follows the focus point is what I would like to see.

And you probably will. In the R1.

 

[photographer]

I try to avoid and hardly use the subscriptions models because the ongoing costs really get to you. We cut down on streaming (only Netflix). We don't use Spotify or anything similar. If you invest the money you put in Spotify you'll save a lot of money in the long run...We have like 30 GB of music accumulated and so we only spent like 30-50 €/ year (combined) for new music purchases. At the moment, I still use Lightroom but I am working on switching to Affinity. I already bought it, but it is kind of hard getting used to it...

For me, on the other hand, Spotify is a way to save money on music. I used to buy CDs even if I liked only 2 or 3 songs from an album. Because there was no other legal option and I didn't want to "steal". Now I only buy CDs if it's a favorite band and a special edition or combo with blu-ray. If Canon were to go the subscription route, I would consider switching to Fujifilm medium format.

 

[photographer]

I think Adobe is the reason a lot of companies are trying the subscription model. It has worked for them, but I’d argue that the reason it works for them seems to be missed by a lot of companies trying to replicate the model. I’m no expert, but I’ve always thought a lot of people stick with adobe because they have numerous products which especially graphic designers may need. Replacing adobe once you’re in their ecosystem could mean finding new options for desktop publishing, photo manipulation, vector graphics, video editing, and several others. Each of those changes would come with a new learning curve, individual cost, and potential compatibility issues with files you already have and depend on. Given that adobe dominated the market for many of those software packages for a long time, it means a lot people would have to go that painful process to drop Adobe. That’s a pretty high barrier for exit. For other services like cars, and I’d argue cameras as well (GoPro tried this and then backed off), there is indeed competition, and a lower bar for change. Yes, you have to re-learn, yes there is an upfront cost, but your old files are still accessible (for cameras anyway) and comparable products are available on the market without the subscription model.

With all that said, this is a rumour and certainly some assuming the worst is going on in here. I truly hope that any subscription system doesn’t go down the worst case scenario, but we will see.

I see it the same way. Adobe is a "monopoly". But what is the actual advantage of Canon over SONY or Nikon? And if I was already forced to change the brand, why not go straight from FF to MF? Fujifilm has been making great progress in recent years - smaller bodies, lower prices, ...

 

[AlanF]

I think Adobe is the reason a lot of companies are trying the subscription model. It has worked for them, but I’d argue that the reason it works for them seems to be missed by a lot of companies trying to replicate the model. I’m no expert, but I’ve always thought a lot of people stick with adobe because they have numerous products which especially graphic designers may need. Replacing adobe once you’re in their ecosystem could mean finding new options for desktop publishing, photo manipulation, vector graphics, video editing, and several others. Each of those changes would come with a new learning curve, individual cost, and potential compatibility issues with files you already have and depend on. Given that adobe dominated the market for many of those software packages for a long time, it means a lot people would have to go that painful process to drop Adobe. That’s a pretty high barrier for exit. For other services like cars, and I’d argue cameras as well (GoPro tried this and then backed off), there is indeed competition, and a lower bar for change. Yes, you have to re-learn, yes there is an upfront cost, but your old files are still accessible (for cameras anyway) and comparable products are available on the market without the subscription model.

With all that said, this is a rumour and certainly some assuming the worst is going on in here. I truly hope that any subscription system doesn’t go down the worst case scenario, but we will see.

Goes back a long way into history. For example a 1000 years ago, the English king, as did many Europeans, paid a tax to the Vikings, the Danegeld, to stop them raiding the country as it was easier to do that than fight. It was later written, "once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane."

 

[Del Paso]

Spot metering that follows the focus point is what I would like to see.

Me too!

 

[Fischer]

Goes back a long way into history. For example a 1000 years ago, the English king, as did many Europeans, paid a tax to the Vikings, the Danegeld, to stop them raiding the country as it was easier to do that than fight. It was later written, "once you have paid him the Danegeld/ You never get rid of the Dane."

A great business model already back then! (for the Danes)

 

[Sporgon]

Me too!

Never understand this. The whole point of a spot meter is to take multiple readings. Fixing the spot to your chosen AF point means your exposure is being set off that one reading, a very effective way of overcoming the sophisticated metering built into modern cameras. I think this is why Canon have historically only put this feature in the 1 series; there’s a better change of the photographer being at least as intelligent as the camera.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Never understand this. The whole point of a spot meter is to take multiple readings. Fixing the spot to your chosen AF point means your exposure is being set off that one reading, a very effective way of overcoming the sophisticated metering built into modern cameras. I think this is why Canon have historically only put this feature in the 1 series; there’s a better change of the photographer being at least as intelligent as the camera.

Disagree. Spot metering allows you to set exposure based off what you think is most important in the scene, rather than letting the camera evaluate the scene and pick an exposure based on its database.

Evaluative metering does a pretty good job, but the times when it tends to fail are, in my experience, those times when spot metering would yield the desired exposure.

Evaluative metering isn’t perfect, which is why cameras offer exposure compensation.

com·pen·sa·tion: something that counterbalances or makes up for an undesirable or unwelcome state of affairs.

It’s not called exposure adjustment…the point of EC is to make up for an undesired evaluative metering result.

 

[Del Paso]

Never understand this. The whole point of a spot meter is to take multiple readings. Fixing the spot to your chosen AF point means your exposure is being set off that one reading, a very effective way of overcoming the sophisticated metering built into modern cameras. I think this is why Canon have historically only put this feature in the 1 series; there’s a better change of the photographer being at least as intelligent as the camera.

And I don't understand why you don't understand this.
Multiple readings? Not necessarily, quite often, the subject needs the best exposure (typically the small flower against a bright sky)
I often use spot metering and focusing, when for instance taking a picture of flowers against a dark or bright background, or of small animals, planes in the sky etc...(high contrast- tiny or small subjects)
And I almost never use the "intelligent" metering methods, apart from some very specific situations. I tend to prefer the photographic "chiaroscuro" situations, and that's where "intelligent" exposure measuring usually fails, DR is limited!
Additionally, in film times, my cameras were Leicaflex, Leica Rs and Leica M5s. They all had spot or selective measuring. So, in digital times, I've tested different methods, but always turned back to spot/selective. It's just a matter of personal preference.
I know that many great pictures were shot in auto/intelligent mode. People differ!
PS: I just noticed Neuroanatomist was faster at answering

 

[AlanF]

Never understand this. The whole point of a spot meter is to take multiple readings. Fixing the spot to your chosen AF point means your exposure is being set off that one reading, a very effective way of overcoming the sophisticated metering built into modern cameras. I think this is why Canon have historically only put this feature in the 1 series; there’s a better change of the photographer being at least as intelligent as the camera.

The R5 (like other models) has spot metering at the centre spot, covering about 3.1% of the field. They just want that mode to apply to the point they are focussing on and not just the centre. I would find it very useful as the camera is more intelligent than me at keeping the focus point on a bird's eye.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And I don't understand why you don't understand this.

Perspective, perhaps (the mental kind, not the optical kind)? For landscape photographers, using the camera's spot meter can allow determining an exposure in a way similar to how studio photographers use a handheld light meter. But for those scenes, evaluative metering already does a very good job, e.g. selecting an exposure considering both sky and ground. DR is an obvious limitation, thus the use of grad NDs or post-processing exposure blending / luminosity masks (and more recently, in-camera AI-driven 'grad NDs').

As for why AF point-linked spot metering is found only on the 1-series bodies, there was a technical reason for it with DSLRs – the higher density metering sensors in the 1-series. With MILCs where the metering sensor and AF sensor are the image sensor, there's no technical reason not to include it (the computing power needed should be less than that for evaluating the whole scene), it's just Canon being Canon, IMO.

 

[Del Paso]

Perspective, perhaps (the mental kind, not the optical kind)? For landscape photographers, using the camera's spot meter can allow determining an exposure in a way similar to how studio photographers use a handheld light meter. But for those scenes, evaluative metering already does a very good job, e.g. selecting an exposure considering both sky and ground. DR is an obvious limitation, thus the use of grad NDs or post-processing exposure blending / luminosity masks (and more recently, in-camera AI-driven 'grad NDs').

As for why AF point-linked spot metering is found only on the 1-series bodies, there was a technical reason for it with DSLRs – the higher density metering sensors in the 1-series. With MILCs where the metering sensor and AF sensor are the image sensor, there's no technical reason not to include it (the computing power needed should be less than that for evaluating the whole scene), it's just Canon being Canon, IMO.

Now I see why, except the 1 series, no other DSLR got this feature.
Maybe the R5 II gets it?
Because my carrying system excludes the use of gripped bodies. Otherwise I would already own an R3, best ergonomics ever, and plan to order an R1...
To be honest, after having used a Leicaflex SL, I was no longer happy with my Nikon F2. Kodachrome wasn't particularly forgiving, and selective measuring was a great help. Remember Kodachrome's black shadows?
That's when I jumped ship into the Leica boat, until digital came with Canons...

 

[Sporgon]

Disagree. Spot metering allows you to set exposure based off what you think is most important in the scene, rather than letting the camera evaluate the scene and pick an exposure based on its database.

But if you have that spot meter linked to your AF point then that is what you will meter from, irrespective of where it sits in relation to 18% gray in the scene. It presumes that what you are focusing on will give the correct exposure. As you pointed out, this will often require the photographer to recognise how the subject sits in absorbing light and compensate accordingly. Hence my last statement of why I personally think Canon only offer this in the one series, as there’s a higher chance of those photographers understanding this, but I read your point about only the one series having the AF module to allow it, or the processing power maybe. I thought from the mark 3 the 5 series had the same AF sensor.

 

[Sporgon]

The R5 (like other models) has spot metering at the centre spot, covering about 3.1% of the field. They just want that mode to apply to the point they are focussing on and not just the centre. I would find it very useful as the camera is more intelligent than me at keeping the focus point on a bird's eye.

And what happens with your AF linked spot metering if the bird’s head and eye are black ? You have to compensate or you will over expose. You will know this, but many wishing for this feature seem to be under the impression it will guarantee their subject being correctly exposed.

 

[danfaz]

And what happens with your AF linked spot metering if the bird’s head and eye are black ? You have to compensate or you will over expose. You will know this, but many wishing for this feature seem to be under the impression it will guarantee their subject being correctly exposed.

It can be an option, which wouldn't hurt anybody. I don't know if 1 series DSLRs gave you an option with the linking.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It can be an option, which wouldn't hurt anybody.

That is not really the Canon way.
They do not like to have more options than necessary.
They like to keep things simple.