High-resolution EOS R Camera, Where are you?

[danfaz]

A high-resolution EOS R is already available: the R7 has 85 MP (effective pixels) converted into full frame

I've done quite a few still life comparisons between the R5 and R7, and some shots were difficult to tell which-was-which as far as resolution went. However, if I cropped, the R5 had more pixels and resolution to play with.
The R7 did not behave like 85 MP in my testing.
*I should say what I think 85 MP would be like.

 

[YuengLinger]

If you're an absolute amateur, yes, otherwise, no. R5 and other high MP cameras are OK only at really good sunlight. Plus you will not get any shallow DOP with the 200mm (even at 2.8) if the subject is 30, 40, 50 and more meters away.

I've been around long enough to remember when only "an absolute amateur" would ever need AF. Or IS. And so on...

And where in the world did you get the idea the R5 is "OK only at really good sunlight"?

 

[neuroanatomist]

One of the metrics that kept me away from the Canon mirrorless system for so long was the resolution of the new R series cameras was lower than the previous DSLR cameras....the 5Ds still slightly outresolves the R5.

In fact, the resolution of cameras after the R/RP wasn't lower. In 2020, Canon changed the design of the AA filter to a 'high detail low-pass filter'. The 24 MP sensors in the R3, R6II and R8 outresolve the 30 MP sensor used in the 5DIV and EOS R, and the 45 MP sensor in the R5 outresolves the older 50 MP sensor. Obviously, I'm talking about real spatial resolution, not megapixel count.

 

[neuroanatomist]

And where in the world did you get the idea the R5 is "OK only at really good sunlight"?

He read it on the internet.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If it were a great sensor with reasonable noise to deal with, would 100mp impact lens sales? If I can photograph a soccer game, say, with an RF 70-200mm and a 100mp sensor vs 45mp, would I be able to crop so tightly I could leave my 100-500mm at home?

Why on earth would you do that?
I could see using a 70-200 if you did not own a 100-500

 

[EOS 4 Life]

For my uses I hope the r5 range stays at current resolution as an do everything camera and they make a seperate camera for those who want higher resolutions.

The rumor is about a higher resolution R5 S.
Although, there are other rumors about the R5 II being 60 MP which would match the a7R V.

 

[john1970]

I could see a 60 MP sensor for FF camera, but beyond that resolution I do not see a huge market. Just my opinion and Canon likely knows more than I!

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The R7 did not behave like 85 MP in my testing.

It is like 85 MP is pixel density but not in any practical way.
The R5 has more pixels and that shows.

 

[roby17269]

In fact, the resolution of cameras after the R/RP wasn't lower. In 2020, Canon changed the design of the AA filter to a 'high detail low-pass filter'. The 24 MP sensors in the R3, R6II and R8 outresolve the 30 MP sensor used in the 5DIV and EOS R, and the 45 MP sensor in the R5 outresolves the older 50 MP sensor. Obviously, I'm talking about real spatial resolution, not megapixel count.

He is the one that said that he was not happy to go from 22 to 20 (5DIII to R6) but was happy to go from 22 to 24 (5DIII to R6II / R8). Adding / removing 2 mp is not very meaningful at all (and even less so if you look at the impact on linear resolution) and other factors at play may have a bigger practical impact, as you write. In the past I went from 21 to 18 (5DII to 1D X) and I did not feel the loss in resolution to be meaningful, while other aspects more than compensated that for me (e.g. better AF).
Same as the difference between 50 and 45mp.

Very different was for me to move from 18 to 80 (1D X to IQ1 80), and 18 with AA filter to 80 with no AA filter to booth, not to mention FF to MF. That was a meaningful bump I could easily see with my old-ish eyes. I can still see a difference between the IQ1 80 and the R5 as well... although I need to be fair: I use them very differently. One is used slowly and methodically, on tripod, with controlled lighting and usually at small apertures (f/8-13) and ISO 35. The other is used quickly, running and gunning (and huffing and puffing ) chasing my daughter, at bright apertures and sometimes high ISO. So I would be surprised if I did not see any differences

 

[EOS 4 Life]

And where in the world did you get the idea the R5 is "OK only at really good sunlight"?

I believe that is meant to refer to very fast shutter speeds for sports photography with the electronic shutter.
The a9 III seems to have the same shortcoming if not more so.
Of course, unlike the a9 III, the R5 has a fully mechanical shutter to fall back on.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

He is the one that said that he was not happy to go from 22 to 20 (5DIII to R6) but was happy to go from 22 to 24 (5DIII to R6II / R8). Adding / removing 2 mp is not very meaningful

A lot of people have a difficult time upgrading to fewer megapixels.

 

[roby17269]

A lot of people have a difficult time upgrading to fewer megapixels.

I understand that and empathize (I did a lot of hard thinking before buying the 1D X, although most of it was due to its price )
Still, saying that -2 is unacceptable and +2 is great seems an emotional response, not a practical one

 

[whothafunk]

I've been around long enough to remember when only "an absolute amateur" would ever need AF. Or IS. And so on...

And where in the world did you get the idea the R5 is "OK only at really good sunlight"?

From actual daily use as a professional sports photographer for Olympic committee, Redbull Media House and others, unlike most of photo intellectuals from amateur kids league on the internet do, so spare me the lecture. Also, the message was referring to excessive cropping at higher ISO, which on a R5 is ISO 3200 and upward.
Most people here have no real life experience, only swear to what CIPA and reviews write (R5 only does 400 photos, R3 1200 photos, R5 AF is almost as good as R3 and such crap).

 

[docsmith]

After 3+ years of ownership, well over 100,000 images....I do not recall wanting more MPs than what I have with my R5.

Everyone is different. I am sure there is a market. But about as close as I have come is cropping skimmers. But I still ended up with a 3-4 MP image after crop. Even there, FPS mattered more than more MP. And its not like having a 6-8 MP image after cropping would have been light years better.

Again, each to their own, but anything over ~60MP I will consider to be a negative for my purposes.

 

[Berowne]

When one can read here, that 24 Mp are way enough and computers are way too slow for 45Mp, everybody knows, that in case of sensor technology Sony is again on the inside track ...

 

[Software2]

640 kilopixels ought to be enough for anybody.

 

[Bonich]

Since the EOS R system was announced back in Septmeber, 2018, there were constant rumors and reports about a 100mp (give or take) EOS R system camera in the pipeline. Once the EOS R5 was announced in 2020, the rumors and reports returned for a while and then it went quiet. We still continue to

See full article...

When to get a b/w modified body instead of an Astro modified body?
I would purchase a R5 B/W within seconds!

 

[jam05]

The time for a Canon 100mp or medium format device would have been before Hasselblad and Fujifilm released their models. Canon marketing has done well to stay out of that tiny sub sector. Cameras are niche consumer devices anyhow. The hype surrounding that rumor has long faded.

 

[RobbieHat]

Seeing what landscape photographers can do with the Fuji GFXs 100 MP when cropping is quite nice. You are able to crop to effectively a pano ratio and still be working with 40-50 MPs which then support printing large. I know this is a niche use case and the Fuji sensors are quite a bit larger but more MPs do offer flexibility in a lot of situations. Beyond that, offering in camera options for file size is pretty common and would be useful for those that want fewer MPs per file when shooting birds, wildlife, sports, etc.

 

[Bahrd]

The rumor is about a higher resolution R5 S.

Or just an R4?