It’s time to fill those memory cards. Canon releases firmware v1.8.1 for the Canon EOS R5. 400mp stills are now possible

[koenkooi]

A new attempt at focus stacking during my coffee break this morning, no halftone stippling anymore, only slight banding in 4 out of the 15 pictures, see this 200% crop:


I think that's due to the dimmed LED lights in the room. The stack turned out 'OK' using the other 11 pictures, the resulting TIFF was slightly over 1GiB. After running it through Topaz Denoise (5 and half minutes), Lightroom was able to turn it into a 70MiB lossy compressed DNG.

I get 'better-than-45MP' quality, but I'm not sure how often I'm going to use it. The youtube feature from Canon already mentioned it: reviewing in camera won't show the artefacts, use a proper computer for that.

I'm tempted to see how this works with tethered shooting, that would make it a lot faster to spot artefacts and redo the shot. Motorized slides also get bumped up a few places on my wishlist

The real test will be in a few days (weeks?) when I go out to search for dragonflies, let's see if everything can stay still enough to capture a perched dragon for a non-stacked high-res shot. I've had success with the built-in focus stacking and perched dragons, let's see how that translates to pixel shift.

After 2 days of playing with this:

• The increase in detail is much better than I expected
• The process is very error prone
• The lack of warnings and errors on failed shots is very un-Canon like
• SOOC JPEGs are a lot better than I remember, but I switched to RAW mid 2007 with a 20D

It all feels like a feature that would get introduced with a new body, with many "...and we'll improve it with firmware updates!" remarks during interviews and showcases.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I quote that instruction from the text of the firmware update several times because people are constantly (also repeatedly) writing one and the same thing - that artifacts appear in pictures taken with the new option.
However, no one asked why Canon says that the captured photos should be passed through DPP.
Of course, you can see those photos in LrC, but then accept that you will have artifacts present.
The firmware explanation text clearly states how to view the results recorded with the new option. And here, I quote again: "* To check images, use EOS Utility/Digital Photo Professional. EOS Utility/Digital Photo Professional requires a version upgrade.".

The output is JPG. To suggest that a JPG should only be viewed in DPP is silly.

 

[Deleted member 383640]

The output is JPG. To suggest that a JPG should only be viewed in DPP is silly.

Yes, it's really silly, but they say that's how it should be done, but there's no helping it. We will probably have an update for the previous update coming soon, as we have many times before.

 

[scyrene]

Very true, but IMO that doesn't excuse them.

It should have been perfectly possible to add the AF updates found in the R3/R6ii/ and even in the "cheap" R7. It should also have been possible to add pre-capture (even if only for JPEGs), not to mention variable fps and exposure bracketing in ES.

They clearly made a *choice* to NOT include these features, which are probably far more useful to the bulk of users. With no sign of a R5ii on the horizon, it's pretty disappointing. I suspect it's part of a cunning plan by Canon to get people who want these features to buy a R6ii or R7 as a second body.

I think your hopes are unrealistically high. Why expect an old body to get all the improvements from newer ones? I feel like anything added that isn't simply fixing problems is a massive bonus, given it costs us nothing.

 

[scyrene]

Very disappointing. Canon is slipping behind.

Lolll

 

[reef58]

I think your hopes are unrealistically high. Why expect an old body to get all the improvements from newer ones? I feel like anything added that isn't simply fixing problems is a massive bonus, given it costs us nothing.

I don't disagree, but a couple of examples are a bit odd to me. I own the 1dx3 and it is a great solid camera, which Canon calls their flagship. Unfortunately Canon has rendered it near the bottom of their line up feature wise. I am kinda okay with that, but it is still for sale at $6500. It is capable of some AF upgrades in live view, and why it does not have an intervalometer is beyond me.

The one I really don't get is the c300 and C500. I have considered buying a C300 and almost have several times. I don't like the mini XLR's on the c70 and the lack of an EVF from Canon. The C70 has gotten firmware after firmware updates especially on the AF side of things. Why they won't update the AF on. the C300 and C500 is a head scratcher. I have decided to wait for the C300 4 or whatever it is called.

 

[danfaz]

Very disappointing. Canon is slipping behind.

They're slipping behind by adding a free new feature to an almost 3 year old camera?

 

[Kit.]

f/11

You are already past the diffraction limited aperture for R5 sensors. Probably (but not necessarily) you see no artifacts because you see no extra detail either.

 

[ijohnsson]

Canon has released firmware v1.8.1 for the Canon EOS R5. This update brings the IBIS High-Resolution feature, allowing you to capture 400mp images. This firmware includes the following improvements and fixes: Download firmware v1.8.1 for the Canon EOS R5

See full article...

 

[ijohnsson]

Canon has released firmware v1.8.1 for the Canon EOS R5. This update brings the IBIS High-Resolution feature, allowing you to capture 400mp images. This firmware includes the following improvements and fixes: Download firmware v1.8.1 for the Canon EOS R5

See full article...

No lens can resolve that resolution anyway

 

[R5boy]

No lens can resolve that resolution anyway

I guess thats' a moot point here, because as the sensor moves, each time you only need 45MP resolving power, it's kind of, interlaced, panorama

 

[reef58]

They're slipping behind by adding a free new feature to an almost 3 year old camera?

You can look at it as a 3 year old camera, or you can look at it as a brand new in the box latest version for sale at this point. It depends on your perspective. The R5 is Canon's current model at its range. I own an R5 and they have done a lot firmware wise. It would not bother me if they added no additional features. That being said the camera market is competitive so they have to make it compelling to new buyers not necessarily buyer who purchased 3 year ago.

 

[entoman]

Let's look at things logically. People expected great things due to rumors, not facts, nor even based on what firmware updates typically include - even in the very recent past. Did Canon add these updated AF features to the R6? NO. They put them in the Mark II version of the camera. So isn't it logical that Canon will do the same with the R5?

A cunning plan? The most likely "plan" is that Canon wants them to buy the R5 II - which, like the R6 II - will have the newer features. If they put all these newer features into the firmware, what will they put in the R5 II? These are, quite possibly, the major features that will be the selling point for the R5 II.

As always, these are just my opinions and could be totally wrong (as I was wrong about the 400 high res). Maybe the rumors are true and there will be a major firmware update in the near future. But I see no reason to expect it, nor any reason to blame Canon because their firmware update is essentially just like most every firmware update (and arguably more than most).

I was only kidding about the "cunning plan"

What irritates me is that IMO Canon made the wrong *choices* with this update. The demand for (apparently poorly implemented) 400MP from current R5 users, and from potential purchasers of the existing R5 must be very small indeed. Few will ever use it in real world photography. Yet Canon chose to add it, instead of other features (such as those I mentioned earlier) that would have been much cheaper and easier to develop and implement, and would almost certainly have been of more practical value to the vast majority of users.

So, what was the real reason for implementing 400MP pixel-shift, and why put it in the R5, rather than wait for the R5ii where it would make more of a marketing splash? The answer I think, is that Canon are using the R5 as a testbed for this feature, rather than risk seeing it flop in a new model. The reaction here has been extremely negative. If they'd waited for the R5ii to launch the feature, and it had received such a negative reaction, it might have severely dented sales of the new camera.

 

[entoman]

You have obviously spent no time in Sony forums ;-)

True, I only listen to the gospel spoken by Sony's herd of paid influencers, and they always tell the complete and utter truth!

 

[entoman]

I think your hopes are unrealistically high. Why expect an old body to get all the improvements from newer ones? I feel like anything added that isn't simply fixing problems is a massive bonus, given it costs us nothing.

Of course, any new features that Canon provides in firmware upgrades are welcome, and there will always be some people who find them useful. My reply to @Czardoom above explains why I think Canon simply made the wrong *choice* of features to add, and also clarifies the reasons *why* they chose to introduce it at this particular time.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Of course, any new features that Canon provides in firmware upgrades are welcome, and there will always be some people who find them useful. My reply to @Czardoom above explains why I think Canon simply made the wrong *choice* of features to add, and also clarifies the reasons *why* they chose to introduce it at this particular time.

Your claim is that, "They clearly made a *choice* to NOT include these features, which are probably far more useful to the bulk of users," and while that's probably true I'd argue that it's less about features which will be more useful and more about features people want or will be attracted to / impressed by.

Is the 'market' for improvements added in firmware people who already own the camera, or people who may intend to buy the camera? If you're a prospective buyer, which sounds better?

A: 20 fps in electronic shutter mode (but you can also select lower frame rates if you want)
B: 45 MP sensor (but you can use pixel shift to take 400 MP images)

I think you're correct that A is actually more broadly useful. But B sounds a helluva lot more impressive to a potential buyer.

Your reasons are likely not the same as Canon's reasons, and it's their reasons that drive their decisions.

 

[trenear]

Had a look at the Canon (advanced) manual. Very helpful (not). "Select IBIS HR mode" "Select enable". "Take the picture". Duh.
You can't use flash. You can't use focus bracketing. So all but the most basic macro is out of the window.
You can't take landscape because something will always move somewhere and spoil the shot.
Had a quick go (admittedly not very thorough, but used tripod, remote shutter etc) then took the same shot and used Gigapixel to upres. Gigapixel image much better than the IBIS high res.
What on earth is it actually for?
I thought the big news was Canon was going to provide a lot of really nice extras before bringing out the R5 mk ii because the date for that had been pushed out to 2024.
This is hardly going to keep anyone interested in the meantime.
So, if one assumes Canon are not actually stupid (surely safe assumption???) there will be more to come. Is there a 'rumour' on this? Or are the normal sources as underwhelmed as the members of this thread

 

[danfaz]

That being said the camera market is competitive so they have to make it compelling to new buyers not necessarily buyer who purchased 3 year ago.

Yep, I see your point and agree. The intent of my question to the poster, though, was to hear how Canon is slipping (since they are doing something to make the R5 more compelling).

 

[Kit.]

So, what was the real reason for implementing 400MP pixel-shift, and why put it in the R5, rather than wait for the R5ii where it would make more of a marketing splash?

That one is obvious: to limit the backlash if this feature happens to be unsuccessful.

 

[entoman]

Your claim is that, "They clearly made a *choice* to NOT include these features, which are probably far more useful to the bulk of users," and while that's probably true I'd argue that it's less about features which will be more useful and more about features people want or will be attracted to / impressed by.

I totally agree! It's a sad reflection on the buying public, and evidence that the majority are more impressed by numbers and "bragging rights" features, than by features that would genuinely be useful to them and improve their photography.

Canon has always played the numbers game (re MP) with great effect, as you've noted here more than once. Possibly they just don't yet have the tech (or it's too expensive) to produce a 100MP FF sensor with decent DR and noise characteristics, so they've just found another route to arrive at a number that no one else has yet attained (for FF).

Is the 'market' for improvements added in firmware people who already own the camera, or people who may intend to buy the camera? If you're a prospective buyer, which sounds better?

A: 20 fps in electronic shutter mode (but you can also select lower frame rates if you want)
B: 45 MP sensor (but you can use pixel shift to take 400 MP images)

I think you're correct that A is actually more broadly useful. But B sounds a helluva lot more impressive to a potential buyer.

Your reasons are likely not the same as Canon's reasons, and it's their reasons that drive their decisions.

Hard to say. Different users will have a different take on this. I'd guess that most existing R5 users would choose option A. A tiny number of existing users who would happen to genuinely benefit from 400MP would choose B. New buyers of the R5 are likely to be DSLR owners or people upgrading from a R, so should be experienced and knowledgeable enough to make the "wise" decision rather than the "numbers will impress my mates" decision.