(Megapixels) War...what is it good for....

Every once in awhile I like to remind myself of a few things. Right now I am thinking about the benefit of MP and how many MP I need, with a nearly confirmed rumor of a R5 with 40-45 MP, a R6 with 20 MP, the 1DX III with 20.2 MP and the rumored "high MP" camera that is potentially 82 MP. Of course, that is just Canon. Sony and Nikon are sporting 40-65 MP in their current cameras. Fuji just released a 100 MP "medium" format camera.

But there are a lot of people talking about all the MPs and needed more MP. Yet, I recall doing the math when I bought my first DSLR, the Canon 7D, and concluding it was time to invest in a DSLR as that was enough resolution at 18 MP.

Being an engineer, I like numbers....so here is a table I put together this morning....

Camera	Megapixels	Horizontal Pixels	Vertical Pixels	Horizontal PPI at 24 inches	Vertical PPI at 24 inches	Horizontal inches at 150 ppi	Vertical inches at 150 ppi	Horizontal inches at 300 ppi	Vertical inches at 300 ppi
5DIII	22.3	5760	3840	240	160	38.4	25.6	19.2	12.8
5DIV	30.4	6720	4480	280	187	44.8	29.9	22.4	14.9
1DX III	20.2	5472	3648	228	152	36.5	24.3	18.2	12.2
Rumored R5	45	8208	5472	342	228	54.7	36.5	27.4	18.2
Rumored High MP	82.7	11136	7424	464	309	74.2	49.5	37.1	24.7
7D	18	5184	3456	216	144	34.6	23.0	17.3	11.5
M3	24.2	6000	4000	250	167	40.0	26.7	20.0	13.3
M6 II	32.5	6960	4640	290	193	46.4	30.9	23.2	15.5
G7X II	20	5472	3648	228	152	36.5	24.3	18.2	12.2

I picked a few of the metrics as:

• The largest print in my house is 24 in x 16 in. I have images up of that size shot with the 7D, 5DIII, and 5DIV. As far as I am concerned, they all look good. Maybe the images shot with the 5DIII/IV are a bit better, but I was also shooting with better lenses by that time.
• I've always heard/read that at normal viewing distances, the human eye can start to discern ~75-150 dots per inch resolution. So, I went with 150 ppi (and yes, I am assuming DPI = to pixels per inch (ppi)).
• Then, at least at one point, it was common for magazines to require images at 300 ppi. Maybe because of this, I've always heard 300 dpi/ppi regarded as the higher end standard.

​
So, given all that, you can see how the cameras stack up. My old 7D was greater than 150 dpi for the 24x16 prints I have up. The 5DIV is just short of 300 dpi/ppi (280 ppi) for a 24 x 16 inch prints.

So, do I really need more than my 5DIV for printing? I am thinking no. Even if I wanted to go really large, I could use my current 30.4 MP sensor and print up to 44.8 x 29.9 inches and still be at the 150 ppi threshold. I do, at some point, want to do a multiple frame image on a wall, you know, three prints that when combined show the whole image. I've always assumed I would do a panorama and stitch together an image for that, which would be much higher resolution. Looking at this, I might not have too.

So, other than getting caught up in a "Megapixel War" what are more megapixels good for? The thing I keep coming back too is cropping. I do not crop much for my family photos. I do not crop much for my landscape photos (sometimes just to reframe a bit). But, for wildlife that is not close...which does happen, I crop. Sometimes, I crop a lot. Could I use more resolution for wildlife? Sure...always. But, I am finding the 5DIV really has been sufficient for any print that I've made. Also, the more pixels on target you have, the better the technique you need, etc. Just because you have the pixels doesn't mean you'll see the benefit.

The next thought going through my mind, is if I am cropping for wildlife, do I really need FF? Really, it is pixels on target. For example, I scaled up the M6 II's 32.5 MP sensor to get the 82.7 MP sensor size for the "rumored high MP" sensor. But, in terms of pixel density, they are the same. In terms of pixels on target if I am cropping by 1.6x or greater, they are the same. If you think about it, taking a 500 mm f/4 lens on a FF 82.7 MP sensor and crop it down to 32.5 MP, it will even have the same bokeh and same resolution as that same 500 f/4 lens mounted on the M6 II. By cropping, you loose the benefit of FF. So, I am beginning to see the rational of why several wildlife photographers who are constantly distance challenged prefer crop sensor cameras. Granted, if you aren't distance challenge....FF.

As for the argument I've heard that more MP "is just memory and memory is cheap." Yeah, but it is also slower processing time (probably the biggest issue). Your cards fill up faster and I am typically keeping 6,000 to 10,000 images per year. That memory adds up to typically 250 to 450 GB including the jpgs I create. Backups take longer and I have to buy drives more frequently, etc.

Anyways...just some random thoughts as some evening plans got messed up. Of course, I would be interested in anyone else's thoughts on this.

Thanks,
Brant

In my opinion, MP is not that important unless you are having to crop a lot. I have a 1DIII(10MP) and a 1DsIII(21MP). I love both but I find myself using my 1DIII a lot. I shot my grandson's swim meet. This was shot as ISO 1250 and I enlarged it to 16x20 canvas. I was very pleased with the way the print looked.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...96156813_h.jpg1D3_0187-16x20v by Mark Clem, on Flickr

I am pleased with the sharpness from this 10MP camera.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9fb26d64_h.jpg1D3_0010 by Mark Clem, on Flickr

I would love to have the latest and greatest but choose to spend my money on glass. What is more important is the lens you use and the technique.
Just my thoughts. :)

Interesting discussion! With wildlife photography, cropping is often necessary but more MP may not always help. When an animal is far away, there could be distortion due to heat waves from the ground. So more MP would just give you a more detailed image of a blurry subject. Also more MP always means more noise, and with wildlife you are quite often shooting at high ISO to get enough shutter speed. Speaking of speed, my understanding with high MP sensors is that you need a faster shutter speed to take advantage of the inherent sharpness. So the high ISO required to do that could end up working against you. I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clemmb

I would love to have the latest and greatest but choose to spend my money on glass. What is more important is the lens you use and the technique.
Just my thoughts. :)

---

Glass is definitely important! But if you want a camera upgrade, let me know! I have a 1DX II that is looking for a good home :)

All good points. The other point in favor of higher MP in principle is greater ability to downsample.

How often do you find marked downsampling from a higher MP sensor to b helpful? I occasionally think it helped details on distant buildings in a cityscape, but usually do not find much advantage.

Nice pics Mark. I especially like the ape. Definitely looks sharp to me.

I do not disagree with any other points, granted, I really do not intentionally "downsample." I do it when I am creating smaller files to email people or something like that. But there is so little noise in my 5DIV, I really do not notice a difference. Granted, if I shot at ISO 25,600 or something, I might see it then (hmmm...perhaps a test in my future).

My next thoughts on this taking the R5 (which, BTW, is confirmed, but the 45 MP is still a rumor). That 45 MP, when looking at resolving power, is 1.22x my 5DIV and 1.5x the 1DX III (or II). But, if you are satisfied with the resolution of an image that fills the frame, more MP is overkill. For images where you need more "pixels on target", we essentially are talking about adding a 1.4x extender. Then there is the not all pixels are created equal argument that Jonathan was talking about. I recall tests on this forum where the general conclusion was that crop factor cameras actually provided about 1.2x more resolving power compared to 1.6x. As a crop sensor camera is essentially a subset of a high resolution FF camera, I really do not see why the same would not apply to high MP sensors.

EDIT: Another issue, but diffraction and whatever issues that will cause. Higher resolution, the lower f stop diffraction sets in at. For example, my 5DIV is f/8.6 while the M6 II is f/5.2.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

EDIT: Another issue, but diffraction and whatever issues that will cause. Higher resolution, the lower f stop diffraction sets in at. For example, my 5DIV is f/8.6 while the M6 II is f/5.2.

---

And the 1DIII is f11.5 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I recall tests on this forum where the general conclusion was that crop factor cameras actually provided about 1.2x more resolving power compared to 1.6x. As a crop sensor camera is essentially a subset of a high resolution FF camera, I really do not see why the same would not apply to high MP sensors.

---

I hadn't heard that one before but it makes a ton of sense to me. It follows one of the fundamental principles of life that I like to refer to as the Law of Diminishing Returns :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jonathan Huyer

I hadn't heard that one before but it makes a ton of sense to me. It follows one of the fundamental principles of life that I like to refer to as the Law of Diminishing Returns :)

---

Here is the thread I referenced.

Unfortunately, the link is broken to AlanF's analysis, but I recall he was taking DXOMark's P-Mpix (perceived megapixels) and comparing APS-C to FF. As the thread and Alan's analysis are a few years old, it is always possible that there have been improvements (better microlenses?). While I can not think of an APS-C camera with the same MP of a FF out of the current lineup, the 5DIV vs the 90D, if anything, should favor the 32.5 MP sensor and 3 year more modern 90D. Yet, I can still see a slight FF advantage here. So, same framing, distance adjusted, the 90D has more pixels on target, yet I'd take the 5DIV image quality over the 90D. It is getting close, though.

Once i had 5dsr in use bit over year, and i mostly shoot at nights i started to hate those mexapixels. It was so easy to mess up with northern lights images, if there was any fuzzines on the air or wind to slightly give shake to camera.

Also more megapixels the smaller the pixel size meaning less light in. Currently i am very happy to the amount of pixels and the size of them with my 5div. Will be interesting to see how the r5 gonna perform, since other options on that future body are really tempting...or maybe even the r6 since it has lesser megapixels, which could lead it to be really nice body for my purposes.

On clear summer landscapes the 5dsr was lovely body, to have the opportunity to do that cropping etc.

Another thing to consider is getting the shot in the first place. My brother is freaky about IQ to a fault. His ideal camera would some sort of industrial camera which needs to be tethered to a computer and uses three shots and interchangeable color filters and then stick the pics together in order to get the best color accuracy possible and fine detail ect.

But what for? He is just an amateur photographer like me, I don't need 400 MP. What am I going to be taking a pic of? My cat? Down the street? A backyard bird? Until I start putting ridiculous amounts of effort into taking a shot of that level would I dream of such a setup.

I am much more interested in making a picture that wows you, learn to take an amazing pic to begin with. Obviously I want the highest IQ possible for my budget but being a birder getting that shot is first and foremost and IQ second.

Just my rambling thoughts.

The classic trade off .... more (smaller) pixels which are more sensitive to proper sharpness technique and don't perform as well in low light but under the right conditions will excel at providing extreme detail, very large prints and more "crop-ability" versus less (larger) pixels which will perform much better in low light and will be a bit more tolerant of less than perfect technique and usually will image at a faster frame rate. It's all about the basic physics .... you have to choose the best tool (camera) for your purpose. Maybe have one of each:rolleyes:

Cat fur is very demanding for resolution :)

Dave

Haha, it actually does make for a good test of resolution.

Another thing is, more resolution technically doesn't increase noise per say, beyond the limits of the each pixel well's ability to collect light efficiently of course. It's the sensor size that is giving you more "Light gathering" ability. The smaller pixels allow you to magnify the already existing noise, but it's not increasing noise of the whole image. If you were to print the image the higher resolution image will be overall better than the lower res one. Although I'm sure there is a point if diminishing return because once your hitting 100,000 ISO I don't think your gonna see much difference when the whole thing is a mess of noise anyway!

The more pixels you have it loses a small amount of efficiency. Gapless micro lenses help a lot along with other modern advances in sensor technology but there is still some loss. So in that sense smaller pixels are adding noise. But usually Cannon offers little tweaks to the sensor to try and midigate that difference with modern high res sensors.

In other words just buy a dam camera and shoot!:cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fast Glass

In other words just buy a dam camera and shoot!:cool:

---

There you go .... the best camera is the one you have in your hands!

Indeed! I’ve been using the same camera since 2014 (the canon rebel t5) it’s the most basic starter camera canon has, it’s just got the 18 MP and it’s ISO noise is super bad if it goes over 800, but I still get good shots with it!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is very interesting that we really do seem to be in agreement. I do not think anyone has argued for more megapixels.

I will say, I have found a minor niche for more resolution these last 8 weeks (gulp, they have added up). But, as I have shot small birds with my 5DIV, I am occasionally finding myself cropping to ~1/9th the frame (so 1/3 horizontally and vertically). On my 5DIV that gives me a 2240 x 1493 image, or about 3.3 MPs. Playing with the math I used earlier, that would be 93 ppi if I wanted to print at 24 inches (so many people would be able to see pixels, most labs would caution against this print), at 150 ppi my max size would be 15x10 inch print and at 300 ppi my max print would be 7.5x5 inches.

What is impressing me here is that this still is not that bad. I can crop down to 1/9th of my frame and still print an 8x10. I am still downsizing for posting on the web for anywhere other than flickr. But, somehow, if I wanted to print larger than 15x10, really, I am starting to get into trouble if I crop by that amount.

So, there you go. A niche.

Interesting to me, but playing with the math, the rumored 45 MP of the R5 is not that much of an improvement (1/9th of frame at 150 ppi = 12 x 18 inch image rather than 15x10 in). Really, you would have to go to the scaled up M6II resolution (FF is 82.7 MP) and then a 1/9th of a frame at 150 ppi gives you a 24x16 in print.

I do find, with the small birds, that having room in the frame to work with helps while trying to track them as they move. So, this is a niche....someone who needs to crop to 1/9th of the frame and is printing up to 24x16 prints. :D;)

I would agree completely:)

No doubt the biggest challenge with small birds is getting more pixels on the subject.

The higher megapixel sensors help to some degree as you have clearly explained....that's why I used the 5D MKIV almost exclusively in Ecuador.

Two other factors that are perhaps even more beneficial in this particular niche situation are increasing lens focal length and reducing distance to your subject.

Another approach is using software to "up-scale" an image.

Both On One Resize and Topaz Labs AI Gigapixel are products that work very well at performing this task.

I have successfully converted 8x10 images up to 16x20 with excellent results.

I am kinda weird with birds, I do not crop. Ever. If it's not to my liking I sit around till I get what I want. Even with the 18 MP I used to have significant cropping definitely took a large impact not only in resolution but reducing contrast and snap to the image. And because I quite often shoot at higher ISO's that quite often was the worst thing about cropping.

But to each there own, I tend to not crop.

Getting it "right" in camera has definite advantages and huge crops often degrade image quality.

I use cropping for creating a more pleasing composition and I suspect this is a very common practice but if it degrades the quality much I will either not crop it or delete it entirely.

With bird photography my goals are to get a good pose, good background as well as properly exposed and very sharp image in camera.

Extreme cropping is not an issue for most of my bird pictures because with my set up I have complete control of my distance to subject so I will not require a large crop.

In the field this is not always possible and in this situation it may be beneficial to have more megapixels or a longer lens or both!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

In the field this is not always possible and in this situation it may be beneficial to have more megapixels or a longer lens or both!

---

Absolutely, if I had the means I be using a 800mm L and 1200mm L with a 1DX III and a high resolution FF. Maybe even a high res 1.6 for nutty reach. Probably Mirrorless because of the killer EVF for manual focusing with really dark apertures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

Extreme cropping is not an issue for most of my bird pictures because with my set up I have complete control of my distance to subject so I will not require a large crop.

---

Actually Joel, I have been admiring even what I consider to be subtleties of your set up. For example, I have a longish stick mounted to the vertical rod of the bird feeder. My issue, I never know what part of the stick they are going to land on. Probably 70% of the time when they do land on it, I do not even get a shot off as I by the time I recompose slightly, they've already jumped to my feeder. Also, I am impressed by how many birds notice my even slight movements. The female cardinal in particular does not like it.

But, your current set up, a nice point. Subtle, but I am already thinking of how to incorporate it into my set up.

I run into the same issue, especially with horizontal perches, where it can be hard to predict where birds will land.

Additionally they often immediately jump to the feeder or to the ground leaving no time to move the camera and get a shot.

One technique that works for horizontal perches.... use a limb with lots of small branches and trim a few to create a space for perching where you want it.

Vertical perches are a bit more predictable as birds like to land at the top but the woodpeckers often land lower, scurry quickly to the top and then jump to the feeder. Also the woodpeckers often hide on the far side of the vertical perch and just peek out. Every so often one will perch in a good position and be still for a few moments. ( I use a couple of cheap plastic Christmas tree holders for my vertical perches )

Leaning a vertical perch will encourage birds to land in a favorable position as well.

You are correct about motion ... Cardinals here are also very sensitive to motion.

Another trick (which I have not done for a while) is to drill a small hole and fill it with seed or suet .... birds will of course perch there to feed.

I have about 4 acres of woodland and a small creek behind the house so there is an ample supply of perches laying on the ground close by.

Boy, we sure got derailed! First we
were talking about high MP and then moved on to more fun things. Birding. Haha. :D

Guess we did stray a bit from the original thread .... too much fun to discuss gear and birds:rolleyes:

Just updating this table with the actual R5 pixel counts. Only a very minor change.

Camera	Megapixels	Horizontal Pixels	Vertical Pixels	Horizontal PPI at 24 inches	Horizontal PPI at 24 inches	Horizontal inches at 150 ppi	Vertical inches at 150 ppi	Horizontal inches at 300 ppi	Vertical inches at 300 ppi
5DIII	22.3	5760	3840	240	160	38.4	25.6	19.2	12.8
5DIV	30.4	6720	4480	280	187	44.8	29.9	22.4	14.9
1DX III	20.2	5472	3648	228	152	36.5	24.3	18.2	12.2
R5	45	8192	5472	341	228	54.6	36.4	27.3	18.2
Rumored High MP	82.7	11136	7424	464	309	74.2	49.5	37.1	24.7
7D	18	5184	3456	216	144	34.6	23.0	17.3	11.5
M3	24.2	6000	4000	250	167	40.0	26.7	20.0	13.3
M6 II	32.5	6960	4640	290	193	46.4	30.9	23.2	15.5
G7X II	20	5472	3648	228	152	36.5	24.3	18.2	12.2

With small birds, I am finding myself some of the time cropping down to ~1/9th of the frame. Smaller than that, regardless of the number of pixels, AF precision and the grain/size of noise becomes more of an issue. So, I also played with those numbers:

Camera	Horizontal Pixels	Vertical Pixels	Megapixels	Horizontal PPI at 24 inches	Vertical PPI at 24 inches	Horizontal inches at 150 ppi	Vertical Inches at 150 ppi	Horizontal Inches at 300 ppi	Vertical Inches at 300 ppi
5DIV	2240	1493	3.3	93	62	14.9	10	7.5	5
R5	2731	1821	5	114	76	18.2	12.1	9.1	6.1
Rumored R"HP"	3712	2475	9.2	155	103	24.7	16.5	12.4	8.2
1DX III	1824	1216	2.2	76	51	12.2	8.1	6.1	4.1
M6 II	2320	1547	3.6	97	64	15.5	10.3	7.7	5.2

So, take it as you will. I think, if I do get a new camera, my next camera will be more about AF speed/tracking/precision. Personally, it really would take something extreme like the rumored "High MP" camera to make much of a difference to me in terms of megapixels. If Canon could pull that camera off with even 5 or 6 fps, then you could still get a 24x16 inch print at 150 ppi when taking 1/9th of your frame, which is amazing. Granted. I only have about 8 of prints the size of 24x16 around my house and most where taken with either my 7D or 5DIII. :rolleyes:

I also have to say, I am appreciating the M6 II more and more, which is why I am willing to take it as my second camera to Yellowstone. If you want pixels on target, it is hard to beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

I also have to say, I am appreciating the M6 II more and more, which is why I am willing to take it as my second camera to Yellowstone. If you want pixels on target, it is hard to beat.

---

Excellent point. I suspect being a 1.6 crop sensor helps out in this regard.

I think number of pixels on subject is one key to rendering great details in bird photography.

I wonder how the R5 and R6 will compare when shooting in 1.6 crop mode?

Everything I have seen so far shows the AF tracking to be stellar with the R lenses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

Excellent point. I suspect being a 1.6 crop sensor helps out in this regard.

I think number of pixels on subject is one key to rendering great details in bird photography.

I wonder how the R5 and R6 will compare when shooting in 1.6 crop mode?

Everything I have seen so far shows the AF tracking to be stellar with the R lenses.

---

Yes, everything that I am seeing is very positive. While I apply the marketing grain of salt, people are legit excited and AF is getting mentioned a lot as a big surprise. Playing with the M6 II, it is impressive. I am going to do a little comparison thread as soon as I am ready.

I am most curious about the file size in "crop mode." If it is ~20 MB, that is interesting. But, what I've seen from other crop modes, even the "S" modes, is they do not save all that much memory. File sizes are still large. I do appreciate CRAW. From what I have seen, little to no image degradation and a significant reduction in file size. If file size is a factor, seems like a reasonable alternative. More memory savings that I typically see when I've tried the smaller memory sizes.

But, yes, the pixel density of the M6 II is equivalent to 82.5 MP in a FF camera. So, in terms of pixels on target, it is a significant difference and I am seeing some nice results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

But, yes, the pixel density of the M6 II is equivalent to 82.5 MP in a FF camera. So, in terms of pixels on target, it is a significant difference and I am seeing some nice results.

---

Have you tried the 500mm with an adapter on the M6II ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

Have you tried the 500mm with an adapter on the M6II ?

---

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...802f0ff2_h.jpgIMG_1491 by kayaker72, on Flickr

:)

So, yes, I have. But I am going through something right now. I used the M6 II with the 500 and various extenders in April. My impression was mostly favorable. I found that it worked fairly well with the bare lens, ok with the 1.4x TC, but then not very well at all with the 2x with the issue being ability to AF. I gave myself several weeks of shooting exclusively with the M6 II to really get a feel for it. But, as soon as I switched over to the 5DIV, even with the 1.4x TC, and I was like...ahh, this is better.

But, given the Yellowstone trip (assuming it still happens, taking a second look at everything this weekend), I wanted to test out the M6 II with the 500 mm again to make sure I would be satisfied and....it is killing it. The AF is much better. I am hardly missing any shots. It is even more consistently critically sharp than my 5DIV.

I am not sure what the difference is, but I have two theories, either of which would say something about DPAF: 1) There is something about the quality/quantity of light effecting AF speed and accuracy. In April, I shot a lot with clouds, right after the rain. Here in July, still some clouds, but generally brighter; and 2) I am shooting subjects that are closer. Due to the leaves on the trees, I am having to wait for the birds to hit my feeder, which is ~30 ft. In April, most of my shots were in the trees, which range from 50-70 ft. So, either DPAF is more sensitive to light than PDAF, or it has more difficulty with smaller subjects. This actually plays considerably into my thoughts on the R5/R6 for wildlife. Granted those are DPAF II, but I know AF speed for PDAF speed is sensitive to brightness and am wondering if DPAF speed and maybe even precision is very sensitive. I'll work on that at some point.

I should also note, in April, it could have been user error (:rolleyes:). While I was shooting 1/800th-1/1250th, etc, that may not be enough for 1.6x plus, 1.4x = 1,120 mm equivalent. At the time, I was thinking "IS", but I'll shoot more today at 1/2000th or faster. This high of pixel density will likely pick up everything.

I have been shooting only at 500 mm in July as the feeder is closer and, honestly, the birds at 30 ft fill up a good amount of the frame, especially the WP. But, I'll add the 1.4x TC today and post some results.

That sounds very promising ....

My current kit is great for most of what I want to do BUT I'm still having trouble resisting to pre-order the R5 and the 100-500mm and an EF adapter.

I figure if I don't like it I can return it right????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

That sounds very promising ....

My current kit is great for most of what I want to do BUT I'm still having trouble resisting to pre-order the R5 and the 100-500mm and an EF adapter.

I figure if I don't like it I can return it right????

---

Of course :cool:

I will say, I think I may have discovered the difference in my images from April until July. In April, I was really testing the M6II and wanted that 14 fps (it is really ~13). So, I had the camera's Drive Mode set in "H+" mode. Toward the end, I noticed that the camera refers to "H" mode as "tracking priority," so I figured a bit better AF even though it slows you down to 7 fps. So, April was most 14 fps in "H+" and July has mostly be 7 fps in "H" mode. I forgot I even made that change.

Well, doing a quick test this morning and in terms of the general image, you cannot see a difference, but zoom into 1:1 and the very fine details, like a birds eye, and I am seeing a difference. The "H" mode and 7 fps is hitting the eye in very sharp focus much better than the "H+" mode.

I just thought of this last night, and have only done two tests (one on static target, one on a flower in a slight breeze). I'll test out on birds later today or tomorrow.

Is this relevant to you, perhaps, I believe the 12 fps in the R5 is in an "H+" mode and they do have an "H" drive mode. If this is correct, I am going to consider the M6 II more of a 7 fps camera for small birds. I am not sure what the R5 "H" mode is, but if it has the similar issue, probably more of a 6 or 7 fps camera.

I think frame rate reduction is a potential issue .... do you think H mode would also reduce the frame rate using electronic shutter?

The last day or two I have been thinking if the R5 autofocus tracking performs well with adapted EF lenses it could replace both my 5DS-R and 5DMKIV.

It could take a very long time to find out and may not be fully possible without trying it for myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

I think frame rate reduction is a potential issue .... do you think H mode would also reduce the frame rate using electronic shutter?

---

I am not sure. I have only minimally tested the electronic shutter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

The last day or two I have been thinking if the R5 autofocus tracking performs well with adapted EF lenses it could replace both my 5DS-R and 5DMKIV.

It could take a very long time to find out and may not be fully possible without trying it for myself.

---

When phrased like that, yes, I think so. Most importantly, yes, the best way to find out would be to test for yourself. As you have mentioned with the 1DX III, it is a bit surprising how few reviews have really come from wildlife photographers. With the R5 having characteristics that lend itself to video, portrait, event, etc types of photography, I am expecting most reviews to focus on its strengths there. With B&H's 30 day return policy, that is actually fairly easy to test yourself.

But also, yes, I expect the R5 to be able to replace both your 5DIV and 5DSr. Canon is pushing out the concept that the R5, with modern filters, will "out resolve" the 5DSr despite having a few less pixels. In terms of DR, as the 1DX III is just a smidge better at lower ISO than the 5DIV, I expect the R5/R6 sensors to be very similar to the 5DIV, but just a smidge better and a significant jump, especially at low ISO, over the 5DSr.

So, even slightly better resolving power over the 5DSr, the DR of the 5DIV, higher FPS, eye/head/face/animal auto-AF....yes, the R5 should be able to replace, and be a bit better in numerous ways, those two cameras.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kayaker72

As you have mentioned with the 1DX III, it is a bit surprising how few reviews have really come from wildlife photographers. With the R5 having characteristics that lend itself to video, portrait, event, etc types of photography, I am expecting most reviews to focus on its strengths there. With B&H's 30 day return policy, that is actually fairly easy to test yourself.

---

I have to agree --- the 1DX III has not been widely endorsed by wildlife photographers. There is a smidgen of reviews on YouTube, but not a big rush to embrace. The intended audience is really sports photographers, and with no sports happening these days you're just not hearing anything about the camera at all since the initial release. A friend of mine who is a Canon ambassador and pro wildlife photographer got one to try out for a bit, and he said he was struggling to get the AF to work for him. Now he's testing the R5 and he seems to enjoy it quite a lot. As for me I'm still really quite delighted with Mark III and find it a very nice step up from the Mark II. It's too bad that 20 MP is now considered inadequate (especially when compared to the R5). If nobody knew in advance that a particular image was taken with a "low" MP camera, they'd probably never realize it.

My interest in mirrorless (as opposed to upgrading to the 1DXIII) was originally to fit a niche .... that being a smaller, lighter rig with stellar AF tracking for birds in flight.

I wasn't so much motivated by sensor resolution and was seriously considering the Sony a9 (also 20 mp).

I have been satisfied with the resolution of the 1DX. You (and others) have certainly proven that glorious images and large prints can be done with 20 mp.

The low light performance of the 1DX is truly amazing too but it does struggle with AF tracking quite frequently when shooting birds in flight and believe me I have tried extensively with different AF settings. I have shot side by side with D850 and a9 users who were getting way more sharp images shooting the same subjects. I just have no doubt those bodies have much better AF tracking.

The R5 interests me mostly because of it's reported AF tracking.

If the R5 can provide AF performance equivalent to the a9 with more pixels too then, to me, that is a win-win because of more "crop ability"

If it is the consensus that the R6 is significantly better at AF tracking or that the reduced ISO performance of the smaller pixels is a big problem I would certainly consider the R6.

One more point, for my purposes the R lens line up is not yet optimum: I wish there existed an R mount 500 or 600mm f/4 DO lens. (a built in 1.4 TC would be really cool)

So, if I take the plunge, I will probably try my existing EF lenses first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

If it is the consensus that the R6 is significantly better at AF tracking or that the reduced ISO performance of the smaller pixels is a big problem I would certainly consider the R6.

---

You know, that is really interesting. Is tracking better with larger pixels or smaller? We might learn by comparing tracking between the two. It did surprise me that EOLs like Rick Sammon was given the R6. I actually assumed that was due to the 600 f/11 and 800 f/11 he also reviewed and Canon wanted him to demonstrate the more entry level package.

As for ISO performance between the two, my money is that there is negligible to no difference. Before microlenses, smaller pixels let in less light because of the physical sidewalls of the pixels was essentially negative space. The light just bounced right off of it and was not captured. But, since microlenses capture that light and redirect it to the actual pixel well, I haven't seen much difference in noise between same sized sensor. Microlenses are not 100% efficient, nothing is, but they are really good and getting better.

So, the R6 has the same sensor as the 1DX III. It is every so slightly better than the 5DIV. I was attributing that to some ever so slight enhancement in sensor tech. But, if it is the same sensor tech, and pixel size difference, then the R5 should be slightly lower. What gets interesting is would the R5 actually have a better noise pattern due to the smaller pixels? Time will tell.

Attachment 2840

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Joel Eade

The low light performance of the 1DX is truly amazing too but it does struggle with AF tracking quite frequently when shooting birds in flight and believe me I have tried extensively with different AF settings. I have shot side by side with D850 and a9 users who were getting way more sharp images shooting the same subjects. I just have no doubt those bodies have much better AF tracking.

---

Absolutely yes --- that was a sore point with me and my Mark II. The Mark III is a massive upgrade in tracking, hopefully bringing it up to (or even beyond) the level of the D850 and a9. But I have no doubt that the R5 will be just as good. Maybe even better, since you're focusing with the sensor instead of a separate system. And the firmware for the focusing logic sounds like it is more advanced, in terms of subject detection.