why releasing R Mark II after only 2 yeras

[BirdShooter7]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I agree but maybe 30MP is just too close to 45MP and it would hurt the sales of the R5 too much?

It could be too close. I think the question will be answered with whatever the sensor is in the camera that replaces the R which looks to be the R8.

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

My guess is that if an R8 does appear at some point it won’t be essentially a R5 with a 30MP sensor. With the R6 Canon gave so much of the R5 but used largely the megapixel count to differentiate the two models.

 

[Foskito]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

There have been many posters in this forum saying the 20mp resolution sensor was an issue for them in considering the R6. Many consider 24mp to be their bottom for sensor resolution and this is held up by most FF and ASP-C camera makers as being the bottom.

This seems to be totally arbitrary and I’d imagine is the result of the other manufacturers producing 24MP sensors instead of the cause of them producing 24MP sensors. It’s like those people who think 1.6x vs 1.5x crop is a big deal.

Not matter how 24mp became the default minimum it seems to be the case. percentage wise the drop from 24mp to 20mp is substantial and is how many people view the difference.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

The fact is the R7 has better AF than the R6 and R5 for many use cases and equal to them in most others. There have been many posts where people in this forum have said they would like Canon to provide a firmware update for the R5 and R6 to gain some of the AF improvements found in the R7. I think there will be an update to the R5 in a similar fashion as the R6 just received but the R5 will keep its 45mp sensor with a few tweaks added to it.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

This combo is mostly for specific use cases such as birding etc. I think if one is spending nearly $4k on two camera bodies most people would pick the R5 over the R6+R7. I would. But then I am not into very long telephoto shooting and I don't think that most amateur, enthusiast and professional photographers are into it either.

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

 

[thunder storm]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

There have been many posters in this forum saying the 20mp resolution sensor was an issue for them in considering the R6. Many consider 24mp to be their bottom for sensor resolution and this is held up by most FF and ASP-C camera makers as being the bottom.

This seems to be totally arbitrary and I’d imagine is the result of the other manufacturers producing 24MP sensors instead of the cause of them producing 24MP sensors. It’s like those people who think 1.6x vs 1.5x crop is a big deal.

Not matter how 24mp became the default minimum it seems to be the case. percentage wise the drop from 24mp to 20mp is substantial and is how many people view the difference.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

The fact is the R7 has better AF than the R6 and R5 for many use cases and equal to them in most others. There have been many posts where people in this forum have said they would like Canon to provide a firmware update for the R5 and R6 to gain some of the AF improvements found in the R7. I think there will be an update to the R5 in a similar fashion as the R6 just received but the R5 will keep its 45mp sensor with a few tweaks added to it.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

This combo is mostly for specific use cases such as birding etc. I think if one is spending nearly $4k on two camera bodies most people would pick the R5 over the R6+R7. I would. But then I am not into very long telephoto shooting and I don't think that most amateur, enthusiast and professional photographers are into it either.

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I think it's visible when pixel peeping, side by side images of the same scene, and a lens like the 40mm Art. There's also the argument of cropping: you can always crop to a point where these differences become visible.

 

[BirdShooter7]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

There have been many posters in this forum saying the 20mp resolution sensor was an issue for them in considering the R6. Many consider 24mp to be their bottom for sensor resolution and this is held up by most FF and ASP-C camera makers as being the bottom.

This seems to be totally arbitrary and I’d imagine is the result of the other manufacturers producing 24MP sensors instead of the cause of them producing 24MP sensors. It’s like those people who think 1.6x vs 1.5x crop is a big deal.

Not matter how 24mp became the default minimum it seems to be the case. percentage wise the drop from 24mp to 20mp is substantial and is how many people view the difference.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

The fact is the R7 has better AF than the R6 and R5 for many use cases and equal to them in most others. There have been many posts where people in this forum have said they would like Canon to provide a firmware update for the R5 and R6 to gain some of the AF improvements found in the R7. I think there will be an update to the R5 in a similar fashion as the R6 just received but the R5 will keep its 45mp sensor with a few tweaks added to it.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

This combo is mostly for specific use cases such as birding etc. I think if one is spending nearly $4k on two camera bodies most people would pick the R5 over the R6+R7. I would. But then I am not into very long telephoto shooting and I don't think that most amateur, enthusiast and professional photographers are into it either.

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I think it's visible when pixel peeping, side by side images of the same scene, and a lens like the 40mm Art. There's also the argument of cropping: you can always crop to a point where these differences become visible.

 

[BackToNature1]

Did they need the extra 4MP to do full readout for video? I thought I saw somewhere that there is always a MIN MP needed for certain video functions per sensor size?

 

[J.K.T.]

The line making the most sense isn't a hard line anyway, as it's the perceptual Mp-count that matters.

On the 24Mp line: it's not only the A7III but also the 80D, M100 and a lot of other M cameras having 24Mp. Now I would prefer a 20Mp full frame sensor over 24Mp aps-c, but I'm not sure most customers are aware of the full frame advantage outweighing 4Mp less. This is another thing hard to quantify, but it's there.

I'd have preferred 32 MP FF and 24 MP APS-C, but we get what we get...

 

[thunder storm]

The line making the most sense isn't a hard line anyway, as it's the perceptual Mp-count that matters.

On the 24Mp line: it's not only the A7III but also the 80D, M100 and a lot of other M cameras having 24Mp. Now I would prefer a 20Mp full frame sensor over 24Mp aps-c, but I'm not sure most customers are aware of the full frame advantage outweighing 4Mp less. This is another thing hard to quantify, but it's there.

I'd have preferred 32 MP FF and 24 MP APS-C,

Same here.

but we get what we get...

A7IV + Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8. It would have been nice if Canon at least tries to compete..... 33Mp at R6 prices, and that lens is only 1800 euro combining a 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/2.2, 80mm f/2.5 and the for portraits most useful part of a 70-200mm f/2.8.

 

[J.K.T.]

I'd have preferred 32 MP FF and 24 MP APS-C,

Same here.

but we get what we get...

A7IV + Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8. It would have been nice if Canon at least tries to compete..... 33Mp at R6 prices, and that lens is only 1800 euro combining a 35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/2.2, 80mm f/2.5 and the for portraits most useful part of a 70-200mm f/2.8.

Naah. I've got too much glass to bother changing. I might get R though. It still has reasonable sensor and resolution. R7 will handle the action needs well enough.

 

[MikeJ9116]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count. I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon. Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

Really? As far as I can tell for all practical purposes 20MP = 24MP, especially in the world of 45, 50 and 61MP sensors. I guess it’s just a mental thing?

Its a marking issue. How many times have we seen the 20mp sensor being a sticking point with people considering the R6? Quite a few in this forum alone.

I just can’t get my mind around why 24MP would be fine but somehow 20MP isn’t enough. I could see that back when 24MP was the biggest there was but when there are options with so many more pixels that little difference that isn’t even perceptible in final results is insignificant.

Many people have a floor value for almost any metric that can be quantified with a number. Megapixels, frame rates, buffer depth, battery life etc. are all metrics where people have a bottom value for what they consider the bare minimum. In today's world of IL cameras it seems to be 24mp for sensors. As I said in another post, if 20mp is good enough then why isn't 18mp or 15mp? A person has to draw the line somewhere.

It’s one thing when it’s a minimum based on some measured value like but it seems to me like this MP thing is just pulled out of thin air or worse still based on an insignificant difference that competing brands have on offer.

Clearly the desire for MP’s goes beyond the rational and the camera manufacturers know it and leverage it very effectively. It goes a long way to explaining what’s for sale I think.

This is why I said Canon likely had to up the mp count for marketing reasons and not from a functional aspect. It also could have been for manufacturing efficiency reasons since the R3 has a 24mp sensor and the 1D sensor might be going out of production soon.

 

[MikeJ9116]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

There have been many posters in this forum saying the 20mp resolution sensor was an issue for them in considering the R6. Many consider 24mp to be their bottom for sensor resolution and this is held up by most FF and ASP-C camera makers as being the bottom.

This seems to be totally arbitrary and I’d imagine is the result of the other manufacturers producing 24MP sensors instead of the cause of them producing 24MP sensors. It’s like those people who think 1.6x vs 1.5x crop is a big deal.

Not matter how 24mp became the default minimum it seems to be the case. percentage wise the drop from 24mp to 20mp is substantial and is how many people view the difference.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

The fact is the R7 has better AF than the R6 and R5 for many use cases and equal to them in most others. There have been many posts where people in this forum have said they would like Canon to provide a firmware update for the R5 and R6 to gain some of the AF improvements found in the R7. I think there will be an update to the R5 in a similar fashion as the R6 just received but the R5 will keep its 45mp sensor with a few tweaks added to it.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

This combo is mostly for specific use cases such as birding etc. I think if one is spending nearly $4k on two camera bodies most people would pick the R5 over the R6+R7. I would. But then I am not into very long telephoto shooting and I don't think that most amateur, enthusiast and professional photographers are into it either.

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

 

[BirdShooter7]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count. I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon. Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

Really? As far as I can tell for all practical purposes 20MP = 24MP, especially in the world of 45, 50 and 61MP sensors. I guess it’s just a mental thing?

Its a marking issue. How many times have we seen the 20mp sensor being a sticking point with people considering the R6? Quite a few in this forum alone.

I just can’t get my mind around why 24MP would be fine but somehow 20MP isn’t enough. I could see that back when 24MP was the biggest there was but when there are options with so many more pixels that little difference that isn’t even perceptible in final results is insignificant.

Many people have a floor value for almost any metric that can be quantified with a number. Megapixels, frame rates, buffer depth, battery life etc. are all metrics where people have a bottom value for what they consider the bare minimum. In today's world of IL cameras it seems to be 24mp for sensors. As I said in another post, if 20mp is good enough then why isn't 18mp or 15mp? A person has to draw the line somewhere.

It’s one thing when it’s a minimum based on some measured value like but it seems to me like this MP thing is just pulled out of thin air or worse still based on an insignificant difference that competing brands have on offer.

Clearly the desire for MP’s goes beyond the rational and the camera manufacturers know it and leverage it very effectively. It goes a long way to explaining what’s for sale I think.

This is why I said Canon likely had to up the mp count for marketing reasons and not from a functional aspect. It also could have been for manufacturing efficiency reasons since the R3 has a 24mp sensor and the 1D sensor might be going out of production soon.

My guess is that this might be more of the reason. Maybe the 24MP sensor is based on the R3 sensor making it easier to produce.

 

[BirdShooter7]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

There have been many posters in this forum saying the 20mp resolution sensor was an issue for them in considering the R6. Many consider 24mp to be their bottom for sensor resolution and this is held up by most FF and ASP-C camera makers as being the bottom.

This seems to be totally arbitrary and I’d imagine is the result of the other manufacturers producing 24MP sensors instead of the cause of them producing 24MP sensors. It’s like those people who think 1.6x vs 1.5x crop is a big deal.

Not matter how 24mp became the default minimum it seems to be the case. percentage wise the drop from 24mp to 20mp is substantial and is how many people view the difference.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

The fact is the R7 has better AF than the R6 and R5 for many use cases and equal to them in most others. There have been many posts where people in this forum have said they would like Canon to provide a firmware update for the R5 and R6 to gain some of the AF improvements found in the R7. I think there will be an update to the R5 in a similar fashion as the R6 just received but the R5 will keep its 45mp sensor with a few tweaks added to it.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

This combo is mostly for specific use cases such as birding etc. I think if one is spending nearly $4k on two camera bodies most people would pick the R5 over the R6+R7. I would. But then I am not into very long telephoto shooting and I don't think that most amateur, enthusiast and professional photographers are into it either.

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

Honestly, I’ve experimented with this a lot with the 7d mk2 sensor and the 80d sensor and really in that case it’s pretty meaningless even in terms of cropping. Maybe there could be some differences with FF but I seriously doubt it except maybe some very extreme circumstances like base iso with excellent light and top quality lenses and looking VERY close. I honestly believe any improvement is just to overcome a mental block about not enough MP’s. Heck, when I’ve presented people with images from the R, RP pans R6 the vast majority of the time nobody could tell which came from a higher MP camera. It wasn’t until I threw the R5 into the mix that the task got easier.

 

[R2D2]

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

Definitely not a meaningless upgrade to ME either.

I shoot lots of events and every frame I shoot can potentially be cropped into a number of different compositions, and I can tell you that every one of these megapixels is valued.

It's been a tough choice whether or not to add a second R5 or upgrade the R6 to the R6ii. And I for one can tell you flat out that I wouldn't have purchased the R6ii if it had remained a 20 MP camera.

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[BirdShooter7]

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

Definitely not a meaningless upgrade to ME either.

I shoot lots of events and every frame I shoot can potentially be cropped into a number of different compositions, and I can tell you that every one of these megapixels is valued.

It's been a tough choice whether or not to add a second R5 or upgrade the R6 to the R6ii. And I for one can tell you flat out that I wouldn't have purchased the R6ii if it had remained a 20 MP camera.

R2

 

[MikeJ9116]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

There have been many posters in this forum saying the 20mp resolution sensor was an issue for them in considering the R6. Many consider 24mp to be their bottom for sensor resolution and this is held up by most FF and ASP-C camera makers as being the bottom.

This seems to be totally arbitrary and I’d imagine is the result of the other manufacturers producing 24MP sensors instead of the cause of them producing 24MP sensors. It’s like those people who think 1.6x vs 1.5x crop is a big deal.

Not matter how 24mp became the default minimum it seems to be the case. percentage wise the drop from 24mp to 20mp is substantial and is how many people view the difference.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

The fact is the R7 has better AF than the R6 and R5 for many use cases and equal to them in most others. There have been many posts where people in this forum have said they would like Canon to provide a firmware update for the R5 and R6 to gain some of the AF improvements found in the R7. I think there will be an update to the R5 in a similar fashion as the R6 just received but the R5 will keep its 45mp sensor with a few tweaks added to it.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

This combo is mostly for specific use cases such as birding etc. I think if one is spending nearly $4k on two camera bodies most people would pick the R5 over the R6+R7. I would. But then I am not into very long telephoto shooting and I don't think that most amateur, enthusiast and professional photographers are into it either.

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

Honestly, I’ve experimented with this a lot with the 7d mk2 sensor and the 80d sensor and really in that case it’s pretty meaningless even in terms of cropping. Maybe there could be some differences with FF but I seriously doubt it except maybe some very extreme circumstances like base iso with excellent light and top quality lenses and looking VERY close. I honestly believe any improvement is just to overcome a mental block about not enough MP’s. Heck, when I’ve presented people with images from the R, RP pans R6 the vast majority of the time nobody could tell which came from a higher MP camera. It wasn’t until I threw the R5 into the mix that the task got easier.

Higher resolution does provide more detail but it might take better lenses, processing etc. to have access to it. The 10mp increase from my 6D to the R is noticeable and useful.

 

[BirdShooter7]

IMO, the main driving factor in refreshing the R6 was to up the sensor pixel count.

If so, they made the same mistake again by adding only 4 Mp....... So I'm not sure that's enough of an explanation. The should have make it 30 or so. More than the RP and on par with the R, competitive with the A7IV.....

I think the 20mp sensor, while good, has been a marketing issue for Canon.

Beside marketing, I think it's a pretty low Mp count in reality too when considering the potential IQ RF L lenses can give you. It's probably fine for the 24-240mm and 100-400mm, however, other RF lenses have either too slow AF for the R6 or more optical detail than the 20Mp sensor can capture. It's a mismatch in my opinion.

There have been many posters in this forum saying the 20mp resolution sensor was an issue for them in considering the R6. Many consider 24mp to be their bottom for sensor resolution and this is held up by most FF and ASP-C camera makers as being the bottom.

This seems to be totally arbitrary and I’d imagine is the result of the other manufacturers producing 24MP sensors instead of the cause of them producing 24MP sensors. It’s like those people who think 1.6x vs 1.5x crop is a big deal.

Not matter how 24mp became the default minimum it seems to be the case. percentage wise the drop from 24mp to 20mp is substantial and is how many people view the difference.

Then add the pressure from the R7 having better AF

I'm not ready to believe the R7 has better AF for all purposes.

The fact is the R7 has better AF than the R6 and R5 for many use cases and equal to them in most others. There have been many posts where people in this forum have said they would like Canon to provide a firmware update for the R5 and R6 to gain some of the AF improvements found in the R7. I think there will be an update to the R5 in a similar fashion as the R6 just received but the R5 will keep its 45mp sensor with a few tweaks added to it.

along with a higher resolution sensor at a lower price point was another major reason.

That's true, although the R7 gives you the option to go R6+R7 in stead of going R5.

This combo is mostly for specific use cases such as birding etc. I think if one is spending nearly $4k on two camera bodies most people would pick the R5 over the R6+R7. I would. But then I am not into very long telephoto shooting and I don't think that most amateur, enthusiast and professional photographers are into it either.

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

Honestly, I’ve experimented with this a lot with the 7d mk2 sensor and the 80d sensor and really in that case it’s pretty meaningless even in terms of cropping. Maybe there could be some differences with FF but I seriously doubt it except maybe some very extreme circumstances like base iso with excellent light and top quality lenses and looking VERY close. I honestly believe any improvement is just to overcome a mental block about not enough MP’s. Heck, when I’ve presented people with images from the R, RP pans R6 the vast majority of the time nobody could tell which came from a higher MP camera. It wasn’t until I threw the R5 into the mix that the task got easier.

Higher resolution does provide more detail but it might take better lenses, processing etc. to have access to it. The 10mp increase from my 6D to the R is noticeable and useful.

Agreed, that difference is more noticeable

 

[gaul]

Agreed

This Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 is THE one lens I would need most

Canon will have to reverse this ill-advised ban of 3rd party lenses

 

[R2D2]

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

Definitely not a meaningless upgrade to ME either.

I shoot lots of events and every frame I shoot can potentially be cropped into a number of different compositions, and I can tell you that every one of these megapixels is valued.

It's been a tough choice whether or not to add a second R5 or upgrade the R6 to the R6ii. And I for one can tell you flat out that I wouldn't have purchased the R6ii if it had remained a 20 MP camera.

R2

I think if I were in your shoes I’d probably go with a second R5.

If only the R5 had the autofocus feature set of the R6ii, I would do that. As it is, the R5 works masterfully for birding (and the additional AF features wouldn’t benefit me there). So I’ll be sticking with the R5 for birding until the R1 makes its appearance.

OTOH, the R6 (and soon to be R6ii) is my primary event and sports body, and that’s where I need the greater AF selectivity (those features I found work well on the R7). The R7 remains my Macro camera tho. And my fun little M6ii remains my grab and go camera!

Bottom line for me, I know the R6ii will fulfill its role better for me than the R6 (and even R5), but only because of the way I use it. I don’t want to be looking back a year from now and be thinking “Darn, for a few hundred bucks I could have been shooting with a much more appropriate camera this whole time.”

The dance here is indeed quite complex! :-D

R2

--
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 

[BirdShooter7]

But that’s the whole problem, it’s not actually substantial. 10 out of 10 observers can’t consistently tell the difference between 20MP output and 24MP output. It’s a meaningless floor.

I don't think it is meaningless. Higher mp gives more flexibility with cropping images and producing larger prints. There are valid reasons sensors are continuously moving in the direction of higher resolutions. In most consumption cases higher mp doesn't play a roll very often. Tech companies always have to raise the bar to keep people upgrading to new equipment wether the upgrade is needed or not.

Definitely not a meaningless upgrade to ME either.

I shoot lots of events and every frame I shoot can potentially be cropped into a number of different compositions, and I can tell you that every one of these megapixels is valued.

It's been a tough choice whether or not to add a second R5 or upgrade the R6 to the R6ii. And I for one can tell you flat out that I wouldn't have purchased the R6ii if it had remained a 20 MP camera.

R2

I think if I were in your shoes I’d probably go with a second R5.

If only the R5 had the autofocus feature set of the R6ii, I would do that. As it is, the R5 works masterfully for birding (and the additional AF features wouldn’t benefit me there). So I’ll be sticking with the R5 for birding until the R1 makes its appearance.

OTOH, the R6 (and soon to be R6ii) is my primary event and sports body, and that’s where I need the greater AF selectivity (those features I found work well on the R7). The R7 remains my Macro camera tho. And my fun little M6ii remains my grab and go camera!

Bottom line for me, I know the R6ii will fulfill its role better for me than the R6 (and even R5), but only because of the way I use it. I don’t want to be looking back a year from now and be thinking “Darn, for a few hundred bucks I could have been shooting with a much more appropriate camera this whole time.”

The dance here is indeed quite complex! :-D

R2

 

[NJsurfpix]

For what its worth, in the real world today people rarely look at photos on computers. If it looks good on Instagram or Facebook seems to be all people care about. That being said, pixel count is way over rated compared to having the best AF system possible coupled with the glass to get the shot.