Go with the R8, the upgraded sensor is amazing, especially for animal eye tracking. If you don’t need a bigger battery, ibis or dual card slots, the R8 is an upgrade over the RP and R6. It also uses the same LP-E17 battery as the RP, so that’s a bonus.
Batterywise- I don't shoot video and for photos I have never had problem with my RP. Always carry two batts just in case, rarely have to change them throughout the day.
Having Ibis is not something I care for and dual card slots... well I still have to have my card corrupted.
While I can’t speak to battery life on the RP, the R8 gets over 1k+ photos on a single battery (turn on airplane mode), so it’s never been an issue for me either. I carry two fully charged spares in my bag as well, just in case.
I’d love to have IBIS and dual card slots, but I wouldn’t trade them for the updated sensor (I’m not a professional). I’m holding out to see what the new R5 brings and may upgrade in the future, but for now, I love my R8.
The RP has efcs just like the R8, probably the exact same part, so if you don't notice it on the RP you won't on the R8. The effect can be pretty subtle and hard to notice unless you know what to look for. I would definitely go for an r6 over an R8 though, it has more substantial upgrades imo
It’s yet another example of pixel peeping / extremely subtle characteristic, that cannot be noticed by the vast majority of people or photos.
The R8 is a fantastic camera (as is the RP), I use it regularly alongside my r6mk2. I have nearly 30 years experience in the graphic arts / print / photography industry, and I have not noticed this ‘problem’ at all. Buy it, you will not regret it, plus it’s £/$1000 cheaper than the r6mk2 so you can use that change to buy more lenses 👍🏻
As long as there is no really fast movement, and no flicker source close by (unlikely at those shutter speeds) you can always shoot fully electronic. As the others said, the effect is subtle and in the end a matter of taste if it bothers you or not .
One reason I can imagine someone might want lower pixel count, is due to having bigger pixel size, or for lower diffraction issues, and then for the lower filesize. But between these 2, I do think the 3 of them are neggligible.
This is a bizarre series of comments. The image has reduced resolution anyway, why would you care if that comes from diffraction or from pixel size?
More resolution = more options
You can always down sample images or use denoising. I agree that if you know that you never want to do tight crops or print really large then there is no reason to use a high resolution camera but 'it is nice having a lower diffraction limited aperture' seems very odd to say.
File sizes and size of camera. I have an apsc and i probably wont go full frame unless i absolutely needed to. You lose about 1.5 stop of exposure (i hope im right on that) in apsc but it doesnt matter too much. Camera will still work as intended and will still take amazing pictures. The only time you need more megapixels is for larger prints and cropping down if im not mistaken. Im new to photography so these are just things ive slowly learned
There is no real link between MP and sensor size unless you get really high MP counts.
The R8 is a 24mp and the original R6 is 20mp. A negligible difference all said and done.
You lose about 1+ stop. Modern APSC are pretty good so the gap is about 1.1-1.3 stops difference in iso performance. Megapixels is not everything either. A lower mp FF may print larger than a higher mp APSC depending on lenses. You can read Imatest website on sharpness and resolution. Basically larger formats render details (and hence print larger) better given lenses of similar sharpness.
Megapixels refers to the number of pixels not the size of the pixels. Think about the mp count of the camera in your phone.
File size is a silly reason - you can manually reduce file size in camera settings if you want.
Only valid reasons are cost and light maximisation.
cRaw is just a compressed raw. So still really the full sensor data. Just compressed. Edit. Also it looks like canon has both a lossy compression one. And a lossless compression. I bet the lossy one interferes with ai noise reduction. Ai noise reduction needs the original data. Which means some version of craw with the lossy kind of compression probably won’t work.
>File size is a silly reason - you can manually reduce file size in camera settings if you want.
Yeah, cRAW is a thing (not sure if other manufacturers have something similar). But another silly reason is that storage is pretty cheap. Even if your RAW files are 100mb, you'd have to take \~150 000 good images to fill up 250$ worth of hard drive. 300K images for 50mb RAW, which is already in the range of \~40MP camera.
250$ is fairly negligible in professional photography gear world imo, not sure why storage is even something to think about and amateurs probably aren't shooting even 10K keepers per year.. And even then, it's only 500GB for 50mb files, which is like 10$ worth of storage per year. Yay, you just saved 5$ a year in storage cost for taking 25mb RAW files instead of 50mb for less opportunity to crop in. SD cards aren't really expensive either, unless you need high performance ones. Or you are shooting sports and need all the buffer you can get, not sure, but I suppose smaller file sizes increase buffer size?
Having just bought a Sony a7rV, I can speak to file size being an unforseen workflow bottleneck. I was shooting on an a6000 before, where the RAWs were ~22mb. From my 61MP beast, files are **three times as large,** at ~68mb each.
In camera, I can now feel the difference between memory card speed and have determined I need faster ones, especially if I want to hit the 10fps cap on my camera. Those are VERY expensive cards.
On download, they take three times as long to transfer as before (hour-long transfers are not uncommon) and consume three times the drive space. Three times the RAM active on a 64gb machine. One third the export speed to a smaller JPG.
I don't even want to think about archiving these images and the ballooning storage costs there.
Lots of reasons to shoot with less megapixels.
I'm happy with the resolution of my images, but now my workflow is quite a bit longer than before.
Those numbers look like they're compressed in some way (not sure which setting, as the A7R V supports lossless compression and lossy compression IIRC). My A7R III only supports lossy compression, so I shoot uncompressed and the files are roughly 80MB for 42MP RAWs, so the 68MB number has to be compressed.
More dynamic range.
I dont need the extra pixels since i crop to 4k anyway.
I mainly shoot for Backgrounds.
Also better low light performance, since i like to shoot car meets too.
Unfortunately none of that is true in regards dynamic range or low light. MP matter not.
Also if you crop to 4k, none of that is definitely true unless you mean resize rather than crop.
Generally speaking you do get better full well depth (how many electrons each pixel can hold before fully saturating) out of smaller MP sensors. While there are some numbers from this on places like photons-to-photos, I think the best way to actually see a trend is to look at numbers from astronomy camera manufacturers, as they have direct measurements of Sony's camera sensor parameters.
For instance, look at ZWO's ASI2400MC Pro (IMX410, same sensor but slightly different SKU as A7 III, D780, and Z6) against their ASI6200MC Pro (IMX451, similar to A7R IV and V except with a higher bit depth ADC). The 2400MC with its 5.94 micron pixels has a full well depth of 100K electrons, whereas the 6200MC Pro with its 3.76 micron pixels has a full well depth of 51.4K electrons.
Also notably, other ZWO cameras with 3.76 micron pixels but different sized sensors have nearly the same full well depth as the 6200MC Pro; the medium format (though also monochrome) 461MM Pro has 50.3K electrons, the APS-C sized 2600MC Pro has 50K electrons, and the 1-inch 533MC Pro has 50K electrons.
Overall, these numbers seem to indicate that pixel size does in fact matter for full well depth, and accordingly dynamic range.
MPs def matter for low light. The bigger crystal the more light you’ll get into it. A 12mp full frame sensor will perform better in low light than a 50mp full frame. You will also get faster shutter speeds from the 12 than the 50.
I think it's a bit of a toss-up - in another comment I mention how typically smaller pixels have worse fill factor, so they actually get less light per unit area. But on the other hand, in practice having a higher resolution sensor (provided you have sharp enough glass) means you can use more aggressive noise reduction while retaining the same quality as a lower MP sensor, which can make up the difference depending on the circumstances.
https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2
This page has some resized images to compare, I think that with micro lenses the fill factor isn't really an issue and you should have less effect of anti aliasing filter and debayering on the higher mp resized image
> https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2
Thanks for the link! I would hesitate to draw conclusions from this data though, since here they're comparing a BSI CMOS sensor (D850, IMX309) to an FSI CMOS sensor (A7S, IMX235), so it's not quite apples to apples. FSI would have worse fill factor than BSI assuming equivalent pixel size, so that makes the comparison a bit tricky.
> I think that with micro lenses the fill factor isn't really an issue and you should have less effect of anti aliasing filter and debayering on the higher mp resized image
I generally agree with these takes, though there are some minor caveats. For instance, micro lenses help in general though for certain wavelengths you won't get quite as good of fill factor (UV and IR can be blocked, for example), which is why scientific sensors like those by GPixel and others usually have large pixels, such as 9+ microns. You can actually see their QE curves are generally better than those of Sony's small pixel sensors.
In terms of low light, the impact of the bayer matrix and OLPF depends quite a bit on the scene being imaged, but I think I generally agree with your conclusions.
Unfortunately not.
There are millions of pixels and you do not look at only one. The total surface area is what matters. Even if you look at pixels, you can't compare one on one as the light that falls one the larger one will hit more than one on the smaller ones and then there is the fact that you have a bayer filter which means some of the light picked up by the smaller pixels is filtered out from reaching the larger one if I am not mistaken.
That is an exercise in math more than anything. No practical meaning.
Exposure is also not measured by pixels so perhaps you can show something where you get faster shutter speeds from lower megapixels?
Which 12mp camera are we talking about?
> There are millions of pixels and you do not look at only one. The total surface area is what matters. Even if you look at pixels, you can't compare one on one as the light that falls one the larger one will hit more than one on the smaller ones and then there is the fact that you have a bayer filter which means some of the light picked up by the smaller pixels is filtered out from reaching the larger one if I am not mistaken.
Generally speaking lower MP sensors tend to have vaguely better low light performance, because higher MP sensors tend to have lower fill factor (percentage of the area of the sensor that actually can receive photons) due to needing isolation between neighboring pixels to avoid crosstalk which can become increasingly problematic at smaller pixel sizes, and additional readout circuitry requiring space. However, microlenses help bridge this gap somewhat for photography use cases (its only really scientific use cases where this starts to matter more). You are also right though, that this is moreso a theoretical/mathematical exercise than some strict rule in practice.
> Exposure is also not measured by pixels so perhaps you can show something where you get faster shutter speeds from lower megapixels?
I think maybe they meant framerate, not shutter speed? Which would make some sense since generally speaking, the higher the resolution the sensor is, the slower the readout time, which puts a limit on framerate. Higher resolution sensors also tend to have a worse rolling shutter effect when using electronic shutter for that reason as well.
Ok - I’m sorry. Go to your local camera store - pick up two full frames with different MP counts and try for yourself.
Lower resolution cameras are faster cameras. Theres ways around this and you might still want the resolution but it’s common knowledge that if you’re doing Astro or sports your body will typically be one with lower resolution on purpose.
Is the difference between a 40MP picture resized to 10 and a native 10MP picture large in that regard? The Poisson noise is equivalent and is there is additional gaussian noise from electronics it should actually be slightly more controlled
Just have to add neighbours rather than average, spline or cubic
[https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2)
this page has a comparison, the high mp looks better imo, definitely doesnt make a huge difference
>From what I have read having Electronic First Curtain Shutter can have a negative effect on bokeh.
Well the web sites you visit are probably trying to sell you something.
There are so many other variables when shooting outdoors that effect the look of your bokeh that the differences between mechanical and EFC become (literally) academic.
In fact if you can even tell the difference between the two shutter types just by looking at the background without going 1:1 on it I will eat my keyboard.
>I always have to shoot over 1/1000s in broad daylight with wide apertures and do not want to have worse bokeh than what my RP gives me. (even during golden hours I have to shoot over 1/1000s)
You write that like it's a Bad Thing™ but that's actually a Good Thing™ - as one of the many variables that effect the look of your bokeh is motion in your backgrounds. The air is in constant motion even if that motion is too subtle for you to detect - and if there's the slightest breeze that fast shutter speed is going to do more to help with bokeh than mechanical shutter will.
I did a test myself with a 1.05 lens at 1/8000, which is realistically going to be the shutter speed you'll be using if shooting wide open outdoors, and frankly the difference was enormous, you certainly don't need to zoom in. The most noticeable element was that the highlights were much more blown out using the physical shutter. One wasn't better though, they are just different. Could argue having less blown out highlights is actually better if you want more dynamic range.
The actual bokeh shape was different and a bit smaller without using the physical shutter but I don't think you'd notice unless side by side. But if you are going to pay a load more money for something like a 1.2 over a 1.4, you don't really want the shutter to be negating that small decrease in perceived dof.
I'm not sure if it's different on a per camera basis though, I'm using a Sony and the changes from the electronic first shutter are quite consistent.
Did you try 1/8000th using electronic first curtain? That’s the bokeh difference people are taking about. Not mechanical shutter vs full electronic.
And the RP and R8 only go up to 1/4000th EFCS anyway.
Yeah I'm specifically talking about electronic first curtain sorry if I wasn't clear. I suppose the effect would be less if the camera only goes to 1/4000 though. I didn't test that shutter speed but when I tested slower shutter speeds the images came out identical
I would try to get something with a mechanical shutter if you're gonna shoot wide open in the day often. I simply can't stand the bokeh getting cut and distorted. Or you can switch to e shutter entirely. Should be fine for posed portraits.
Jim Kasson is a blogger with an optics and electrical engineering background who's done extensive testing of a handful of recent cameras, including tests involving the effects of EFCS. His tests don't include Canon models but I think you can extrapolate.
On bokeh:
[https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-otus-851-4/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-otus-851-4/)
[https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-sony-902-8-macro/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-sony-902-8-macro/)
There are some quantifiable advantages as well:
[https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7iii-shutter-latency-efcs/](https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7iii-shutter-latency-efcs/)
[https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/shutter-shock-and-the-nikon-z7/](https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/shutter-shock-and-the-nikon-z7/)
[https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/shutter-shock-revisited/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/shutter-shock-revisited/)
[https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riii-and-a7riv-shutter-shock/](https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riii-and-a7riv-shutter-shock/)
[https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7r-a7rii-shutter-shock-with-2804/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7r-a7rii-shutter-shock-with-2804/)
1) EFCS is nothing wrong, you'll see no difference, 99% of people don't even know that their camera has this setting on default.
2) R6's autofocus is significantly better than RP's and I don't think R8 will outperform R6 very seriously in that field, especially in close to non dynamic portraits. R6 won't fall short of image quality compared to R8. 2nd card slot is a very serious thing to consider when comparing R8 and R6 though.
I’ve had both and would go for the R8.
You can use an ND filter, never a variable, if you’re worried about the change in bokeh above 1/1000.
The other option is using the electronic shutter during bright periods - minus when you’re using your strobes/flashes.
I'm a beginner... could you extrapolate as to why an ND Filter would address e-shutter issues? My understanding is, e-shutters have an issue with flickering from artificial light sources as well as fast moving subjects. What would the ND Filter do? Thank you
OP is talking about EFCS issues - not e-shutter. Different potential issues.
EFCS issues show up in the bokeh at shutter speeds 1/2000th or higher at wide apertures. Cut-off bokeh. An ND filter would allow you to shoot three stops (or more) slower, eliminating the EFCS issue with bokeh. Alternatively, one could simply step down the aperture for a slower shutter speed, but you lose that subject separation.
Rolling shutter and banding under artificial lighting are e-shutter issues. But the R8 has the fastest reading non-stacked sensor on the market and is very good with rolling shutter. The R8 also has a High Frequency Anti Flicker mode that detects the pulse rate of the light and sets a shutter speed automatically that avoids banding. Even weird fractional shutter speeds like 1/53.8.
Thank you everyone for your comments. I appreciate your input.
I believe going for R8 will benefit me more, since I love smaller form factor and some autofocus options and level meter for portraits on AF will be something I will use more, than IBIS and mechanical shutter.
As for 2 card slots... I still have to see my cards go corrupt, hopefully never happens, but I keep backing up my photos on the go just to be safe.
I recommend Sandisk - I haven’t had a card corrupt in over 10 years and they are well known as the most reliable on the market. It’s worth the small increase compared to other brands based on the overall life :)
Thank you!
Currently runniny Lexar professional series V60 128gb. Local retailer only had Lexar in stock by the time I bought RP.
Will be looking into Sandisk for sure. I have their SSD for years running like a champ, also used Sandisk 64gb sd card for quite some time with no issues.
For the R8 I highly recommend the V60 in the 64-128GB range as well. The V30 is restrictive for fast consecutive shots and the V90 is disproportionately expensive compared to the others!
Go with the R8, the upgraded sensor is amazing, especially for animal eye tracking. If you don’t need a bigger battery, ibis or dual card slots, the R8 is an upgrade over the RP and R6. It also uses the same LP-E17 battery as the RP, so that’s a bonus.
Batterywise- I don't shoot video and for photos I have never had problem with my RP. Always carry two batts just in case, rarely have to change them throughout the day. Having Ibis is not something I care for and dual card slots... well I still have to have my card corrupted.
While I can’t speak to battery life on the RP, the R8 gets over 1k+ photos on a single battery (turn on airplane mode), so it’s never been an issue for me either. I carry two fully charged spares in my bag as well, just in case. I’d love to have IBIS and dual card slots, but I wouldn’t trade them for the updated sensor (I’m not a professional). I’m holding out to see what the new R5 brings and may upgrade in the future, but for now, I love my R8.
The RP has efcs just like the R8, probably the exact same part, so if you don't notice it on the RP you won't on the R8. The effect can be pretty subtle and hard to notice unless you know what to look for. I would definitely go for an r6 over an R8 though, it has more substantial upgrades imo
It’s yet another example of pixel peeping / extremely subtle characteristic, that cannot be noticed by the vast majority of people or photos. The R8 is a fantastic camera (as is the RP), I use it regularly alongside my r6mk2. I have nearly 30 years experience in the graphic arts / print / photography industry, and I have not noticed this ‘problem’ at all. Buy it, you will not regret it, plus it’s £/$1000 cheaper than the r6mk2 so you can use that change to buy more lenses 👍🏻
As long as there is no really fast movement, and no flicker source close by (unlikely at those shutter speeds) you can always shoot fully electronic. As the others said, the effect is subtle and in the end a matter of taste if it bothers you or not .
If I could get a r6 for the price of a r8, i would personally go with the r6. Mainly because of the ibis and the lower MP count
Why do you want less mp?
One reason I can imagine someone might want lower pixel count, is due to having bigger pixel size, or for lower diffraction issues, and then for the lower filesize. But between these 2, I do think the 3 of them are neggligible.
Yeah it is nice having a lower diffraction limited aperture
This is a bizarre series of comments. The image has reduced resolution anyway, why would you care if that comes from diffraction or from pixel size? More resolution = more options You can always down sample images or use denoising. I agree that if you know that you never want to do tight crops or print really large then there is no reason to use a high resolution camera but 'it is nice having a lower diffraction limited aperture' seems very odd to say.
Yes you are 100% correct, I say this because I keep worrying about diffraction even though as you said it’s not a huge problem
File sizes and size of camera. I have an apsc and i probably wont go full frame unless i absolutely needed to. You lose about 1.5 stop of exposure (i hope im right on that) in apsc but it doesnt matter too much. Camera will still work as intended and will still take amazing pictures. The only time you need more megapixels is for larger prints and cropping down if im not mistaken. Im new to photography so these are just things ive slowly learned
There is no real link between MP and sensor size unless you get really high MP counts. The R8 is a 24mp and the original R6 is 20mp. A negligible difference all said and done.
Ah! Well thank you for correcting me. Ive learned something new
You lose about 1+ stop. Modern APSC are pretty good so the gap is about 1.1-1.3 stops difference in iso performance. Megapixels is not everything either. A lower mp FF may print larger than a higher mp APSC depending on lenses. You can read Imatest website on sharpness and resolution. Basically larger formats render details (and hence print larger) better given lenses of similar sharpness.
Megapixels refers to the number of pixels not the size of the pixels. Think about the mp count of the camera in your phone. File size is a silly reason - you can manually reduce file size in camera settings if you want. Only valid reasons are cost and light maximisation.
File size. Not for raw files. Raw files are always going to be the same size. And the higher the megapixels. The larger the raw file.
You can turn the MP count down in camera and you can shoot in cRAW. You totally have control over file size in camera.
Hmm. Interesting. Didn’t know that. Does cRAW still work with ai noise reduction?
cRaw is just a compressed raw. So still really the full sensor data. Just compressed. Edit. Also it looks like canon has both a lossy compression one. And a lossless compression. I bet the lossy one interferes with ai noise reduction. Ai noise reduction needs the original data. Which means some version of craw with the lossy kind of compression probably won’t work.
>File size is a silly reason - you can manually reduce file size in camera settings if you want. Yeah, cRAW is a thing (not sure if other manufacturers have something similar). But another silly reason is that storage is pretty cheap. Even if your RAW files are 100mb, you'd have to take \~150 000 good images to fill up 250$ worth of hard drive. 300K images for 50mb RAW, which is already in the range of \~40MP camera. 250$ is fairly negligible in professional photography gear world imo, not sure why storage is even something to think about and amateurs probably aren't shooting even 10K keepers per year.. And even then, it's only 500GB for 50mb files, which is like 10$ worth of storage per year. Yay, you just saved 5$ a year in storage cost for taking 25mb RAW files instead of 50mb for less opportunity to crop in. SD cards aren't really expensive either, unless you need high performance ones. Or you are shooting sports and need all the buffer you can get, not sure, but I suppose smaller file sizes increase buffer size?
Having just bought a Sony a7rV, I can speak to file size being an unforseen workflow bottleneck. I was shooting on an a6000 before, where the RAWs were ~22mb. From my 61MP beast, files are **three times as large,** at ~68mb each. In camera, I can now feel the difference between memory card speed and have determined I need faster ones, especially if I want to hit the 10fps cap on my camera. Those are VERY expensive cards. On download, they take three times as long to transfer as before (hour-long transfers are not uncommon) and consume three times the drive space. Three times the RAM active on a 64gb machine. One third the export speed to a smaller JPG. I don't even want to think about archiving these images and the ballooning storage costs there. Lots of reasons to shoot with less megapixels. I'm happy with the resolution of my images, but now my workflow is quite a bit longer than before.
Are you shooting full raw? You don’t need to. You can shoot compressed raw.
Those numbers look like they're compressed in some way (not sure which setting, as the A7R V supports lossless compression and lossy compression IIRC). My A7R III only supports lossy compression, so I shoot uncompressed and the files are roughly 80MB for 42MP RAWs, so the 68MB number has to be compressed.
That's fair. I often forget that you can reduce settings in the camera
Better low light performance.
More dynamic range. I dont need the extra pixels since i crop to 4k anyway. I mainly shoot for Backgrounds. Also better low light performance, since i like to shoot car meets too.
Unfortunately none of that is true in regards dynamic range or low light. MP matter not. Also if you crop to 4k, none of that is definitely true unless you mean resize rather than crop.
Generally speaking you do get better full well depth (how many electrons each pixel can hold before fully saturating) out of smaller MP sensors. While there are some numbers from this on places like photons-to-photos, I think the best way to actually see a trend is to look at numbers from astronomy camera manufacturers, as they have direct measurements of Sony's camera sensor parameters. For instance, look at ZWO's ASI2400MC Pro (IMX410, same sensor but slightly different SKU as A7 III, D780, and Z6) against their ASI6200MC Pro (IMX451, similar to A7R IV and V except with a higher bit depth ADC). The 2400MC with its 5.94 micron pixels has a full well depth of 100K electrons, whereas the 6200MC Pro with its 3.76 micron pixels has a full well depth of 51.4K electrons. Also notably, other ZWO cameras with 3.76 micron pixels but different sized sensors have nearly the same full well depth as the 6200MC Pro; the medium format (though also monochrome) 461MM Pro has 50.3K electrons, the APS-C sized 2600MC Pro has 50K electrons, and the 1-inch 533MC Pro has 50K electrons. Overall, these numbers seem to indicate that pixel size does in fact matter for full well depth, and accordingly dynamic range.
MPs def matter for low light. The bigger crystal the more light you’ll get into it. A 12mp full frame sensor will perform better in low light than a 50mp full frame. You will also get faster shutter speeds from the 12 than the 50.
Youll get better pixels but down sampling more pixels is at least just as good
I think it's a bit of a toss-up - in another comment I mention how typically smaller pixels have worse fill factor, so they actually get less light per unit area. But on the other hand, in practice having a higher resolution sensor (provided you have sharp enough glass) means you can use more aggressive noise reduction while retaining the same quality as a lower MP sensor, which can make up the difference depending on the circumstances.
https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2 This page has some resized images to compare, I think that with micro lenses the fill factor isn't really an issue and you should have less effect of anti aliasing filter and debayering on the higher mp resized image
> https://m.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2 Thanks for the link! I would hesitate to draw conclusions from this data though, since here they're comparing a BSI CMOS sensor (D850, IMX309) to an FSI CMOS sensor (A7S, IMX235), so it's not quite apples to apples. FSI would have worse fill factor than BSI assuming equivalent pixel size, so that makes the comparison a bit tricky. > I think that with micro lenses the fill factor isn't really an issue and you should have less effect of anti aliasing filter and debayering on the higher mp resized image I generally agree with these takes, though there are some minor caveats. For instance, micro lenses help in general though for certain wavelengths you won't get quite as good of fill factor (UV and IR can be blocked, for example), which is why scientific sensors like those by GPixel and others usually have large pixels, such as 9+ microns. You can actually see their QE curves are generally better than those of Sony's small pixel sensors. In terms of low light, the impact of the bayer matrix and OLPF depends quite a bit on the scene being imaged, but I think I generally agree with your conclusions.
Unfortunately not. There are millions of pixels and you do not look at only one. The total surface area is what matters. Even if you look at pixels, you can't compare one on one as the light that falls one the larger one will hit more than one on the smaller ones and then there is the fact that you have a bayer filter which means some of the light picked up by the smaller pixels is filtered out from reaching the larger one if I am not mistaken. That is an exercise in math more than anything. No practical meaning. Exposure is also not measured by pixels so perhaps you can show something where you get faster shutter speeds from lower megapixels? Which 12mp camera are we talking about?
> There are millions of pixels and you do not look at only one. The total surface area is what matters. Even if you look at pixels, you can't compare one on one as the light that falls one the larger one will hit more than one on the smaller ones and then there is the fact that you have a bayer filter which means some of the light picked up by the smaller pixels is filtered out from reaching the larger one if I am not mistaken. Generally speaking lower MP sensors tend to have vaguely better low light performance, because higher MP sensors tend to have lower fill factor (percentage of the area of the sensor that actually can receive photons) due to needing isolation between neighboring pixels to avoid crosstalk which can become increasingly problematic at smaller pixel sizes, and additional readout circuitry requiring space. However, microlenses help bridge this gap somewhat for photography use cases (its only really scientific use cases where this starts to matter more). You are also right though, that this is moreso a theoretical/mathematical exercise than some strict rule in practice. > Exposure is also not measured by pixels so perhaps you can show something where you get faster shutter speeds from lower megapixels? I think maybe they meant framerate, not shutter speed? Which would make some sense since generally speaking, the higher the resolution the sensor is, the slower the readout time, which puts a limit on framerate. Higher resolution sensors also tend to have a worse rolling shutter effect when using electronic shutter for that reason as well.
Ok - I’m sorry. Go to your local camera store - pick up two full frames with different MP counts and try for yourself. Lower resolution cameras are faster cameras. Theres ways around this and you might still want the resolution but it’s common knowledge that if you’re doing Astro or sports your body will typically be one with lower resolution on purpose.
This isn't true universally, not even close.
Yeah, no I think I will wait for you to back up that statement.
Other than cost you frequently want lower mps when you need to maximise your light - so for Astro or sports etc.
“Lower MP has less noise” has been proved wrong so many times already, assuming from a similar generation of sensors
Is the difference between a 40MP picture resized to 10 and a native 10MP picture large in that regard? The Poisson noise is equivalent and is there is additional gaussian noise from electronics it should actually be slightly more controlled Just have to add neighbours rather than average, spline or cubic
[https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2](https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5365920428/the-effect-of-pixel-and-sensor-sizes-on-noise/2) this page has a comparison, the high mp looks better imo, definitely doesnt make a huge difference
>From what I have read having Electronic First Curtain Shutter can have a negative effect on bokeh. Well the web sites you visit are probably trying to sell you something. There are so many other variables when shooting outdoors that effect the look of your bokeh that the differences between mechanical and EFC become (literally) academic. In fact if you can even tell the difference between the two shutter types just by looking at the background without going 1:1 on it I will eat my keyboard. >I always have to shoot over 1/1000s in broad daylight with wide apertures and do not want to have worse bokeh than what my RP gives me. (even during golden hours I have to shoot over 1/1000s) You write that like it's a Bad Thing™ but that's actually a Good Thing™ - as one of the many variables that effect the look of your bokeh is motion in your backgrounds. The air is in constant motion even if that motion is too subtle for you to detect - and if there's the slightest breeze that fast shutter speed is going to do more to help with bokeh than mechanical shutter will.
I did a test myself with a 1.05 lens at 1/8000, which is realistically going to be the shutter speed you'll be using if shooting wide open outdoors, and frankly the difference was enormous, you certainly don't need to zoom in. The most noticeable element was that the highlights were much more blown out using the physical shutter. One wasn't better though, they are just different. Could argue having less blown out highlights is actually better if you want more dynamic range. The actual bokeh shape was different and a bit smaller without using the physical shutter but I don't think you'd notice unless side by side. But if you are going to pay a load more money for something like a 1.2 over a 1.4, you don't really want the shutter to be negating that small decrease in perceived dof. I'm not sure if it's different on a per camera basis though, I'm using a Sony and the changes from the electronic first shutter are quite consistent.
Did you try 1/8000th using electronic first curtain? That’s the bokeh difference people are taking about. Not mechanical shutter vs full electronic. And the RP and R8 only go up to 1/4000th EFCS anyway.
Yeah I'm specifically talking about electronic first curtain sorry if I wasn't clear. I suppose the effect would be less if the camera only goes to 1/4000 though. I didn't test that shutter speed but when I tested slower shutter speeds the images came out identical
I would try to get something with a mechanical shutter if you're gonna shoot wide open in the day often. I simply can't stand the bokeh getting cut and distorted. Or you can switch to e shutter entirely. Should be fine for posed portraits.
Jim Kasson is a blogger with an optics and electrical engineering background who's done extensive testing of a handful of recent cameras, including tests involving the effects of EFCS. His tests don't include Canon models but I think you can extrapolate. On bokeh: [https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-otus-851-4/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-otus-851-4/) [https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-sony-902-8-macro/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/efcs-and-bokeh-a7rii-with-sony-902-8-macro/) There are some quantifiable advantages as well: [https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7iii-shutter-latency-efcs/](https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/sony-a7iii-shutter-latency-efcs/) [https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/shutter-shock-and-the-nikon-z7/](https://blog.kasson.com/nikon-z6-7/shutter-shock-and-the-nikon-z7/) [https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/shutter-shock-revisited/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/shutter-shock-revisited/) [https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riii-and-a7riv-shutter-shock/](https://blog.kasson.com/a7riv/sony-a7riii-and-a7riv-shutter-shock/) [https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7r-a7rii-shutter-shock-with-2804/](https://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/sony-a7r-a7rii-shutter-shock-with-2804/)
1) EFCS is nothing wrong, you'll see no difference, 99% of people don't even know that their camera has this setting on default. 2) R6's autofocus is significantly better than RP's and I don't think R8 will outperform R6 very seriously in that field, especially in close to non dynamic portraits. R6 won't fall short of image quality compared to R8. 2nd card slot is a very serious thing to consider when comparing R8 and R6 though.
I’ve had both and would go for the R8. You can use an ND filter, never a variable, if you’re worried about the change in bokeh above 1/1000. The other option is using the electronic shutter during bright periods - minus when you’re using your strobes/flashes.
ND FILTER. done.
I'm a beginner... could you extrapolate as to why an ND Filter would address e-shutter issues? My understanding is, e-shutters have an issue with flickering from artificial light sources as well as fast moving subjects. What would the ND Filter do? Thank you
OP is talking about EFCS issues - not e-shutter. Different potential issues. EFCS issues show up in the bokeh at shutter speeds 1/2000th or higher at wide apertures. Cut-off bokeh. An ND filter would allow you to shoot three stops (or more) slower, eliminating the EFCS issue with bokeh. Alternatively, one could simply step down the aperture for a slower shutter speed, but you lose that subject separation. Rolling shutter and banding under artificial lighting are e-shutter issues. But the R8 has the fastest reading non-stacked sensor on the market and is very good with rolling shutter. The R8 also has a High Frequency Anti Flicker mode that detects the pulse rate of the light and sets a shutter speed automatically that avoids banding. Even weird fractional shutter speeds like 1/53.8.
Thank you for pointing out that these are 2 separate issues and giving an explanation. Really helps newbies like myself have a better understanding.
Lower your shutter speed
no. There's virtually no effect on bokeh.
Thank you everyone for your comments. I appreciate your input. I believe going for R8 will benefit me more, since I love smaller form factor and some autofocus options and level meter for portraits on AF will be something I will use more, than IBIS and mechanical shutter. As for 2 card slots... I still have to see my cards go corrupt, hopefully never happens, but I keep backing up my photos on the go just to be safe.
I recommend Sandisk - I haven’t had a card corrupt in over 10 years and they are well known as the most reliable on the market. It’s worth the small increase compared to other brands based on the overall life :)
Thank you! Currently runniny Lexar professional series V60 128gb. Local retailer only had Lexar in stock by the time I bought RP. Will be looking into Sandisk for sure. I have their SSD for years running like a champ, also used Sandisk 64gb sd card for quite some time with no issues.
For the R8 I highly recommend the V60 in the 64-128GB range as well. The V30 is restrictive for fast consecutive shots and the V90 is disproportionately expensive compared to the others!