Will I notice a difference going from 30mp to 20mp for wildlife photography?: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (2024)

1

I have a 5D4 and I find 30mp to be a really sweet spot for me. I shoot mammals mostly and not much birds. I don’t usually crop much. Usually only a bit of levelling etc. I’ve been shooting some local foxes lately where I can fill the frame without having to crop.

My biggest reason considering switching would be to use the new and improved AF system of the R6.

if I one day decide to adapt my 400 DO II to a R6, will there be a noticeable difference going from my 5d4’s 30mp to the 20mp of the R6?

thanks

Yes you will notice it. I personally noticed the difference when I switched from a canon 6DII (26 MP) to an Olympus em1 mark II (20 MP). Yes they're different formats, but still it's noticeable when you want to crop. But the lens choice is what matters. If you can get more reach the better, that's why I'm happier with my 20MP olympus.

But the Canon R5 with the RF 100-500 or hopefully when Sigma releases the 100-400 on the RF mount will be the combination to get for wildlife. The R6's 20MP is kinda meh.

EDIT: assuming both R5 and R6 have the same AF performance. Maybe the R6 will have better AF because less data to process. But as of now, the R5 is the better wildlife option.

4

Funny Valentine wrote:

Yes you will notice it. I personally noticed the difference when I switched from a canon 6DII (26 MP) to an Olympus em1 mark II (20 MP). Yes they're different formats, but still it's noticeable when you want to crop. But the lens choice is what matters. If you can get more reach the better, that's why I'm happier with my 20MP olympus.

But the Canon R5 with the RF 100-500 or hopefully when Sigma releases the 100-400 on the RF mount will be the combination to get for wildlife. The R6's 20MP is kinda meh.

EDIT: assuming both R5 and R6 have the same AF performance. Maybe the R6 will have better AF because less data to process. But as of now, the R5 is the better wildlife option.

Yes the R5 is a better wildlife options, because it give you the ability to crop more. Y

For the speed of the AF, it will be the same. In automatic AF mode, the algorythm is based upon 1000 zones for both cameras. So different Mpixels, but the same number of AF zones.

an_also wrote:

I have a 5D4 and I find 30mp to be a really sweet spot for me. I shoot mammals mostly and not much birds.

That's a plus for getting what you want from a lower MP sensor.

I don’t usually crop much. Usually only a bit of levelling etc.

Every adjustment costs pixels.

I’ve been shooting some local foxes lately where I can fill the frame without having to crop.

My biggest reason considering switching would be to use the new and improved AF system of the R6.

See Also

10 Best Lenses for Wildlife Photographers in 2023 (Updated)Telephoto vs. Zoom Lenses10 Safari Mac Browser Tips to Boost Speed and PerformanceSafari Photography Lenses and Equipment - How Much Zoom Lens Do You Need For A Safari? — GenXploreMore - Travel And Photography Gear Reviews

Even the original R is awesome to focus with. The R6 should be even better and has even more tracking options, including animal eye tracking.

if I one day decide to adapt my 400 DO II to a R6, will there be a noticeable difference going from my 5d4’s 30mp to the 20mp of the R6?

The big issue with the R and EF lenses is the slide show effect when shooting bursts. It's damned irritating. That's the only thing that makes me think about trading in by beloved 100-400. I don't know if the R6 improves that experience with EF lenses or not. I suspect not.

thanks

Resolution is more important for pictures that emphasize fine detail and will be displayed on a larger median. If you are looking for the ultimate in fine detail, get the highest resolution camera you can afford. If you're catching a moment and looking at the overall composition, you won't notice the difference.

Good luck with your decision.

1

an_also wrote:

I have a 5D4 and I find 30mp to be a really sweet spot for me. I shoot mammals mostly and not much birds. I don’t usually crop much. Usually only a bit of levelling etc. I’ve been shooting some local foxes lately where I can fill the frame without having to crop.

My biggest reason considering switching would be to use the new and improved AF system of the R6.

if I one day decide to adapt my 400 DO II to a R6, will there be a noticeable difference going from my 5d4’s 30mp to the 20mp of the R6?

thanks

I doubt you'll see much difference if you don't do much cropping. 20MP can makes pretty big print and high ISO on the R6 should be better than the 5D4 so while giving up a bit of resolution you should gain some ISO performance that should be equally useful. All depends on the exact shooting situation and what your final output will be, but overall I'd view it pretty much as a wash.

As far as actual resolution you'll be loosing a 1.5x pixel count advantage the 5D4 has, so that is a 22% increase in resolution in each axis (SQRT(1.5)=1.22). This assumes pixels of equal quality. The R6 should have a little better quality on a pixel level so safe to say less than a 20% linear difference in how big you can print, maybe no noticeable difference at all depending on how much better the R6 sensor is compared to the 5D4 at a given ISO.

If you like the R6 better overall as a camera (AF etc. etc.) then go for it.

1

Funny, the OP said he does not crop.

2

Joe Reynolds wrote:

Funny, the OP said he does not crop.

Not needed to crop is good. But with wildlife, I need to crop since I can't close enough.

1

an_also wrote:

if I one day decide to adapt my 400 DO II to a R6, will there be a noticeable difference going from my 5d4’s 30mp to the 20mp of the R6?

I shoot 1D X and 5D 4 side by side, and my experience is that at the same output size for publication, I do not see much difference. I sometimes can see the 1D X can produce better pixels quality, however. My publication size is often only 6 MP.

If I need larger output size, only then that the resolution advantage will come into play. Excessive cropping will do the same as well. Sorry, but the answer is still it depends. You will be fine if downsample for output or don't view very closely at higher resolution output media.

1

I don’t think you will. I shoot 50mp 5dsr and 20mp 1DX2 for wildlife and I’m amazed at how good the files from the 1DX2 are.

Ive used the 5dsr for three years and the 1DX2 for the past year and a half and the 1DX2 gets used more now. Even when I was out in Grand Tetons and Yellowstone where I was able to fill the frame easily with wildlife I would use the 1D more, but I would switch bodies up and get shots from both just because I had time.

I also print 20x30” metal prints from both and they both look good.

But I will also say if you pixel peep the more megapixels are nice, I have a shot of a bison that you can see so much detail when you zoom in on it’s eye.

I was waiting for the rumored mirror less 5dsr replacement that they say was going to have 75-80mp but I don’t think I will be waiting for that now. When I replace the 5dsr I’m thinking of going with medium format.

If you mostly get the subject filling as much of the frame as you need, then 20MP is plenty.

30MP gives you a little more room to crop and still reveal detail, but only up to a point and it's not as much as it sounds. Useful if you do need it, but adds nothing if you don't.

When using the full frame you get all the benefit of the light, and this is the most critical aspect. Its only the resolution the pixel size affects, and if you have enough, you have enough and then the quality is indistinguishable at common viewing size.

If you crop, you are throwing away light, regardless of the resolution retained.

20MP vs 30MP feels intuitively like a big difference because of the relative magnitudes. But if you try to crop to the extremes suggested by those magnitudes you will start to see the reduced light/quality impact of the smaller pixels before you reach the full extent of that intuited crop. Hence, practically, it's not actually as big a difference as it sounds.

In this respect, 20MP is perhaps close to a 'sweet spot' in terms of its capabilities and when factoring in other implications of increased file sizes and processing speeds. This perhaps accounts for its popularity among manufacturers, despite the public perception that more is better.

The true benefits of higher resolution lies when combined with other features, for example with pixel shift, which reintroduces the light lost from smaller pixel sizes and makes those smaller pixels as usable as larger ones, but obviously is only practical with mostly static scenes.

I want to say he's going to notice the difference, but in honesty, I've always felt like the 1D sensors punch above their weight. Personally, I liked the files out of the 5D4, but its going to be close as to whether or not the resolution advantage will prove the winner. My gut says it will, but my heart says don't bet against the 1D series sensor. But lets say the 5D4's sensor is better, I'd be willing to bet the other features will far outweigh the slight resolution advantage and tip the scale back to the R6. If the AF is as good as it looks, the speed, uber effective IBIS, and TC options opened up to F11 and beyond AF... these two bodies are heaven sent for wildlife guys/gals.

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

Its a minor linear resolution reduction! The pixel counts are a quadratic function of the linear resolution. So the while the pixelcount multiplicator is 1.5x the resolution increase is only sqrt(1.5)= 1,22x so see it as a 20% loss in linear resolution which is not much.

I wouldnt dare to climb a 100 foot granite wall, but one that is only 30.48 meters high, not a problem.

an_also wrote:

I have a 5D4 and I find 30mp to be a really sweet spot for me. I shoot mammals mostly and not much birds. I don’t usually crop much. Usually only a bit of levelling etc. I’ve been shooting some local foxes lately where I can fill the frame without having to crop.

My biggest reason considering switching would be to use the new and improved AF system of the R6.

if I one day decide to adapt my 400 DO II to a R6, will there be a noticeable difference going from my 5d4’s 30mp to the 20mp of the R6?

thanks

Why not wait for the cameras to arrive at the store And see for yourself instead of guessing? You will have the answer once you load your RAW photos to your computer and play with the files in PP.

Im sure soon there are going to be tons of “tests” comparing the lower res sensor as well.

2

Thanks for everyone’s replies. I’m not in a rush to switch so I’m definitely going to be waiting to see how the R6 and R5 perform with big white EF glass in terms of AF. If the slideshow effect is still present then it’s a no go. I’m pretty pleased with what the 5d4 has given me over the last couple of years. I would need the new models to really exceed it for me to shell out themoney to switch.

If you commonly fill the frame, I wouldn't worry about it.

If you mostly crop, the loss of resolution will be more noticeable.

The latest Lumix puts a Four Thirds sensor in a full-frame body with boosted AF and a wealth of stills and video capabilities to create a Swiss Army Knife of a Micro Four Thirds camera.

The fourth camera in Leica's SL series of full-frame mirrorless cameras sees the 60MP BSI sensor from the Q3 and M11 models arrive with a significant interface redesign.

The Fujifilm X100VI is the sixth iteration of Fujifilm's classically-styled large sensor compact. A 40MP X-Trans sensor, in-body stabilization and 6.2K video are among the updates.

The Nikon Zf is a 24MP full-frame mirrorless camera with classic looks that brings significant improvements to Nikon's mid-price cameras. We just shot a sample reel to get a better feel for its video features and have added our impressions to the review.

This $250 electronic lens adapter is perfect for Nikon Z-mount curious Sony shooters — shhh, we won’t tell anyone.

What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.

What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.

Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.