We have reported a bit of information about the upcoming Canon EOS R5 Mark II, which we expect to arrive some time in the first half of 2024. We have been left wondering if Canon is planning the same treatment for the EOS R5 C.

We have been told by a source with a good track record that Canon has mentioned that they are working on an EOS R5 C Mark II, and that the original EOS R5 C has exceeded Canon's sales expectations.

It will obviously “share a lot of the same hardware” as the Canon EOS R5 Mark II. Though the source claimed that the follow-up was shown as a 2025 product.

Canon does do NDA'd roadmaps for their marketing department as well as certain dealers.

Obviously there are no specifications or detailed information about an EOS R5 C Mark II, but we do trust that we will see a follow-up and that it wasn't a “one-off” product like the EOS-1D C was.

Go to discussion...

56 comments

  1. I\'d love if they gave the option to add gyro metadata to media in this one.
    I understand not having IBIS in a \"cinema\" body but the form factor is just too small to easily minimize handheld shake and Canon\'s EIS implementation is not very good, this could be a way to circumvent that without compromise.
    Also full-size HDMI output, micro-HDMI is just not acceptable for a cine-oriented body.
    • 0
  2. I\'d love if they gave the option to add gyro metadata to media in this one.
    I understand not having IBIS in a \"cinema\" body but the form factor is just too small to easily minimize handheld shake and Canon\'s EIS implementation is not very good, this could be a way to circumvent that without compromise.
    Also full-size HDMI output, micro-HDMI is just not acceptable for a cine-oriented body.
    I don't see the first thing happening, unless in the meantime they will relase a cinema camera with this feature.
    Like-wise, until an R3 has micro-HDMI, I don't see them doing major changes on the body.
    It's the R1 that might be a more thorough redesign and the models afterwards may have it.
    One think that I can predict though is that it will have a new processor with reduced power draw, so battery life won't be as bad as the original.
    • 0
  3. R3 has micro-HDMI
    The R3 is last generation.
    I would not rule out the possibility of the R5 II and R5 C II having full-size HDMI.
    I believe the R1 will have it but that does not necessarily mean it would trickle down to the rest of the line-up.
    • 0
  4. [...] One think that I can predict though is that it will have a new processor with reduced power draw, so battery life won't be as bad as the original.
    Comparing my R5 and R8, the power draw needed for oversampled video is very noticeably reduced in the newer body. So I agree with your prediction being a safe one :)
    • 0
  5. Comparing my R5 and R8, the power draw needed for oversampled video is very noticeably reduced in the newer body. So I agree with your prediction being a safe one :)
    8K vs 6K, cinema operating system, higher-res LCD, spinning fan - but the processor part does help at least ;)
    • 0
  6. The R3 is last generation.
    I would not rule out the possibility of the R5 II and R5 C II having full-size HDMI.
    I believe the R1 will have it but that does not necessarily mean it would trickle down to the rest of the line-up.
    At this point, all manufactures are pretty settled on doing minor tweaks rather then redesigns and sticking to their own way or segmenting things.
    Seeing a similar change as R6 to R6 II on the R5 line would be a more realistic expectation I think, which would mean the update on the inside rather than the outside.
    The R5(C) and R6 bodies are very similar in size, too, so it would not make sense to redesign one but not the other (costs more to design as well as to manufacture).
    • 0
  7. If they gave it a full-size HDMI, I would upgrade without a question. That's how much I detest the micro.

    Clog2 would also be a nice-to-have, and autofocus improvements. The AF is already quite good, especially after the last update, but next gen will be better and I would expect the same enhancements to trickle down into this body.

    Onboard XLRs (even minis) would be great, I have the Tascam shoe adapter but it adds significant bulk and can be a bit finicky. 32-bit float recording please!

    The last thing on my wish list would be a revamp of the power system so that we don't have to connect additional USB power for a lens when doing 8k60. Please ditch the current battery for something that can power the camera for a few hours.
    • 0
  8. The R5 C and Canon's other cinema cameras have continued to improve with firmware.

    I'm glad to hear an R5 C2 is likely to happen. Even with its battery life, the mkI has been such a good camera to shoot with. The trade off's have been fairly minimal considering what you get. Its sales tell the story. In the end those who know how good the R5 C is have one and are enjoying it. Every camera can be improved and no one body is ever perfect. Things I'd like to see Canon address:

    Battery life
    HDMI port
    Wireless and BT support in cinema OS

    Not sure if there will ever be a way to get ND onboard without making it much larger, and ibis while nice, is not something I've missed. Digital IS does just fine. The cameras images are fantastic, and the cinema footage is stunning. The only other thing I feel that might be needed is opening up the cinema OS to support standard 3rd party accessories. Example gimbals. You can start and stop video, but other video mode function typically found in other cameras is not supported. There is no wireless or BT capability in Cinema OS on the mkI. Address a few of these items and Canon would have another winner.
    • 0
  9. Internal ND filters, I'm sure they can as they removed IBIS [...]
    ND filters go in front of the lens, IBIS goes behind the sensor. So one doesn't preclude the other.
    • 0
  10. all manufactures are pretty settled on doing minor tweaks rather then redesigns and sticking to their own way or segmenting things
    Generally probably true, but I'd bet that the R1 has something staggeringly different about it, not just a question of MP or FPS.

    This site covered a Canon patent about 4 years ago for a sensor that would allow 1) nearly double dynamic range (one-shot HDR, basically), 2) software neutral density filter, and 3) no rolling shutter. Even at (say) 20MP that would be a total game changer. I have some other ideas that would result in a bigger body but would allow some completely new capabilities as well.
    • 0
  11. If they gave it a full-size HDMI, I would upgrade without a question. That's how much I detest the micro.

    Clog2 would also be a nice-to-have, and autofocus improvements. The AF is already quite good, especially after the last update, but next gen will be better and I would expect the same enhancements to trickle down into this body.

    Onboard XLRs (even minis) would be great, I have the Tascam shoe adapter but it adds significant bulk and can be a bit finicky. 32-bit float recording please!

    The last thing on my wish list would be a revamp of the power system so that we don't have to connect additional USB power for a lens when doing 8k60. Please ditch the current battery for something that can power the camera for a few hours.
    They’re all great things to want. But where on an R5 size body do you fit XLRs and an entirely new battery type? It’s just not possible. What you’re describing is the C70. The R5C 2 will have all the exact same design trade offs the current Gen has. It’s just the nature of the form factor.
    • 0
  12. Generally probably true, but I'd bet that the R1 has something staggeringly different about it, not just a question of MP or FPS.

    This site covered a Canon patent about 4 years ago for a sensor that would allow 1) nearly double dynamic range (one-shot HDR, basically), 2) software neutral density filter, and 3) no rolling shutter. Even at (say) 20MP that would be a total game changer. I have some other ideas that would result in a bigger body but would allow some completely new capabilities as well.
    Last time the R1 was rumoured, expectations were dampened somewhat about being anything ground-breaking. More like a combination of what Canon currently offers with further advancements, maybe even more advanced AF modes, framerates and whatnot.
    As it stands I would expect a stacked BSI sensor with at least as much resolution as the R5 and probably even a bit faster readout than the R3 with dual CFExpress Type B slots, and EVF that is incredibly crisp during shooting (Sony's 9.44million dot panel is only full-res during playback)
    Rest is anyone's guess.

    Otherwise, they only need to fix all the silly video limitations of the R3, like:
    - disappearing level and histogram during recording (maybe a waveform would be nice)
    - no C-Log2
    - micro-HDMI port

    As long as they do these things, it would be quite a complete 'non-revolutionary' camera for both photo and video.
    (Even a 24MP R3II with just these little things fixed would be quite epic.)
    • 0
  13. ND filters go in front of the lens, IBIS goes behind the sensor. So one doesn't preclude the other.

    Sure, but there are cases where is more convenient to have the nd's in the body, specially for lenses with bulbous front elements, probably like the upcoming Canon RF tilt shift lenses. Also internal nd filter systems don't have any reflection issues like front filters.
    Ibis is good but If I'd need to choose, it would be ND's over Ibis, any day. For people that want Ibis, the regular R5II is going to be the one
    • 0
  14. Sure, but there are cases where is more convenient to have the nd's in the body, specially for lenses with bulbous front elements, probably like the upcoming Canon RF tilt shift lenses. Also internal nd filter systems don't have any reflection issues like front filters.
    Ibis is good but If I'd need to choose, it would be ND's over Ibis, any day. For people that want Ibis, the regular R5II is going to be the one
    Sure, it would be infinitely more convenient. ND filter makers certainly would not approve this change I'm sure.

    But then it would not be an R5 C Mark II anymore at all.
    You would need a completely different body to have spacing for the turret mechanism that rotates them, and you probably need to remove the mechanical shutter as well, heavily compromising stills capabilities. (but cameras like the Z8/Z9 might become more popular, so this may not be as relevant in the future)
    A small thing, but I guess this would probably require more power as well which is already right at its very limits with the current battery regarding its "party piece" 8k60p RAW recording option...

    So basically, you'll end up with a cinema camera rather tihan a compact stills camera with advanced video capabilities - mainly via the software, otherwise it is just active cooling instead of IBIS. And all this for a moderate price increase. People wouldn't consider it otherwise, especially if they make a C90 or something (I'm assuming they need more space for the ND filters over C70 but at least the 17:9 sensor aspect ratio is better than having the full stills area)

    An electronic variable ND like Sony uses would be neat, only requiring two positions therefore less space (especially useful for a full-frame sensor) and some useful tricks, but Canon does not have this technology. Also, it would be around 2-7 stops, so not quite the range of Canon's 2-4-6-8-10 stops ND. So it may still need additional ND in some cases, which would be very annoying.

    Point is: internal ND filters in "stills cameras" is probably not that easy - but also get easier as time goes and manufactures are in no rush to implement it (to segment their products much better regarding features and pricing).
    • 0
  15. Sure, but there are cases where is more convenient to have the nd's in the body, specially for lenses with bulbous front elements, probably like the upcoming Canon RF tilt shift lenses. Also internal nd filter systems don't have any reflection issues like front filters.
    Not to mention you always have your in-body ND with you, in the right size :-D And even a factory-fresh one straight from the clean room will have SOME optical degradation.
    • 0
  16. You would need a completely different body to have spacing for the turret mechanism that rotates them,
    in-camera ND would be done electronically.

    Canon's "new" (patented 4 years ago) sensor would do it the following way, though other ways would of course exist.

    Each sensor pixel has TWO charge buckets and the camera can change which bucket is being loaded across the entire sensor in a microsecond or less.

    1) To get ND effect it'd alternate one bucket on for a very short time, then the other bucket for a long time. For instance 10 stops is about 1/1000 the light. If the sensor did 1 microsecond for bucket A, then 999 microseconds for bucket B, then reading out bucket A would give you 10 stop ND. This would let you use f/1.2 lenses wide open in broad daylight, or even do long-shutter exposures during the day to show you ocean waves as an indistinct foam or show moving cars as blurs.

    2) To prevent rolling shutter, you simply expose in bucket A, then at the end of the exposure switch to bucket B, which you ignore, while reading out bucket A.

    3) to get nearly double dynamic range, you do something similar to (1) but bucket B is your "normal" exposure while bucket A has details 10 stops higher. A real-estate photographer could take one exposure that captures the room perfectly but also gets all the detail of a daylight exterior scene seen through the windows.
    • 0
  17. I don't see the first thing happening, unless in the meantime they will relase a cinema camera with this feature.
    Like-wise, until an R3 has micro-HDMI, I don't see them doing major changes on the body.
    It's the R1 that might be a more thorough redesign and the models afterwards may have it.
    One think that I can predict though is that it will have a new processor with reduced power draw, so battery life won't be as bad as the original.

    i did not purchase the EOS R5 precisely because it had a micro-HDMI port instead of the mini-HDMI port of my EOS R which i believe is slightly safer as it is larger. i also did not purchase the EOS R5 because i wanted identical twin card slots like in many video oriented Sony hybrid cameras and Panasonic hybrid cameras and some Fujifilm cameras. i believe they brought the same design decisions from the R5 to the R5C as they were reusing certain components and wanted to speed up the manufacturing process. in the end i purchased a C70 which is a proper Cinema Camera. that said, micro-HDMI really seems so be too fragile even with cable clamps for a camera that could do video
    • 0

Leave a comment

Please log in to your forum account to comment