I wouldn't worry. Most of us are transitioning with large libraries of EF glass. The wear and tear from removing the adapter every time just doesn't seem worth it or logical. You're adding an extra mount/unmount for every lens swap instead of just one.

Bdbtoys said:

I disagree to an extent. Yes there would be a few that would circumvent... but it would be much harder to do so by the general masses if it was reading real temps. It would take a "real" hardware/software hack... vs a battery pull or date change.

Personally, I have much more faith in overheat protection based on real time data vs projections... as the latter can be disputed.

Click to expand...

True enough. I'm sure they had that conversation at Canon beforehand, and the decision was made to reduce costs in exchange for (what was perceived to be) a slight loss of usability. It wouldn't be the first time the beancounters f*cked something up.

Rivermist said:

Well there are some interesting lenses such as the 28-70 f:2.0 (which can use the IBIS of R5 / R6), the 15-35 L f:2.8 which gets IS (with the EF mount only the f:4.0 has IS), ditto the 24-70 f:2.8 IS. The 70-200 f:2.8 IS is extraordinarily compact, not sure of course whether Canon could have produced the same lens in EF but chose to have all it's L lenses in 70-200 be internal focusing only. The 35mm f:1.8 is interesting because the large glass is camera-side and the front lens is small, contrary to the EF 35mm f:2.0 (not quite sure what to make of that, but interesting). I am personally waiting for the 70-135mm L f:2.0, as far as I know nothing similar in EF. To your point I think that the benefits of RF in terms of optical design decrease as one goes to longer telephoto lenses, with only the electronics of RF (4 additional pins, faster data transfers, interaction of IBIS and lens IS) and a slightly wider diameter allowing for some innovation. The biggest difference s of course the distance to sensor, without a mirror the glass can extend closer to the sensor. It is surprising that more wide angle lenses have not come out yet because that is where I would expect the RF to deliver a bigger impact, e.g. for the successor to the 11-24mm, or a 14mm / 17mm / 20mm prime (the latter two were present in the FD lineup but never had an EF equivalent).
If the “back focus” distance between a lens’ rear element and the camera’s sensor is too far, the light entering the rear element is condensed and is harder to do aberration correction on. Lenses counteract this by making the front element (and whole lens) larger and bulkier. But by moving the rear element closer to the sensor (i.e. a short back focus), Canon spreads out the light rays passing through the rear element, making it easier to reduce aberration. (https://petapixel.com/2019/06/17/canon-this-is-why-rf-lenses-are-outstanding/). Does this answer your question (full disclosure I am just a camera enthusiast, not an optical engineer).

Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. It makes a lot more sense now. As far as I understand is that the enhancements by the RF mount mostly result in increased image quality. About that RF 70-200mm, the fact that it is a pumper zoom put me off from it. Had the Nikon 200-500mm F5.6 which is a pumper zoom as well and it got quite dirty inside when you use it a lot outdoors. The possibility of placing larger elements more to the back with the RF mount makes me quite interested in what a RF 400mm F2.8 or 600mm F4 can shave off in weight. Both Sony and Canon have managed to shave quite some weight off of their latest super long telephotos by placing the elements more to the back and therefore be able to shrink them quite significantly.

Avenger 2.0 said:

Just get a used 7D2 for the moment, prices are really low. Bought one for €500 over here in almost new condition with low click count.
A mirrorless crop will be at earliest 2021 and might set you back €2000 or more. When released, pretty sure you can sell the 7D2 with minimal loss.

Click to expand...

Awesome ! U wrote my thoughts. Thnk u very much. Ur suggestion is most sensible at this moment.

I just heard back from a Canon rep about this shutter shock issue and they are going to pass on the feedback to Canon Inc. I suggested a menu option that allows the camera to automatically switch between EFCS and fully mechanical shutter based on shutter speed. Hopefully I am not the only one reporting this so something will be done in the firmware. Fingers crossed.

hoodlum said:

This is a much cleaner way of extending video on the R5 without loosing any settings. You just need to change the date and then do the battery reset. You don't loose the last recorded video and settings are kept intact.

Canon EOS R5 / R6 overheating timers, workarounds, and Magic Lantern

www.eoshd.com

Click to expand...

Someone in that thread just confirmed that it works with firmware 1.1 as well

SteveC said:

He claims that navigating through the menu is touch or joystick on the R5. Untrue, the back wheel and one of the two top wheels do work, just not as up/down/left/right buttons.

Click to expand...

Just wait until he stumbles upon the info button skipping tabs

Nik is great software. The Silver Efex alone is worth it (I paid $150 for the standalone Silver Efex back before Google bought Nik), and Color Efex is pretty good, and the HDREfex has some decent HDR utility. I have used the Sharpener a little, and the Denoising barely at all. Viveza is a tool that I should use more--there are some really handy uses for it--and so all in all, it's a great package.

But DxO is doing a crap job managing the software and dealing with customers. The interface is getting worse, not better. They keep changing how the pre-sets are arranged/grouped, and so it's getting harder and harder to quickly work images. And their marketing and customer service is awful. They offer a discount, and then a week later, offer a steeper discount--only to tell customers who paid the higher price that they're out of luck. They "upgrade" software and offer the upgrade at a lower price than the previous version was offered weeks before. And when you contact them, they tell you basically tough luck, their marketing department decided to do the pricing the way it is and have a hard cut-off that screws customers who have already paid.

In other words, they're prioritizing new customers over existing customers.

DxO bought the Nik Collection from Google, who bought it from Nik. So far, I have seen no indication that Google or DxO has improved upon the fantastic software that Nik created over a decade ago.

Companies like Topaz and Imagenomic are doing a much better job developing software and supporting customers. If I didn't love Silver Efex so much, DxO wouldn't get any of my money.

SecureGSM said:

...
The only issue that stops me from an immediate2 x 5D4 to 2x R5 transition is: R5 retail price in Australia
5D5? I do not see this being a strong upgrade proposition for me anymore.

Click to expand...

I have two reasons not to swap - apart from the open EVF question:

1. Retail price (and that thrice):
   I as a hobbyist cannot justify any body beeing that expensive.
   (so would be the 5D5, too, I suppose)
2. Availability:
   Here in Germany nobody gives you a promise of delivery before mid of October, but that's change over time.
   But this also means I won't get my hands on any R5 soon.

BeenThere said:

Right, and would 5D5 be less expensive if it came to fruition? Probably not.

Click to expand...

Correct.
But depending on features it could be.

I agree would be nice for the hobbyist to get an affordable 70-300 zoom that was smaller and RF mount without an adapter.

If the camera will not start up, there is likely a short in the lens connection somewhere. If it starts up you can't take a photo, set to release the shutter without lens as noted above. All Canon DSLR's have that setting, you set it once and forget its there years later when you replace the camera.

sergeyross said:

Steve, for me it's for youtube vlogging. That's a primary use case. I like the look 60fps creates and it would be published this way. I know there is an argument to be made that line skipped 4K vs "HQ" will look the same on youtube.
The other scenario I will be using the camera is for interview recording. R5 would be a better fit, obviously with unlimited 24, 30 fps modes. But I'll likely get it later as a second camera.

Click to expand...

That’s surprising, since I would expect a talking head video to be the least demanding usage, and would expect just using a faster shutter speed would give the same soap opera look. Also, my experience is that you are lucky if YouTube’s mangling doesn‘t degrade whatever quality you had in the first place. Maybe they use different algorithms for faster frame rates or something.

The good news is that with CR Pro, I have ZERO ads. My ad blocker showed it was not blocking ads so I disabled it. Pages load faster.

Just one on order through B&H, my 5DIV will work just fine until the R5 shows up, whenever that might be.

Stig Nygaard said:

Handheld "nightshot" from an evening walk. Remember nothing special about the situation to mention.

Login to view embedded media
Virtually uncropped. Scaled down from 6960x4590 to 3880x2559 if you zoom into full size (So 10 megapixel-ish).
5000 ISO.

Some overall and shadow pushing in post, but nothing I haven't done often before:

CR exposure:
Overall +0.75 stop
Shadow +62 whatever-unit-it-is

Some noise reduction in both CR and PS:
CR noise:
NR 25
Detail 71
Color NR 25
PS noise:
17% NR in Smart Sharpening

I see the light dots/grains all over in shadows. Some more bright than others, but they annoy me. Look f.ex. around the standing bike or in lower part of blue sky.

Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for sharing.

You mention using Smart Sharpening. That is a deconvolution algorithm. Those are inherently prone to introducing noise and certain visual artifacts. The noise you point out looks like what I am getting sometimes when using Smart Sharpening. I would guess that on an image that already has pixel manipulating effects like sharpening, clarity and certain kinds of NR applied, this becomes more noticeable. That would both make sense and be in line with my limited experience with the tool.

In any case I am seeing similar results with my 24 MP 80D sometimes. You are claiming this is less of an issue with the 20 MP 7D II right? I am not sure what's the proper way to apply deconvolution to a noisy image when the intent is to also downscale it (for actual use or comparison with a lower resolution sensor). Deconvolution amplifies noise. But downsampling before deconvoluting seems counter intuitve and also may apply a form of sharpening in itself (Not desireable for deconvolution) depending on the algorithm.

Interesting point for sure. But nothing I can currently spend time on experimenting with.

The Minimum Transfer speed and the adaptive thermal management seems like a conflict to me. Thermal management slows speed down in steps as a card gets hotter.

I would certainly look for reviews and testing, hype often leaves out critical issues.

jvillain said:

I see what I wrote was went completely over your head.

Click to expand...

It hasn’t, ask a steadicam operator what dynamic balance is.

FrenchFry said:

Are you sure?
I am unable to test due to not owning the grip yet and my R5 being in Canon's possessed repair.

But I read in a DPReview thread this evening that the batteries are used up sequentially in the R5 grip. This user shot until their frame rate decreased, switched the position of the two batteries, and then regained the highest frame rate.

Click to expand...

I'm sure about my "ancient" EOS DSLRs including the 5D Mark IV. I have no EOS R system cameras to test.

Mt Spokane Photography said:

Its working as it should, you set the primary card that you want to view. If one card is used for videos and the other for stills, you might want a large one for video, 128 or 256 GB while a 64 GB will probably be fine for stills. You don't need the same capacity card in both slots.

Also be aware that if you remove the primary card for some reason and close the card door, the camera will sense that there is just one card and make it primary. It should warn you when you power it up that there is only one card. But, when you install the removed card again, it will no longer be the primary card. Remove the other card close the door, and then reinstall it and the camera will change back to the other card as primary. You can do it in the settings as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing! Will try out more to get familiar.

zonefocus said:

Set the button to change aspect ratio. That’s what I had it set on when I discovered this. don’t select anything. Simply press and re-press And it should work for you. Love it if someone could confirm it works for them too.

Click to expand...

Thank you. Please see my comment in the other thread with this topic--and note that the R does not have a dedicated DoF button, but the instructions are the same!

amendegw said:

That's the decision I made. As a wildlife photographer, I considered upgrading my 1Dx II to a 1Dx III but I didn't see where I was getting that much more camera for the money. When the R5 was announced with animal eye focus and increased sensor resolution and a lower price, I placed my order. Now if it would only be shipped!

Click to expand...

My decision to get the R5 was the same as amendegw's .... I will still have my 1DX Mark II for fast moving subjects (BIF's / Planes, etc.) The R5 for much of the rest that I shoot. As soon as I get the R5 my 5D Mark III is for sale. I should have placed my order on the original release date but I debated and analyzed the R5 purchase and did not place my order until 7/24 ... so I wait.

Shooting something behind me would be cool, but the OVF wouldn’t be much help.

Sorry if this has been asked but any eta on this upcoming firmware ?

twoheadedboy said:

National security and classified information topics don't work that way.

Click to expand...

Really? Are you an expert on that?

SteveC said:

.....
One *could* create an adapter (in either direction, though I imagine R->M would be more desirable) that used optics to alter the necessary difference, but as far as I know, no one has done this or even begun to do it.

Click to expand...

For me, an adapter with glass is not a "problem". I appreciate there would likely be some quality loss but a big functionality gain. I'd be far happier with a Canon manufactured adapter as I'd have more confidence in communications. I assume there would need to be some software support as well so I assume/guess Canon would be doing it anyway.

(If I didn't say it (confused) it is an R (lens)->M (body) that I was asking about (as EF-M is already available).

Ian