Nice series. I especially like the 3rd picture.

Just don't set the aperture to 88

i guess the RP in video mode only has 2 focus options: eye AF and 1-point focus.

This is my first video posted here.
I didn't know about this Forum on the Canon Rumours website or that you have a video section.
I just registered today.

Best regards,
Rudy in Ottawa

Where did the discussion go? There were a bunch of posts here.

In this patent application (2024-071858) Canon looks to improve the operation of IBIS on your cameras near and dear to your heart. While we'll never know if this patent will end up in the R1 or the R5 Mark II, all these types of patents silently make the little improvements that ultimately add up to big improvements upon release.

The Canon R5C is the best camera I have bought to date. Period.

It takes great photos and great videos—perfect for my kind of jobs. Its 'Netflix Approved' status has landed quite a few jobs my way, and it's a beast on gimbals.

Canon should definitely continue the line with the R5C Mark II.

My top wish list for the Mark II version would be:

1. Built-in ND filters (like the Blackmagic 6K Pro).
2. Better audio preamps with 2 mini XLR ports, as well as a 3.5mm audio input port (just like the Blackmagic 6K).
3. Full-size HDMI.
4. Better battery backup (without making the camera too bulky).

I had rented both the C70 and R5C before making a purchase decision, and the R5C having a built-in EVF was the deciding factor. Besides helping with composition, the EVF adds a third point of contact to get stable handheld shots. It is perfect for the majority of my hybrid jobs—run-and-gun style documentaries outdoors with a minimal but powerful small setup. The EVF has been such a pleasure for composing and nailing exposure under the bright sun. Once you get used to it, you simply cannot go back!

Perfect form factor, design, ergonomics, and feature set. In my humble opinion, Canon has nailed it with the R5C.

So, yes, waiting for the R5C Mark II. Count me in

Richard CR said:

a) that's just a fabrication issue. once you figure it out and can do so reliably it doesn't get any harder. Canon could do the ram chips btw - easily. Sony? not sure. also how much memory? given the area of a full frame sensor just because it's memory doesn't mean it's using small design rules past what sony or canon can achieve. it's not as if we didnt' have memory when 45 or even 90nm was cutting edge. 1Gbit SDRAM used anywhere from 100 to 60nm processes. and those chips were a lot smaller than the surface area of a sensor. 20 shot on sensor buffer of a 50Mp sensor would be 14Gbits. possible? it's not exactly out of the possibility.. So no, it's more than zero.

b) Canon bought a company to literally make that easier for them to do. it also depends on how they do the passthrough and the pads between substrates as well. edge placement is much easier than under each pixel as an example.

but do keep in mind that it costs a lot of money just to set up the sensor design. if you are making a million sensors, that's one thing, if you are making 10,000 - that does tend to be quite expensive. So while it may be easier for Canon to do right now, the design costs of the R3 sensor will still be pretty significant.

but once you figure out the manufacturing processes it doesn't get any more difficult with a new sensor, the processes and yields get better as time goes on. so the idea that the new sensors are holding up things? yeah no, i don't buy it.

the process and manufacturing of sub 5nm that TSMC is dealing with is entirely different than what we are discussing here. Sony uses 45nm from what I last recall seeing. Canon uses 90nm the last I've seen (a year ago).

Click to expand...

Yes, you can build 90 nm RAM, but it is not power efficient in today's world and heat is one of the biggest enemies of the modern camera, so I still say zero probability that the memory is fabbed in-house. BTW, TSMCs CoWos challenges have little to do with the small geometries they are using to fab chips. CoWos is the multi-chip packaging process that allows AI GPUs to exist and the scale and connection density is pretty similar to a stacked sensor. Very precise dedicated machines are required and , no, just because Canon was successful with the R3 does not mean they automatically have enough capacity for an R5 or that a possible 45 MP stacked QPAF sensor is not more challenging to assemble. I am not saying that Sensor difficulties are the delay issue, but rather questioning the Magnesium theory. Magnesium is currently $2,700 per metric ton which translates to about 50 cents per camera when you take into account that the Magnesium will be alloyed with Aluminum, etc. before it is cast into a camera body. The price peaked in November and both the price and overall usage of Magnesium have been dropping recently, so shortage of supply is not likely that big an issue (if so, the price would be higher). The most likely reason for the delay is that current inventory levels are too high and that theory is reinforced by the rather continuous discounts we have seen for the last 6 months. The current level on inflation (at least in the US) has had a damping effect on discretionary capital purchases in general.

EricN said:

Thank god you won't have to change the lenses diapers

Click to expand...

I agree. If my EF lens produces crap, it's my fault and easily deleted.
But in case a diaper is needed, Canon has that covered.

The Pro-1000 has actually made printing pretty zen. Brilliant product.

dcweather said:

What about third party lenses? Samyang, Meike etc? I have the RF 10mm F2.0 from Meike and it looks promising but not had a chance with the Milky Way yet. And what about the 16mm RF f2.8 prime - is that no good?

Click to expand...

The RF 16mm is a small and very cheap lens. It’s good for vlogging etc. but not very good for astrophotography due to issues with astigmatism, coma and heavy vignetting. I don’t know the Meike lenses. Samyang lenses are cheap also, and good for astro, although I believe it depends very much on the specific copy of the lens you get.

> So for me, this usually precluded any full-frame system, unless you wanted to use F4-8.0 glass

Gosh where to start!

1) not necessarily. I travel with an R5, 50/1.8 and 16/2.8. I can crop if I need to but I'm used to moving around to shoot 50 anyway. These aren't "f/4-f/8".

2) You say f/4-f/8 like its disreputable.

In the 90s, we needed an f/2.8 trinity just to get the AF to work well, so it was non-negotiable no matter what you were shooting. But even 100-speed film looked worse than ISO4000 does today, so in anything less than broad daylight you were fighting between worsening your photo with higher-speed film yet, or longer shutters that worsen with hand-shake or subject movement. So an f/2.8 lens gave you a third option of opening up. Now, autofocus was frankly crap and especially at f/2.8. If your subject was centered you could use a split-circle to focus a perfectly centered subject, boring. Or you could focus-recompose-shoot but since the "plane of focus" was never a perfect sphere, when you recomposed you were no longer in focus. And even if you got the eyes in focus, the rest of the portrait wasn't in focus at f/2.8. Given the losing war on focus, AND the grain, we didn't use huge enlargements. In a small image we still wanted the subject to pop, so f/2.8 gave us that at least. In a 10x15cm/4x6" print, the bokeh from f/2.8 would let you know what the subject was supposed to be.

But now things are different. We can shoot four-digit ISOs all day long and have usable images. AF nails the focus now, especially with eye detection and eye-AF (eye-directed AF), no matter how flat or curved the plane of focus is. IS and IBIS mean hand-shake at least is a thing of the past with even the 50/1.8 reliably shooting at 1/2 sec. Our grain-free, perfectly in-focus images are ALL previewed on 19" monitors or bigger. And at that huge magnification... f/4 bokeh scaled up to monitor-size is far more notable than f/2.8 bokeh is on a 10x15cm/4x6" print. And f/2.8 doesn't buy you anything with AF either.

I would submit that the trinity zooms of today are the f/4 series. Due to images being fair multiples of size larger than the film era, f/4 is plenty. By all means get more aperture if you want, but it's hard to say it's necessary in the same way it was necessary in the 90s or 00s. Some may really want or need EXTRA bokeh and use the f/2.8. (Extra--due to the fact we look at photos far larger now, not because f/2.8 today is different than f/2.8 in the 90s.) But I suspect a lot of people do NOT actually need the f/2.8 and are using it because that's what they've always used, or that's what the common wisdom says.

(BTW I get big apertures. I've owned the 50/1.0, 50/1.2, 85/1.2, 135/2, 135/1.8, 70-200/2.8, on up to 600/4, and I'm the one who posts about how Canon should make a 35/1.0 and 50/0.7 as halo lenses. I'm just saying these are for special shots, but they're not needed like they were 1-3 decades ago.)

3) You say f/4-f/8 as if the APSC lenses can be compared like-for-like with full-frame because the f-stops are somehow comperable.

The f-stop isn't actually the aperture. It's the focal length DIVIDED by the aperture, and the aperture is the hole in the front the light goes through. Aperture is where bokeh comes from. an 85/1.2 and 135/2 and 200/2.8 and 300/4 and 400/5.6 all have about a 72mm aperture and they're produce the same amount of bokeh. The photo is wider or narrower of course, but take the center of a wide-open 85/1.2 shot and it will look nearly exactly like any of those other lenses wide-open, neither more nor less bokeh. APERTURE is what you want to compare, not f-stops. In fact an EF50/1.0L only has a 50mm aperture, and doesn't have near the bokeh of the series I mentioned.

So if you're using an EF-M 22/2 and saying, gosh, the multiplier is 1.6x so it's comperable to like a 35/2 on a full-frame sensor, it's not. Well: for exposure, yes, but not for bokeh. That hole on the lens doesn't magically get bigger. If it's equivalent to a 35mm, 1.6x longer, then the f-stop wide open is 2*1.6=3.2 wide open. If you haven't shot a lot of 35mm lenses (and I haven't) like 50mm f/4.5 levels of bokeh, when you have it wide open. Not much bokeh.

And if you're using a kit zoom, actually, ANY zoom on the M, it's bokeh suffers the same fate. A EF24-105/4 on an adapter on an M might be like 40-160mm, but while it still exposes like f/4, it bokeh's like 4*1.6=f/6.4.

So even the EF-M primes are only a pinch more bokeh than full-frame f/4 zooms in many cases, and the APS-C zooms generally aren't comparable at all.

Finally, the only time you're really talking f/8 on a full-frame Canon is really crazy focal lengths. The 100-500/4.5-7.1 is getting pretty close to f/8, but it's not there yet, and it's only even f/7.1 at some pretty hellacious focal lengths. And again, it's aperture at that point is 500/7.1=71mm or so... so it's actually bokeh city, as much bokeh as an 85/1.2 or 135/2 or... It's unreasonable to scoff at the idea of f/8, when that f/8 is at 500mm (and actually only f/7.1, too.)

4) Yeah, weight and size restrictions are draconian but the R5+50/1.8+16/2.8 doesn't weigh much. And you can always smuggle it in in your armpit, as the chubby Americans would riot at the prospect of airlines actually weighing the PASSENGER :-D

5) as much as I enjoyed shooting my EOS M (I randomly passed through Bic Camera the day they went on sale and picked one up) within two years I had switched back to the 1Ds MkIII and even the old 50/1.8MkI if nothing else. I didn't want to manage two workflows and wanted to keep the muscle memory working on just that one body. And the M wasn't built well enough that I thought it could even survive life in my backpack, whereas I only ever worried about the 1Ds breaking OTHER things...

Anyway, these are just my thoughts and the above all general observations. I know there will be some exceptions and maybe I'm flat-out wrong on a point or two. Show me an APS-C photo with more bokeh than you could get with a stripped-down MILFF, or whatever counterexample you have and I'll be happy to eat my words. Bon apetit.

AlanF said:

It's a Canon Summer promotion. All the dealers are advertising it. By having it as a voucher rather than a "sale", they get around the laws governing sales prices.

Click to expand...

Thanks. I assumed if it was a Canon thing, then it would have been a rebate - they currently have one running, but only if you've bought a mirrorless body recently...

Canon Rumors Guy said:

They'll want us to buy both!

Click to expand...

how would that work???

Can't believe this thread hasn't been updated in a year and a half! Both Tamron and Sigma have recently been licensed by Canon to make RF-S lenses, with Sigma being first to market with an RF-S version of its popular small, light, and sharp APS-C 18-50mm f/2.8 DC DN lens coming in July 2024, and Tamron coming to market a few months later.

Sigma's 18-50 f/2.8, while very sharp and bright, stays smaller and lighter than even the R7's kit lens by omitting IS. (The R7's IBIS has that covered.) No control ring on the other versions of this lens - it's doubtful that they'll be adding one for the RF-S version, since they're racing to have it out very quickly - unless they do what Canon did with its smaller RF lenses, having its Manual Focus ring switchable to act as a Control Ring as well.

When I can get my hands on this it will be the successor to my long-prized EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and will stay on my R7 most of the time, only to be replaced by my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM for event shooting.

EricN said:

I never said there was no advantage. I said some people are going to choose another option. learn to read

Click to expand...

I never said lenses weren't important, either. Quite the contrary.

I also never said people couldn't/wouldn't choose other options, just pointed out why those options may not be the best choice.

Some folks seemed to take that very personally, perhaps because they had made such a choice while ignorant of some of the factors involved and now feel they have to defend the validity of that choice, even if it means constantly moving the goalposts of the conversation from "macros are better for everything because they're sharper at reproducing flat test charts from close distances" to "some people just don't care" and then falsely accusing the other of being the one who thinks lenses don't matter.

Physician, heal thyself!

Stig Nygaard said:

"Quad Pixel" sensor design?

Click to expand...

Hope springs eternal, but I suspect it’s a reference to Action Priority AF.

Canon Rumors Guy said:

May 17th, marked the 24th anniversary of the Canon D30, a camera that deserves not just a place in a museum, but a victory lap around the history of photography. Launched in 2000, the D30 wasn’t just another camera; it was THE camera. It brought professional-grade photography to the masses and brought high-quality digital capture

See full article...

Click to expand...

I went from the EOS50e to the 10D and never looked back. Those early digitals were game changers! Then it was 20D > 40D > 70D and finally R5. Wish I’d kept the 10D for pure nostalgia!

Who cares? Talk about wasting one's time complaining about absolutely nothing. I guess that's why the internet was invented!

This is a very good list. Can I, perhaps, suggest a list that includes all RF mount lenses, not just Canon?

Richard CR said:

without a doubt the M6 Mark II is an insanely good camera.

I bet the designers wanted to do an M5 Mark II with IBIS and the RF group was worried it would kill the RF sales.

Click to expand...

and dual slot, oh wait, that was the EOS M7.

Thank god it does not sport zi-trans

If we assume these throughput figures to be accurate, is the R1 will have 1.5x the processing capability of the R3, and assuming the frame rate is the same as the other newer cameras. The the R1 is likely to have a sensor in the 36mp region. The R5ii will have a max fps bump to 30 but retain the same resolution. However, the next round of cameras the fps should remain the same and the sensors could get a 1.5x increase in resolution. A R6iii @ 36mp and a R5iii @ 67mp.

Richard CR said:

that reminds of when I tried out an A5 I think - I can't remember which number.

It made my original EOS-M's autofocus feel modern.

Click to expand...

It's impressive how far behind not only the performance of their AF system is, but its interface and implementation. Canon has always excelled with creating user interfaces that are logically thought out and user friendly. Fuji almost seems hellbent on creating the opposite - it's arbitrarily complicated. Just the idea that they have automatic subject detection...only when the camera is entirely in full auto? haha WHY!?

Great shots. Well done, Sir!