Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[Trey T]

The R5 will likely have 12fps @ crop (18mp) and 6fps @ FF (45mp). Better fps and AF than 7Dii, but with 7D's resolution.
The R6 is rumored to have 12fps @ FF (20mp)

 

[richperson]

The R5 will likely have 12fps @ crop (18mp) and 6fps @ FF (45mp). Better fps and AF than 7Dii, but with 7D's resolution.
The R6 is rumored to have 12fps @ FF (20mp)

We have never seen cropped fps in a 5D before, why would they start now? Remember how big the bugger on the 1DXiii is. More likely that the R5 gets a smaller buffer--12fps mechanical shutter for about 100 shots before buffer max--than it would be they would slow down the fps.

 

[Cat_Interceptor]

I know, but as I keep saying, it's inconsistent with all the other things defined as art (most of which I accept as art).

Just.... AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH

Photograpy is a damn art. Full stop. Stop tilting at windmills.

 

[Act444]

I’ll believe the R5 (or 5R) when I see it.

If (or when, most likely) Canon puts out that high-res R body, will it have an AA filter? The 5DSR could remain unique if they do. (And a reason for many owners to continue to hang onto theirs).

 

[davidhfe]

The R5 will likely have 12fps @ crop (18mp) and 6fps @ FF (45mp). Better fps and AF than 7Dii, but with 7D's resolution.
The R6 is rumored to have 12fps @ FF (20mp)

That would be a regression in FF performance from the 5D4 (30x8), which I think is unlikely.

 

[richperson]

Didn't the 5DIV get announced about the same gap after the 1DXii as this one is from the 1DXiii? Timing seems consistent.

 

[Laslen]

Canon Rumors: Insane R5 specs

CR commenters: Is photography art?

 

[Ozarker]

Canon Rumors: Insane R5 specs

CR commenters: Is photography art?

With the new R5 spec sheet there isn't anything left to worry about.

 

[NorskHest]

You are missing the point of the $. The 1dxmk1 sensor was an analog sensor with external ADC, so the dynamic range is largely controlled by how clean the environment is and how good the ADC is. Really high dynamic range ADCs are quite pricey and the shielding to keep the environment clean is also a fussy and expensive process. All the analog canon sensors are much better in DR terms than the delivered result for exactly those reasons. How good the sensors themselves are is demonstrated by the fact that they were class leading at high ISOs. Affordable ADCs just couldn't keep up.

Am I missing the point or are you going way to into the semantics, the 1dx and 1dc are identical in the tech from what I have read, canon added an insane price to milk and rob their base. You don’t need to play gotcha with semantics that don’t matter. There have been plenty of tests to show that the 1dxmki and 1dc have a better high iso than the 1dxmkii. Let google be your guide

 

[VICYASA]

Take my money now please!

And that money will be at least $3,999 USD, right? What's the estimate damage? Or, potential? Lets hear it!

 

[Quarkcharmed]

And the smaller the photosite, the lower the read noise.

By definition, the pixels DR is well capacity divided by noise. Smaller pixels have smaller noise but also lower signal.

That article can be safely ignored because it's full of wrong information.

I don't think so. This guy is fully qualified to write such an article https://clarkvision.com/rnc/index.html

Ask yourself this question. How can a Powershot S120, with teeny tiny pixels, have 11.7 stops of DR:

Sensorgen.info data for Canon PowerShot-S120
and the 1Dx with huge pixels have 11.2 stops:

Sensorgen.info data for Canon EOS-1DX
if pixel size were a major driving factor?

First, you quoted webarchive of an unknown (deceased?) source with a very strange data where read noise significantly drops with ISO which doesn't make any sense.

Second, I never said pixel size was a 'major' factor. Well capacity is, and it depends on the size. You can try and increase well capacity in a smaller pixel by improving quantum efficiency and/or reducing the noise.
Given two sensors with different resolution but of the same generation from Canon, we can expect the pixel size to be one of the factors.

 

[Ricardo_fon]

Well I am still finding it too good to be true. Is this the clue that this is a joke? I mean mirror-less camera shooting in mechanical mode?

It's a mechanical shutter. Mirrorless isn't shutterless.

 

[Lee Jay]

By definition, the pixels DR is well capacity divided by noise. Smaller pixels have smaller noise but also lower signal.



I don't think so. This guy is fully qualified to write such an article https://clarkvision.com/rnc/index.html

Then why is he wrong so often?

First, you quoted webarchive of an unknown (deceased?) source with a very strange data where read noise significantly drops with ISO which doesn't make any sense.

The data is calculated from the nonsensical way DxO presents the data they collect. He provided his script for turning DxO data into this data (QE, read noise and so on).

The entire point of raising ISO is to decrease read noise.

Second, I never said pixel size was a 'major' factor. Well capacity is, and it depends on the size.

You just contradicted yourself.

You can try and increase well capacity in a smaller pixel by improving quantum efficiency and/or reducing the noise.
Given two sensors with different resolution but of the same generation from Canon, we can expect the pixel size to be one of the factors.

Shouldn't be, since read noise drops with well capacity, keeping DR constant when you change pixel size. That's why pixels that are 1/20th the size of other pixels can still have the same DR. If pixel size was a key driving factor, reducing pixel size by a factor of 20 would change DR, no matter what. It doesn't.

 

[cellomaster27]

I have learned the art of 'wait and watch' around 3 years ago when I stupidly predicted that DSLR is dead. So I would not 'HAHAHAHHAHA' too soon.

Ever since... I think when the 5D3 came out, everything was so incremental in specs and updates.. I just can't see this "R5" being anything revolutionary. If canon blows my speculations out of the water and everyone else's - GREAT! But I just can't help it.. this is just insane if Canon does in fact, come out with such an insane update to the current lineup. Make Canon great again?

 

[Deleted member 68328]

Because there is no option to switch the GPS option off in menu? Got it!

Because it's very useful to implement GPS in a camera just to turn it off in menu? Got it!
Try to outsmart your latest message if you care about answering.

 

[tron]

Ever since... I think when the 5D3 came out, everything was so incremental in specs and updates.. I just can't see this "R5" being anything revolutionary. If canon blows my speculations out of the water and everyone else's - GREAT! But I just can't help it.. this is just insane if Canon does in fact, come out with such an insane update to the current lineup. Make Canon great again?

It wasn't exactly incremental. Yes resolution and fps were BUT it took the top AF system and a 2nd card (albeit with a slow controller).

 

[tron]

Because it's very useful to implement GPS in a camera just to turn it off in menu? Got it!
Try to outsmart your latest message if you care about answering.

Since I do not believe that 2 devices can connect via Bluetooth to a phone simultaneously and even so Canon camera connect connects to one camera every time we would need two phones if we carried 2 EOS R cameras. Instead 7DII and 5D4 have one. I bought the separate GPS Canon device for my 5DsR. It is very simple, very flexible and works just fine. But I wouldn't want to pay a second one. Anyway this is a minor detail. We will not hold it against Canon if EVERY other aspect is as reported here

 

[SecureGSM]

Photography is a means of documentation that can, if desired, be done in an aesthetically pleasing way.

You provided a definition of a “snapshot” Just now. Are you a passport photo photographer by any chance? As in: “remove Your spectacles, do not smile and look straight into the camera” type of photography?

 

[Jethro]

Just.... AGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGH

Photograpy is a damn art. Full stop. Stop tilting at windmills.

My god is this still going!

 

[justaCanonuser]

There is a difference between a single roll of 36 images and a single card with 10,000. Also, we call this progress.

Yes but how many of those 10.000 images are worth keeping? I am talking here about photography, not excessive snapshooting. Also, who really collects up to 10.000 images on one card w/o saving data in the meantime? If if I shoot wildlife, I get up to 2000 images per day, that's already a lot.