Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[AEWest]

I wish you would stop these foolish contentions. For someone with a "backround in economics", you do not seem to have a grasp of Supply and Demand. As long as customers are willing to pay for EF lenses, Canon will produce and sell them. You do understand that Canon makes a profit from the sales, don't you? Canon's plan is not to force people into switching to RF. They are producing RF lenses that are superior to their EF counterparts so folks will want to switch...

Thank you. I do prefer civil discourse and applaud those posters who disagree with me in a respectful way (there are several!)

My thread is all about PREDICTIONS and laying out why I think DSLRs are fading out much more quickly than some others think. Everyone has their own opinion. No need to get worked up over that.

In terms of the your first point about sales of lenses, the poster that I responded to spoke about used lenses. Canon does not produce used lenses. Since there has been a substantial decrease in demand for ILCs Canon can only adjust production volumes of new lenses. They can't adjust the inventory of used lenses. Therefore there will be an oversupply in the used market and that is why the prices are coming down. It has nothing to do with Canon itself therefore Canon cannot be blamed for these price decreases.

In terms of your second point about Canon not forcing new mount (in this case RF) lenses onto photographers, unfortunately Canon did exactly that in 1987. My FD lenses at the time became bricks once EF camera mount was introduced, with no way of adapting them to the EOS cameras. EOS at the time was a four letter word to me!

Luckily this time there is a smooth transition as EF glass can be adapted quite nicely to R series cameras. But I believe that once critical mass has been achieved in terms of R series camera sales, Canon will quickly cut off production equivalent EF mount lenses to rationalize costs in much tougher market conditions than existed in 1987.

 

[analoggrotto]

The 6D, 6D Mark II, and RP are not really current sensor technology. They haven't shown any real improvement over what has been available from Canon since 2012 when the 6D was introduced. Both the 5D Mark IV (and R) and the 1D X Mark II have much better low ISO DR than the 6D Mark II does. When normalized for size, so do the 80D and 90D.

We haven't yet seen how the 1D X Mark III and R6 sensor performs. I'm guessing the answer to your question once we've seen those sensors is, "Anyone who wants to update to current sensor technology."

20 MP with native ISO up to 500000+? Onboard HDR? Branding familarity with the Yamaha YZF-R6? That's all I can think of.

 

[brad-man]

Thank you. I do prefer civil discourse and applaud those posters who disagree with me in a respectful way (there are several!)

My thread is all about PREDICTIONS and laying out why I think DSLRs are fading out much more quickly than some others think. Everyone has their own opinion. No need to get worked up over that.

In terms of the your first point about sales of lenses, the poster that I responded to spoke about used lenses. Canon does not produce used lenses. Since there has been a substantial decrease in demand for ILCs Canon can only adjust production volumes of new lenses. They can't adjust the inventory of used lenses. Therefore there will be an oversupply in the used market and that is why the prices are coming down. It has nothing to do with Canon itself therefore Canon cannot be blamed for these price decreases.

In terms of your second point about Canon not forcing new mount (in this case RF) lenses onto photographers, unfortunately Canon did exactly that in 1987. My FD lenses at the time became bricks once EF camera mount was introduced, with no way of adapting them to the EOS cameras. EOS at the time was a four letter word to me!

Luckily this time there is a smooth transition as EF glass can be adapted quite nicely to R series cameras. But I believe that once critical mass has been achieved in terms of R series camera sales, Canon will quickly cut off production equivalent EF mount lenses to rationalize costs in much tougher market conditions than existed in 1987.

First point, your post that I responded to was not about used lenses as can be clearly seen. Second, the change from FD to EF in 1987 is completely irrelevant to this discussion. My post stands. We will politely agree to disagree...

 

[jam05]

Would be nice to know if the EOS R5 CFExpress card bus is CFExpress 1.0 or 2.0

 

[slclick]

Would be nice to know if the EOS R5 CFExpress card bus is CFExpress 1.0 or 2.0

Sorry if I am not willing to sift though 67 pages...

Has it been CR3'd that it will be in fact SD/CFExpress? Asking for a friend.

 

[AEWest]

First point, your post that I responded to was not about used lenses as can be clearly seen. Second, the change from FD to EF in 1987 is completely irrelevant to this discussion. My post stands. We will politely agree to disagree...

Much appreciated!

What I think would really be a wise move by Canon would be to offer one week free trial periods for the new R cameras from authorized dealers.

There is significant hesitation by many photographers to buy EVF cameras since they may have only tried them in the store, or seen the early and frankly brutal EVFs of a few years ago.

I too tried the R model only in the store and frankly was not impressed. But others that I know who have Sony mirrorless cameras wouldn't go back to OVF. Definitely a disconnect.

I believe adoption of the R cameras would be much faster under such a program. And I would be happy to volunteer to buy one of these demo cameras at a huge discount!

 

[UlricWolf]

Not too bright in dark environments, not too dim in bright environments, not laggy, not blurry when panning, doesn't slow down or get noisy in dark conditions, doesn't crush blacks, doesn't blowout whites, doesn't suck power like crazy.

its not too bright (and its oled, so blacks are black), not too dim as well. And lag is the best in industry, its so small that it doesnt make any problemas anymore. Not blurry at all. In dark conditions it is probably noisy, but it shows a lot brighter image then optical VF - so Yes, its a benefit. Dos suck power, because its a display. But in real life it just uses 2x more battery then dslr. But it has face detection, it has exposition simulation and many more benefits compared to OVF. I just think that You are searching for problems not solitions.

 

[Lee Jay]

its not too bright

It was for me. Inside the store, it was WAY brighter than the store.

(and its oled, so blacks are black)

But blacks were black where the image would contain detail.

not too dim as well

Not bright enough in full sun.

And lag is the best in industry,

If so, sad for the industry because it was obvious and horrible.

its so small that it doesnt make any problemas anymore.

Yeah, it would, if you shoot fast-moving subjects and have to track them with tight framing.

Not blurry at all.

So blurry that when my son just walked past me, it was too blurry to read the block letters on his shirt.

In dark conditions it is probably noisy, but it shows a lot brighter image then optical VF

Which is an unmitigated disaster since it will ruin the dark-adaptation of your eyes.

Dos suck power, because its a display. But in real life it just uses 2x more battery then dslr.

I've used the viewfinder for 6 hours and shot 2,250 shots and half an hour of video on my 7D Mark II, on 90% of one battery. I suspect the same thing here would use 6-10 batteries.

But it has face detection

Which is useless.

it has exposition simulation

Which doesn't work because it doesn't represent the raw data, just the JPEG.

I just think that You are searching for problems not solitions.

Always searching for solutions, it's just that EVFs are a solution without a problem. They only have two advantages - shooting video and manual focus aids. I added one to my SLR for those rare instances when I'm doing one of those.

 

[slclick]

Much appreciated!

What I think would really be a wise move by Canon would be to offer one week free trial periods for the new R cameras from authorized dealers.

There is significant hesitation by many photographers to buy EVF cameras since they may have only tried them in the store, or seen the early and frankly brutal EVFs of a few years ago.

I too tried the R model only in the store and frankly was not impressed. But others that I know who have Sony mirrorless cameras wouldn't go back to OVF. Definitely a disconnect.

I believe adoption of the R cameras would be much faster under such a program. And I would be happy to volunteer to buy one of these demo cameras at a huge discount!

Can anyone give me a real world comparison of the M5 EVF to the EOS R? I didn't think the M5 was that bad, true, lots of room for improvement but it was incredibly better than my experience with Olympus EVF's.

 

[gouldopfl]

8K?! 120fps at 4k?!

No way, not happening.

I think 8k will be something like timelapse and 4k @120 will have some kind of crop.

 

[dtaylor]

The classic DR is defined as "ratio between the maximum output signal level and the noise floor at minimum signal amplification". There's no viewing distance or print size involved.

We're not talking about a single pixel, but a matrix of millions of pixels integrated into a 2D image viewed by people. As a result the noise floor varies with view size.

 

[dtaylor]

It's 0.8 stops or so. That means I can push shadows on D850 0.8 stops farther.

Show us with two real world photographs what that means.

I always ask this. I've asked it many times over the years of different people in different forums. And I never get an answer. The reason is that they either A) can't find/exploit that gap, or B) do find/exploit it in a scene then realize how small it is.

 

[Dragon]

So you meant to type:

And using a slow SD card slows down a 5DIII/5DIII/5DS/5DIV. Nothing new there. Not everybody needs the speed at all, and most don't need it all the time. SD cards are WAY cheaper, even the UHSII variety.

Instead of:

And using a slow SD card slows down a 5DII/5DIII/5DS/5DIV. Nothing new there. Not everybody needs the speed at all, and most don't need it all the time. SD cards are WAY cheaper, even the UHSII variety?

Um Hmm...

And then again, maybe I just remembered the 5DII as having 2 slots, but the point is the same. Some need speed and some need cheap. Not an issue with the IDX III because the pros don't want to deal with 2 readers, but the intermediate level the market is more variable so I am guessing one of each, but who knows, Canon may estimate that CFE cards will drop dramatically in price over the next year and just go for it. It looks like we will soon know the answer.

 

[privatebydesign]

Show us with two real world photographs what that means.

I always ask this. I've asked it many times over the years of different people in different forums. And I never get an answer. The reason is that they either A) can't find/exploit that gap, or B) do find/exploit it in a scene then realize how small it is.

This is what 1.2 stops of difference looks like.



Here is the shadow detail difference.



For me that was the main deciding factor in upgrading from 1Ds MkIII's to 1DX MkII's, some people will never notice the difference, to me it was enough to put my money where my mouth is. I can completely understand other people having a very different opinion and it not being worth anything for their personal photography.

 

[SecureGSM]

Whoa! When I think indoors my mind goes to Basketball and typically you're at 35 under the rim, 50-85 baseline and MAYBE an occasional 135 across court for tight. Of course, indoors could be Kart racing at 400!

It is inline speed skating indoors for me. Around 70m across. It’s a fair loop

 

[jam05]

Sorry if I am not willing to sift though 67 pages...

Has it been CR3'd that it will be in fact SD/CFExpress? Asking for a friend.

The question is 1.0 or 2.0 . CFExpress 1.0 = 1.97 GB/s CFExpress 2.0 = 1.0 - 4.0 GB/s

 

[dtaylor]

This is what 1.2 stops of difference looks like.

Shadow noise does not cause shadow detail to be excessively soft unless you compensate with heavy NR. There are significant sharpness, plane of focus, and DoF differences here. But no real shadow zone or noise differences.

I'm unclear as to how much you lifted these exposures, if at all, as this does not appear to be a high DR scene even if we include the sunlit area at the right edge (which is fairly over exposed). Also unclear as to what other settings you applied. Did both cameras severely underexpose this scene? Did you push the files then apply heavy NR to the 1Ds3 file? If not then this does not appear to be a DR comparison at all.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

There is no other definition of DR. DR always describes a signal, and the choice which signal is of interest to you is always "arbitrary". When you know which signal is of interest to you, you can do it scientifically.

No other definition? I think DxO uses the term 'landscape dynamic range' and photontophotos 'photographic dynamic range'. They're similar but based on a bit different approaches. Two different definitions already.

Those definitions are very specific to the corresponding sites and produce different results. My original point was, the DR absolute values from DxO and PTP are meaningless and can only be used for comparison, e.g. on DxO the landscape dynamic range is used for DxO scoring and can't be used anywhere else but by DxO.

Will you be able to use 5DIV's sensor DR of 13.7 stops from DxO, based on viewing at a print from a certain distance, but knowing that a paper print gives you 7 stops of DR at its best?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

We're not talking about a single pixel, but a matrix of millions of pixels integrated into a 2D image viewed by people. As a result the noise floor varies with view size.

So as in my message above, the argument was about DxO and PTP measurements; how do you use say the DxO value of 13.5 stops for the EOS R, based on viewing at a print, when any real print has 7 stops max? What does this value tell you?

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Here is the shadow detail difference.

it's good you've provided the examples but to be honest the second image is blurred or out of focus and very hard to use for comparison.