Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[privatebydesign]

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.

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.

And that is why it is pointless posting here. If you want comparative studio samples just go to DPReview. I posted a real world illustration that I casually did for me, I felt there was enough difference to actually spend $10,000 upgrading, you probably don't, I don't care. The difference between usable shadow lifting ability in that 1.2 stops of DR is dramatic and has proven worth it to me. Others who never do what I do might find that $10,000 better spent on lenses or put towards their kids education, that isn't for me to say, would I spend another $10,000 for another 0.8 of a stop of DR/shadow lifting ability? No, I am happy with the DR I have.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

And that is why it is pointless posting here. If you want comparative studio samples just go to DPReview.

In one of the previous similar arguments with dtaylor, I've already referred to DPReview, but he wasn't convinced. Neither he was happy with my sample images from 5DIV alone.
But in order to post a relevant hands-on comparison between say 7D and 5DIV, I need to shoot a scene with both cameras myself, and I have neither equipment nor time to do that just for the sake of the forum dynamic range war.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not sure if you've seen this trend as well but I think 3rd party EF lens mfg.s are starting to discount more so than in the past. Gotta get on the RF bandwagon.

Third party lens makers are starting to discount more with lenses in all camera mounts, not just EF. They probably have more EF lenses than F-mount, E-mount, K-mount, etc. in inventory, because EF is still the most popular lens mount on the market.

 

[Michael Clark]

Canon will provide service and support for EF lenses, I have no doubt. But there will come a point when enough R cameraa have been sold that they will stop production of EF version of R lenses. It will make no sense to produce both.

As long as there are EF body owners buying EF lenses in sufficient numbers to make selling EF lenses profitable, Canon will continue to sell EF lenses, no matter how many RF bodies have been sold.

There will come a point when there is an equivalent RF lens for every EF lens that is no longer selling in sufficient numbers to make a profit on them. That's when EF lens sales will cease.

It has nothing to do with how many RF or EF cameras have been sold. There have been over 100 million EF bodies sold since 1987. It will take several decades for RF bodies to exceed that, if they ever do. It has to do with how many EF lenses continue to be sold in the future.

 

[Michael Clark]

That is true but it is has been exacerbated by Canon. For example, the 400mm and 600mm III coming out after a relatively short time after version IIs.

EF 400mm f/2.8 L - April 1991
EF 400mm f/2.8 L II - March 1996 (4 years 11 months)
EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS - September 1999 (3 years 6 months)
EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II - August 2011 (11 years 11 months)
EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III - December 2018 (7 years 4 months)

The time between the "IS II" and "IS III" was the second longest interval in the series, and longer than the average interval of 6 years 11 months.

EF 600mm f/4 L - November 1988
EF 600mm f/4 L IS - September 1999 (10 years 10 months)
EF 600mm f/4 L IS II - June 2011 (10 years 9 months)
EF 600mm f/4 L IS III - September 2018 (7 years 3 months)

The time between the "IS II" and "IS III" was about 30% shorter than earlier intervals, mainly due to Canon skipping an EF 600mm f/4 L II to correspond to the non-IS "II" version of the 400/2.8.

 

[Michael Clark]

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!

What? All FD mount cameras spontaneously combusted in 1987? If they could have been adapted to EOS cameras, your FD lenses would have miraculously grown AF motors?

The reason your FD lenses plummeted in value is the same reason everyone's pre-1985 manual focus lenses dropped in value between 1987 and the early 1990s: they could not autofocus. Yes, Canon FD lenses dropped faster than Nikon F mount and other brands. But by circa 1995 no manual focus lenses were reselling for much of anything.

Seriously, Canon made the right decision in 1987. The AF revolution of the late 1980s-early 1990s was a bigger leap than the so called "DSLR → MILC revolution." Both are dwarfed by the impact of the "film → digital" revolution. Selecting an all electronic control interface for both AF and aperture in 1987 is what made Canon #1.

Nikon made the decision to keep backwards compatibility with non-AF lenses and for that they paid a dear price. In 1987 roughly 4/5 imaging professionals using 135 format film used Nikon. By 1992 Canon, with their all electronic EF mount that could harness the potential of lens based USM AF motors, was the leading brand among imaging professionals using 135 format film. It took Nikon until around 2016 (and creating non-fully backwards compatible "E" lenses) to finally catch up in terms of AF performance.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

That's what those of us who learned the basics of exposure and metering in the film era think about how great "exposition simulation" is supposed to be. For us it's a solution looking for a problem. Learn how to see a scene the way the camera will before you pull the camera up to your eye and you don't need all of those training wheels.

 

[Michael Clark]

This is what 1.2 stops of difference looks like.

View attachment 188494

Here is the shadow detail difference.

View attachment 188495View attachment 188497

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.

The EF 24mm f/1.4 II at f/5.6 is sharper than the EF 11-24mm f/4 L at 24mm and f/5.6, so the difference in detail is just as likely due to differences in lenses as in sensors.

Not to mention that you were shooting with the 24mm IS @ 1/125 vs. 1/60 with the 12-24mm without IS...

That and the fact that for Canon Cameras between 2007 and at least 2017, the ISO 125 setting uses an analog sensor amplification of ISO 100 and then includes instructions to push exposure +1/3 stop digitally (at the application's "zero" position) when doing raw conversion, so there's also that.

 

[privatebydesign]

The EF 24mm f/1.4 II at f/5.6 is sharper than the EF 11-24mm f/4 L at 24mm and f/5.6, so the difference in detail is just as likely due to differences in lenses as in sensors.

Not to mention that you were shooting with the 24mm IS @ 1/125 vs. 1/60 with the 12-24mm without IS...

That and the fact that for Canon Cameras between 2007 and at least 2017, the ISO 125 setting uses an analog sensor amplification of ISO 100 and then includes instructions to push exposure +1/3 stop digitally (at the application's "zero" position) when doing raw conversion, so there's also that.

No neither lens had IS. I didn't use ISO 100 on the 1Ds MkIII because I had it set to whole stops to avoid the bad amplification you mention, the 1D X II doesn't have that issue so it was on ISO125.

 

[AlanF]

EF 400mm f/2.8 L - April 1991
EF 400mm f/2.8 L II - March 1996 (4 years 11 months)
EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS - September 1999 (3 years 6 months)
EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II - August 2011 (11 years 11 months)
EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS III - December 2018 (7 years 4 months)

The time between the "IS II" and "IS III" was the second longest interval in the series, and longer than the average interval of 6 years 11 months.

EF 600mm f/4 L - November 1988
EF 600mm f/4 L IS - September 1999 (10 years 10 months)
EF 600mm f/4 L IS II - June 2011 (10 years 9 months)
EF 600mm f/4 L IS III - September 2018 (7 years 3 months)

The time between the "IS II" and "IS III" was about 30% shorter than earlier intervals, mainly due to Canon skipping an EF 600mm f/4 L II to correspond to the non-IS "II" version of the 400/2.8.

Compare the 7 years lifetime of the two lenses I mentioned with the ages of the rest of the Canon white prime telephoto line up, which are still going strong: 200mm f/2L IS, 12 years; 300mm f/4L IS, 16 years; 300mm f/2.8L IS II, 10 years; 400mm f/5.6 L IS, 27 years; 400mm f/4L DO II IS, 5 years; 500mm f/4L II IS, 9 years; and 800mm f/5.6L IS, 12 years.

 

[Michael Clark]

Compare the 7 years lifetime of the two lenses I mentioned with the rest of the Canon white prime telephoto line up: 200mm f/2L IS, unchanged after 12 years; 300mm f/4L IS, unchanged after 16 years; 300mm f/2.8L IS II, unchanged after 10 years; 400mm f/5.6 L IS I, unchanged after 27 years; 400mm f/4L DO II IS, unchanged after 5 years; 500mm f/4L II IS, unchanged after 9 years; and 800mm f/5.6L IS, unchanged after 12 years.

So Canon is supposed to sit by idly while the competition introduces 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 lenses with more modern optics that also take advantage of innovations that make them lighter and balanced better that Canon's "IS II" lineup? Just so folks who bought them as "investments" instead of to use to take pictures will be happy? What do you think would have happened to the price of new 400/2.8 IS II and 600/4 IS II lenses with such a competitive disadvantage? How would that have affected the "market value" of used copies?

EF 200/2 IS was effectively the IS replacement for the 200/1.8, and is a very low volume lens (There very well may still be enough existing inventory from a last production run several years ago)
EF 400/4 DO IS and DO IS II are very low volume lenses

EF 300/2.8 IS II → very likely waiting to be the first RF super telephoto
EF 500/4 IS II → also waiting in the wings to be an early RF super telephoto

Both the 300/2.8 and 500/4 would have likely seen replacements in 2019 or early 2020 (before the Olympics) if Canon had not shifted all of their lens design resources to RF development.

EF 300/4 → never to be updated (obvious for years - never even got an IS version)
EF 400/5.6 → never to be updated (obvious for years - never even got an IS version)
EF 800/5.6 IS → never to be updated/low volume lens (never got a II version)(There very well may still be enough existing inventory from a last production run several years ago)

 

[Michael Clark]

Compare the 7 years lifetime of the two lenses I mentioned with the ages of the rest of the Canon white prime telephoto line up, which are still going strong: 200mm f/2L IS, 12 years; 300mm f/4L IS, 16 years; 300mm f/2.8L IS II, 10 years; 400mm f/5.6 L IS, 27 years; 400mm f/4L DO II IS, 5 years; 500mm f/4L II IS, 9 years; and 800mm f/5.6L IS, 12 years.

When Nikon was the only competition in the high quality 300mm+ segment, Canon's superior AF performance was enough to make it practically a monopoly from the dawn of EOS until around 2016 with the introduction of the Nikon D5. Then Sony finally started releasing lenses longer than 200mm. The days of Canon's timetable for lens releases depending only on internal factors is over.

 

[Michael Clark]

No neither lens had IS. I didn't use ISO 100 on the 1Ds MkIII because I had it set to whole stops to avoid the bad amplification you mention, the 1D X II doesn't have that issue so it was on ISO125.

You're still comparing a 24mm prime shot at 1/125 with a 12-24mm zoomed all the way in at 24mm (Please see Roger's Law of Wide Zoom Relativity) shot at 1/60.

Pretty much all of the differences I see in your two crops can be accounted for by camera motion and differences in focus distance as well as lens performance. I see nothing that can be attributed to differences in DR. That's not to say that the 1D X Mark II doesn't allow more pushing of shadows than the 1Ds Mark III, but these shots don't seem to demonstrate that. Neither one is remotely close to showing either camera's DR limits.

 

[AlanF]

So Canon is supposed to sit by idly while the competition introduces 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 lenses with more modern optics that also take advantage of innovations that make them lighter and balanced better that Canon's "IS II" lineup? Just so folks who bought them as "investments" instead of to use to take pictures will be happy? What do you think would have happened to the price of new 400/2.8 IS II and 600/4 IS II lenses with such a competitive disadvantage? How would that have affected the "market value" of used copies?

EF 200/2 IS was effectively the IS replacement for the 200/1.8, and is a very low volume lens (There very well may still be existing inventory from a last production run several years ago)
EF 400/4 DO IS and DO IS II are very low volume lenses

EF 300/2.8 II → very likely waiting to be the first RF super telephoto
EF 500/4 II → also waiting in the wings to be an early RF super telephoto

EF 300/4 → never to be updated (obvious for years - never even got an IS version)
EF 400/5.6 → never to be updated (obvious for years - never even got an IS version)
EF 800/5.6 IS → never to be updated/low volume lens (never got a II version)(There very well may still be existing inventory from a last production run several years ago)

When Nikon was the only competition in the high quality 300mm+ segment, Canon's superior AF performance was enough to make it practically a monopoly from the dawn of EOS until around 2016 with the introduction of the Nikon D5. Then Sony finally started releasing lenses longer than 200mm. The days of Canon's timetable for lens releases depending only on internal factors is over.

When I first began posting here it was in the era when some would post about “lnvesting” in glass or being comfortable with buying a Rolls-Royce of a lens with the confidence that they could sell it on. That era is over thanks to competition. There are so many good long lenses now that there is no need for the likes of me and my fellows amateurs to spend vast sums like we had to in the past.

 

[Michael Clark]

When I first began posting here it was in the era when some would post about “lnvesting” in glass or being comfortable with buying a Rolls-Royce of a lens with the confidence that they could sell it on. That era is over thanks to competition. There are so many good long lenses now that there is no need for the likes of me and my fellows amateurs to spend vast sums like we had to in the past.

I wasn't here on this forum back then, but I also heard plenty of such talk. Any time I heard someone refer to a lens purchase as an "investment" I laughed at them. They'd get mad. Now they're crying, and I'm still laughing at the idea that a lens is an "investment."

 

[AlanF]

I wasn't here on this forum back then, but I also heard plenty of such talk. Any time I heard someone refer to a lens purchase as an "investment" I laughed at them. They'd get mad. Now they're crying, and I'm still laughing at the idea that a lens is an "investment."

It's more charitable to be sympathetic to those who have suffered by being overtaken by events. There but for the grace of god goes AlanF.

 

[Kit.]

No other definition?

No definition without "arbitrary interest". No definition that would not involve an "arbitrary" choice of what we count as a "message".

No message = no DR.
No "arbitrary interest" = no DR.

It's just that your "arbitrary interest" is in what is easier to measure, not in what one would actually need as a result. Typical "streetlight effect".

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.

At least they are useful for comparison, even if you don't understand their choice of the model for the signal. Your "pixel DR" isn't.

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?

Had you read and understood what was written before and repeated above, the answer for you would be obviously "yes".

Have you really never heard of "dynamic range compression" anyway?

 

[Kit.]

Just so folks who bought them as "investments" instead of to use to take pictures will be happy?

Technically, buying something in order to be able to use it later as a tool is investment. Not every investment is "value investment". Buying a tool now lets you not spend on renting it later.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

At least they are useful for comparison, even if you don't understand their choice of the model for the signal. Your "pixel DR" isn't.

Right, full stop. That's basically my point about since the beginning of this argument - the 'photographic' DR is only useful for comparison and only across cameras measured with the same method.

All I was saying was that the absolute values of the photographic DR are meaningless outside of comparison charts. That's good someone's finally agreed to my point.

 

[Kit.]

Right, full stop. That's basically my point about since the beginning of this argument - the 'photographic' DR is only useful for comparison and only across cameras measured with the same method.

...if you don't understand their choice of the model for the signal.

All I was saying was that the absolute values of the photographic DR are meaningless outside of comparison charts.

Not all. You were also claiming that your "pixel DR" was any better.