Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[Dequals61]

I've never considered cameras or lenses "investments." They've always been expenses to me. Same thing with vehicles and everything else the marketers try to sell to us by fooling us into thinking it's an "investment" rather than an "expense." If you depreciate it on your taxes, it's not an investment.

I agree. The term 'investment' is loosely used when applied to any type of equipment purchase. First- if you are a commercial photographer the investment you make in a lens for example would only apply if that purchase increased your products appeal thus bringing greater monetary gain. Other words that investment pays for itself plus puts additional money in your pocket. Second- you're making a purchase on a piece of gear that you will use throughout your photographic lifetime. Again using lenses as an example. There's a lens that you really want and would be very beneficial for your type of photography but you bye a lesser cheaper lens just to be disappointed. You eventually end up purchasing the original lens anyways thus costing you more money in the long run.

 

[dtaylor]

No, not any. Old Canon sensors don't handle such a push well, deep shadows become unacceptably messy. Even not so deep shadows are noisy to start with.

Here's a 2 stop push of a 10D RAW. There's not a whole lot of detail to begin with since we're talking about a 6mp sensor that was good for 8x10 and 11x14. But the shadow push is hardly a mess. I'm not seeing terrible banding or unacceptable noise. Should I try for 3?

You simply didn't answer the question.

Two people answered your question. If you don't understand how tones are compressed for print, nor how to manage that process, then DR is not the discussion for you and you are no where near needing a higher DR sensor.

 

[dtaylor]

You were wondering how a 14-bit sensor could give more than 14 stops of DR.

B&W film was a "1-bit sensor". What DR do you think it would be limited to?

Since only the DR of an individual element matters the answer is clearly one stop

 

[dtaylor]

I think there may be more Dynamic Range talk than there is about the R5 itself. I'd go back and count, but I could go back to school and get a Dr. quicker. Or an art degree so I'd know what art is.

OTOH if you read all the DR posts you will qualify for Masters of Dynamic Range from a prestigious school or maybe a Cracker Jack box

 

[Ozarker]

OTOH if you read all the DR posts you will qualify for Masters of Dynamic Range from a prestigious school or maybe a Cracker Jack box

Except that, by the looks of it, one person or the other either doesn't know what they are talking about or just HAS to have the last word. It's like debating ESP.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

But the shadow push is hardly a mess. I'm not seeing terrible banding or unacceptable noise.

That explains a lot. You find it acceptable, I think it's very noisy. The roofs are basically pure noise, the details in wooden bearings are barely distinguishable. 5DIV would have probably done much better there even at 1:1 scale.

 

[dtaylor]

During the last few pages we didn't even touch that topic. Current discussion is about relevance of absolute values of DR from DxO and PTP, at least for me.

There is no such thing as an 'absolute DR value' for an array of sensor elements. For any such application...not just one that is visible light photography...the noise floor is determined by how the elements are processed. And whether you like it or not the human eye is blending elements to a greater degree with an 8x10 than with a 32x40, even if the printer faithfully reproduces every last pixel. And that alters the noise floor thereby altering SNR.

And no, 14-bit sensor can't produce a raw file with more than 14 stops of DR. Moreover you don't get additional DR by simple downsampling.

The very existence of something like RadioactivityCounter proves you wrong. As do hundreds of other algorithms and applications across a range of domains (photography, communications, radar, deep space imaging, etc). The SNR of an array of elements is not bound by the SNR of a single element.

I think the DR at native resolution is also important, or per-pixel DR before any conversions.

I to force my users to view 90" prints. To hell with them if they want to view something smaller!

B&W film was a "1-bit sensor". What DR do you think it would be limited to?
If you convert it to digital (by scanning), you'll get a 16-bit image and will be able to calculate the DR.

You completely missed his point. If the SNR of a single sensor element is the correct, native, absolute SNR for the entire sensor...your position...then B&W film would have 1 stop of DR. It obviously has more.

 

[Optics Patent]

I get your logic, but the 400mm f/2.8 is the biggest money lens. I still bet that is the first.

My bet is that the 300III will get the same advanced lightening treatment as the 400.

My hope is that they either release EF and RF side by side or release as an RF with removable adapter to make it EF. Preferably two separate versions.

The question in 5 years will he whether they will ever release a big white for EF. I predict then we’ll accept the new 400 was the last EF of that size.

 

[dtaylor]

That explains a lot. You find it acceptable, I think it's very noisy. The roofs are basically pure noise,

I have to zoom in 400% to see "noise" except I can't tell what's noise and what's pixelation. And since they were <2% gray (i.e. black) in the original it's an open question if the noise is read noise or photon shot noise. Either way it would not be visible in an 8x12 which is about what a 6mp sensor is good for.

...the details in wooden bearings are barely distinguishable. 5DIV would have probably done much better there even at 1:1 scale.

A 30mp FF sensor would have rendered better fine detail than a 6mp APS-C one? Shocker.

 

[slclick]

Except that, by the looks of it, one person or the other either doesn't know what they are talking about or just HAS to have the last word. It's like debating ESP.

hens cackling. They need to get a room or at least a ring to duke it out.

 

[dtaylor]

Except that, by the looks of it, one person or the other either doesn't know what they are talking about or just HAS to have the last word. It's like debating ESP.

Hey I'm just trying to make a 2020 reply thread in celebration of the new year

 

[slclick]

Except that, by the looks of it, one person or the other either doesn't know what they are talking about or just HAS to have the last word. It's like debating ESP.

Can you imagine going on a shoot with the sensor dudes? Insert just hang me emoji

 

[Dequals61]

Oh I see, there's a $129 additional glass clear filter. That's.... what's the word?


LAME

So after $399 + $129 for that combo, you could have been halfway to another RF lens or purchased a much better complete filter system such as one from Formatt Hi Tech

True- but when your the only one providing such an option it's going to cost. Also it would be cheaper for anyone interested in the EF-RF filter adapter to just purchase the standard EF-RF adaptor and just swap between the two. The standard EF-RF adaptor at $99 bucks is cheaper then the 'clear plug'. Also whether this filter system is ideal or not would also depend on what type of lens you're applying a filter to. If filtering a EF 16-35 I'd be more than happy just using standard front mount filters. But if I was a big Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 user than this option would have much more appeal.

 

[slclick]

True- but when your the only one providing such an option it's going to cost. Also it would be cheaper for anyone interested in the EF-RF filter adapter to just purchase the standard EF-RF adaptor and just swap between the two. The standard EF-RF adaptor at $99 bucks is cheaper then the 'clear plug'. Also whether this filter system is ideal or not would also depend on what type of lens you're applying a filter to. If filtering a EF 16-35 I'd be more than happy just using standard front mount filters. But if I was a big Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 user than this option would have much more appeal.

They make the EF glass work with RF and then rape you with the adapter situation. I am usually the biggest Canon defender but this was not well thought out. The right thing to do would to include the clear glass in each filter based adapter and charge a decent compromised price. Anytime any manufacturer makes you buy that one little thing which whould have been included, that;'s the thing that pisses me off the most. It didn't have to cost because it was proprietary, it costs more because they are selling the R/RP at incredibly low costs and some Canon bean counter is sending countless emails about recouping costs and this is the way. Well, at least there are options (control ring)

 

[Ozarker]

Can you imagine going on a shoot with the sensor dudes? Insert just hang me emoji

You don't see that emoji in the lineup? Oh yeah, hard to see. It's in the shadows and my screen only has 10 stops of DR.

 

[slclick]

You don't see that emoji in the lineup? Oh yeah, hard to see. It's in the shadows and my screen only has 10 stops of DR.

You EOS R guys, flaunting your DR over the 2012 22 MP sensor folks.

 

[mppix]

(key edit above)

The answer is clear for each individual in this market segment, and probably with a 40-60, 50-50 sort of outcome. Sony succeeding and Canon focusing resources in RF is not enough to tell me that Canon will abruptly abandon the nontrivial part of the market that got them here.

Logic and pragmatism won't bully EF users into RF -- value and opportunity will. RF cameras will start to outperform their EF counterparts (not just in specs, but in capabilities, workflow, a proper RF portfolio, assistance to the photographer, etc.) until which point some their FF userbase changes in makeup to become predominantly mirrorless.

At that point, sure, Canon would slow down (or not pursue) refreshes of EF SLR product lines, start to obsolete older EF glass, and -- finally -- announce the end of EF lens production. But that will be a good 10 years from now, IMHO.

- A

If this rumor stands without an infinite list of asterisks (and that is a big if), I would not hold my breath for much innovation in the EF system, in particular for a 5DV.

If they can pull it off, such a product would only make sense if they wanted to be absolutely certain that RF will be THE leading mirrorless system and the true successor of EF (or translated from business language: "showing Sony who the boss is," "putting Nikon in the corner," and "make sure the L-L-L mount alliance won't go anywhere").

This does not come without risk. Such a body would cannibalize C-line sales at least to some extend. .. and an RF C-line would need to be on the horizon. On the other hand, this strategy would perfectly fit the RF lens releases, where many are best-in-class.

It will be fun to see if they can pull it off. The 1DXiii shoots 12/20fps and they demoed a C-line camera shooting 4:4:4 ProRes 8K raw video (external I believe) at Apple Pro launch.

In the meantime, my 5Div is getting better by the day

 

[Ozarker]

You EOS R guys, flaunting your DR over the 2012 22 MP sensor folks.

Trying to look up the specs on my screen. Really wondering how much DR it has and whether or not sensor DR makes any difference if my screen can't handle it. Now I'm perturbed. *Pours another scotch or lights a doobie*

 

[slclick]

Trying to look up the specs on my screen. Really wondering how much DR it has and whether or not sensor DR makes any difference if my screen can't handle it. Now I'm perturbed. *Pours another scotch or lights a doobie*

*or*?... oh and using the word 'doobie' is for certain Boomer language. Cue the Steely Dan vinyl

 

[Ozarker]

*or*?... oh and using the word 'doobie' is for certain Boomer language. Cue the Steely Dan vinyl

Not really *or*, but I am in Texas these days... so I'll call it scotch. Definitely taking a snort. Of whiskey. Aja!