Wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5 appears for certification

[MVPhoto]

So:

• R5
• Grip
• Extra LP-E6NH batteries
• 2x CFExpress cards
• WFT

This R5 thing is going from "Maybe within toy budget this year" to "You can survive on one kidney, right?".

LoL! Same for me though. Minus the WFT.. but debating swapping out my glass. I only have a couple lenses so it's not that huge of an investment... but they're both L series lenses. 24-105 f/4 and 85 f/1.2. I'm wondering how much a difference native RF glass will make in terms of not only sharpness but AF speed and accuracy.

 

[koenkooi]

LoL! Same for me though. Minus the WFT.. but debating swapping out my glass. I only have a couple lenses so it's not that huge of an investment... but they're both L series lenses. 24-105 f/4 and 85 f/1.2. I'm wondering how much a difference native RF glass will make in terms of not only sharpness but AF speed and accuracy.

I own the original EF24-105L and have rented the RF24-105, the RF is better in sharpness and AF speed. I haven't noticed accuracy differences between EF and RF lenses, if there was focus confirmation, it's accurate.

I haven't used the EF85 f/1.2, but I did use the RF85 f/1.2, it's amazing. Compared to the RF24-105 AF is slow and it showed the difference between the R and RP AF systems quite clearly when chasing toddlers.

 

[degos]

optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yeild the highest quality...my list goes on. So no, I've never purchased or used an adapter.

Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.

The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...

And the small additional register distance has no effect on optics

But Canon thanks you for slavishly following their marketing. Do you drive an Audi perchance?

 

[Otara]

Battery grip next I suppose.

Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.

The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...

And the small additional register distance has no effect on optics

But Canon thanks you for slavishly following their marketing. Do you drive an Audi perchance?

Optically no, but the RF protocols faster communication may impact on other aspects, ie AF tracking, IBIS/IS etc, viewfinder lag etc. It is noticeable how much smoother the VF is with the RF 35mm vs EF adapted lenses on the EOS R.

But how much that is anywhere near worth getting RF replacements is a whole other story.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.

The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...

And the small additional register distance has no effect on optics

But Canon thanks you for slavishly following their marketing. Do you drive an Audi perchance?

It really does depend on the focal length. Personally I use the 50mm focal length the most and the RF 50mm f1.2L is so much better than any EF 50mm lens.

 

[yeahright]

Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.

The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...

And the small additional register distance has no effect on optics

But Canon thanks you for slavishly following their marketing. Do you drive an Audi perchance?

... the RF 600mm ...? ... didn't know you could evaluate the optical performance of a non-existent lens

 

[Michael Clark]

LoL! Same for me though. Minus the WFT.. but debating swapping out my glass. I only have a couple lenses so it's not that huge of an investment... but they're both L series lenses. 24-105 f/4 and 85 f/1.2. I'm wondering how much a difference native RF glass will make in terms of not only sharpness but AF speed and accuracy.

The EF 85mm f/1.2 isn't even really designed for "sharpness". For flat field work an EF 85mmf/1.8 will wipe the floor with it. It's designed for a certain rendering character that sacrifices "sharpness" on the edges in exchange for ultra smooth out of focus areas. It's not exactly the fastest autofocusing lens, either.

 

[jam05]

I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?

Hearing about it? Oh, you mean running accross articles about it and deciding to read? Or finding on YouTube and deciding to watch? Why stop to read and listen if you're getting sick? LOL, just sayin

 

[Whowe]

My 5DIV at 2500 ISO doesn't look very good either, unless I went high to ETTR then pushed back down the exposure in post. Personally I would back down the shutter speed before raising the ISO in your situation. I tend to drop down to 1/400 or even 1/320 to get more light when needed; I'd rather a little motion blur over higher ISO. If you are using a long lens and no monopod getting a monopod might make you look at your camera with new eyes...the blur could be coming from camera shake at the lower shutter speeds...not motion blur.

Ultimately I always ask myself...will my client notice the difference and is that difference big enough to warrant the expense of new equipment? The final resting place for 99% of my images is 960x1200 images on someone's instagram or 1920x1080 images on someone's website, if I'm the only one who doesn't like a picture I took then I did something right. For higher end clients such as magazines and when I know they will make prints, then yes I go the extra mile to get every ounce of quality that I can...but that type of customer is few and far between for me.

Those are great points. I have been thinking along those same lines, which is why I have been thinking about just getting another used 7D2 for $800 while I can and call it good for a few years.

Its interesting that the 5DIV at ISO 2500 has enough noise to not look very good. I guess I was just hoping for "greener pastures on the other side."

I don't have much problem with blur from camera shake. I am only shooting a 70-200 for indoor swim. At 1/500 shutter, I shot at ISO 1600, but was underexposed by over 1 stop. Those shots already had some motion blur in the water splashes and arms/hands. I like some motion blur in the hands, so I am OK with that shutter speed, but don't think I could go much lower without blurring the faces/eyes, etc. But I will try next season!

 

[koenkooi]

[..]Its interesting that the 5DIV at ISO 2500 has enough noise to not look very good. I guess I was just hoping for "greener pastures on the other side."
[..]

Have you compared ISO 1600, 2500 and 3200? Canon only has 'real' ISOs on the full stops, everything in between is just brightened up a bit by software. ETTR on ISO 3200 should look a lot better than plain ISO 2500. Where 'a lot' might just be placebo effect.

 

[Richard Anthony]

So as soon as they release an RF 11-24, RF TS-E 17, RF 15mm f2.8 fisheye, RF 100 macro, RF TS-E 50, RF 1.4 and RF 2x TC's, some RF extension tubes and an RF 300mm f2.8 I'll be able to join you?

View attachment 190495

I am sure they will be coming , I am waiting on the a good macro lens myself , and most of my photography is portrait and wedding , so large prime lenses don't interest me .

 

[jeffa4444]

Its amusing reading some of the comments in the thread!

Ive a whole bunch of Canon DSLRS, EF lenses and the EOS R with two lenses I own (RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM & RF 24-240mm f4-6.3). The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is better optically than its EF counter-part on the edges but not by much. The RF 24-240mm is what it is an average lens that needs in-camera or Lightroom / Camera Raw strong adjustments for vignetting and color fringing (chromatic aberrations). Its not a master class in lens design and one of their weakest lenses. The holy trinity we have in our rental fleet are all very good lenses that are marginally better that the EF lenses, the fast primes are good (RF 85mm f1.2L is much better). I can see no difference with EF lenses on the EOS R when using the adaptor both mechanically & optically apart from the spacing the adaptor produces.

As to Canon teasing with the R5, working in the advertising & movie industry you have more impact if you "tease" close to the run-up to a product going on sale and make it available in good numbers the minute you do. If Canon have any delays once they officially announce the price & on-sale date this will actually work against them not with early adopters but with impulse purchasers and could harm the adoption of the product. That coupled with a still limited range of native lenses in the RF mount (Rental like to have the f1.4 24, 35, 50, 85mm or at least these in a mix of 1.4 / 1.2) for a video centric mirrorless camera that the R5 is looking like it will be with 8K. Most stills lenses don't zoom well for video so primes are often preferred.

 

[Juangrande]

My advice is to sell the testicles. None of us will need them when the wife finds out how much this camera costs.

Or you could turn your organs into a theme park for miniaturized guests! If you saw the last episode of Rick and Morty you’ll know what I’m talking about

 

[Juangrande]

Or you could turn your organs into a theme park for miniaturized guests! If you saw the episode of Rick and Morty Anatomy Park (season 1 ep 3) you’ll know what I’m talking about

 

[slclick]

Wireless module certification!

Not quite up there with the invention of the Pop Tart but we'll take it. (Nod to Jerry Seinfeld)

 

[dancan]

That’s not an R5, this is an R5
View attachment 190490

OK, just a little more car talk: I show you the R4. No pics of R3 yet, neither Renault nor Canon...

 

[dcm]

At this rate we'll soon be talking about Mazda's RX series.

 

[deleteme]

A WFT transmitter like the one for the 1DX mark III?

I read that as a "WTF" transmitter.
Seems like that what is needed to give us the specs of this camera.

 

[deleteme]

At this rate we'll soon be talking about Mazda's RX series.

Oh yes.

 

[sanj]

2x CFExpress? What am I missing here?

Only 1.