There will not be an EOS 5D Mark V [CR2]

[slclick]

I would say theres a substantial potential market for lightweight BIF setups, even if its not 'serious'. Olympus has been pretty popular in that area, so its not that bizarre to expect Canon to take a look at that area with something like an M7, particularly given the 600/800 releases as a nod in that direction.

I think you're poking fun at the word serious. I wasn't using it as in a photographers mindset or ego yet as in use for harsh environments, rough and tumble and what not. Also, shutter count and sealing. We all don't live or travel to safaris or Antarctica but some of us do live, work and play in a wide range of climates and shooting climes. I shoot from -20 to 105 F, from snow and ice, to heat, dust and mud. I am inclined to purchase camera bodies that take a good licking. The M is not and imho, will not ever fall into that category.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

And that's a naked assertion which goes against observation. People are telling you they can see EVFs fall behind during burst shooting. We'll see how the R5/R6 hold up, but this has long been a problem with mirrorless.

Sony A9II EVF at 120Hz is reported to be very good. I didn't try it myself, but the R5/R6 have even faster readout and CPU and also have 120Hz EVFs.

It most certainly can. The path from exposure to EVF is a pipeline with discrete steps. No single step can be longer than 1/120th (assuming a true 120 fps in sufficient light), but the total path can theoretically be any length of time. That's the difference between throughput and latency.

No it doesn't work like that because it's meaningless, and also requires multithreading. If you have 2 frames being processed at the same time, you need 2 threads, 3 frames - 3 threads etc. It simply doesn't work like that.
With a single thread, the processing MUST be less than 1/120s, it's simple math. You can introduce additional buffers and artificial/unnecessary latency, but why? Just because it's Canon with its cripple hammer?

What heppens in reality, the whole pipeline after the capture is basically readout plus applying some filters (de-mosaicing + current image style), after which it's basically ready for EVF right away. There's no point in breaking it down into many steps separated in time.

It would be detrimental to performance, and difficult to code, if the processor had to interleave reads/writes with display reads. It's far easier to synchronize a single write of a completed frame against the display's 120 Hz read cycle. That EVF has its own discrete display buffer. There's no way DIGIC X is contending with the EVF for access to memory, it would just slaughter performance/efficiency.

Of course it's shared memory/direct memory access by EVF. They do processing in a buffer and the EVF switches to the buffer right away, there's no additional copying/writing anywhere. Basically it takes two alternating buffers.
There's another buffer with overlay (settings/histogram) etc., also used directly by the EVF module, but it takes much less time to maintain.

At the end of the day all that matters is the photographer's experience and performance. There's stutter on the highest end mirrorless bodies. Can you work around it and track any way? Sure. Is OVF blackout less disruptive? A lot of people think so.

I'm more concerned about how the EVF affects the eyes, I've never used EVFs for long periods of time, but even short periods cause discomfort to me. But I'm shooting more and more landscapes and less and less action, especially this year, so I'll mostly be using the LCD screen.

Additional delays during continuous shooting - again the A9II is said to be very good at it, I expect the R5 to be on par. Time will tell.

 

[bbb34]

Until a couple of weeks ago I thought that DSLR technology will become obsolescent when EVF becomes more attractive than OVF; when the added value of EVF outweighs the optical superiority of the OVF.

The appearance of the R5 changed my mind. It is the auto focus technology that is plundering the territory of the DSLR, not the view finder.

I would like to see a 5DV, but I wouldn't buy it if its auto focus performs much better in live view mode. It is better to have a decent EVF that you can always use, than a great OVF that you don't use.

 

[Otara]

I think you're poking fun at the word serious. I wasn't using it as in a photographers mindset or ego yet as in use for harsh environments, rough and tumble and what not. Also, shutter count and sealing. We all don't live or travel to safaris or Antarctica but some of us do live, work and play in a wide range of climates and shooting climes. I shoot from -20 to 105 F, from snow and ice, to heat, dust and mud. I am inclined to purchase camera bodies that take a good licking. The M is not and imho, will not ever fall into that category.

More poking fun at the idea there's one definition for 'serious' BIF and Sports. The 7D II came out with many desirable features, and what particular features would be a priority are going to differ widely between people.

Great AF, frame rate and image quality in a smaller package that isnt too costly would be a very desirable thing for many, with weather sealing and the like being less of a priority. The M6 II seemed to be a nod in that direction, so a further move towards that set of features is not unlikely, even if it wouldnt fit your personal needs.

 

[slclick]

More poking fun at the idea there's one definition for 'serious' BIF and Sports. The 7D II came out with many desirable features, and what particular features would be a priority are going to differ widely between people.

Great AF, frame rate and image quality in a smaller package that isnt too costly would be a very desirable thing for many, with weather sealing and the like being less of a priority. The M6 II seemed to be a nod in that direction, so a further move towards that set of features is not unlikely, even if it wouldnt fit your personal needs.

I just cannot put my faith in its dependability, its build. It feels like a toy to me. And even though I don't feel a as if you read or maybe understood more than the first few words of what I wrote, I do agree with your last sentiment, it's not for me. Between owning a iphone and a FF dslr with a variety of glass, the M family isn't needed. Believe me,I gave it the old college try, it failed just like my M43 experiment a few years back as well. It always went back to one thing, build.These things won't survive the shortest drop or remain unscathed while being bumped in the field. The shit my 7D and 5D cameras have been though, it really impresses me.

 

[unfocused]

An M7 would never have the toughness, speed, cards, grip or heft required for many 7D users and shooting styles. IDK why anyone is talking the M system with regards to a birding and sports body.My M5 was nice enough but it was a snapshot machine. Defending and debating a mythical potential future M bodyto be used for serious field work is a joke.

I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning. To me, that's like saying that Canon couldn't possibly have made a 7D because the Rebels were not big enough or robust enough. The decision will be driven by the sensor size and the lens mount. The M mount is the mount Canon made for APS-C sensors in mirrorless cameras. Canon can make any size and style of body they choose for the M mount. As I said, I'd prefer an RF mount, but I'm not sure Canon will agree.

 

[slclick]

I guess I don't understand this line of reasoning. To me, that's like saying that Canon couldn't possibly have made a 7D because the Rebels were not big enough or robust enough. The decision will be driven by the sensor size and the lens mount. The M mount is the mount Canon made for APS-C sensors in mirrorless cameras. Canon can make any size and style of body they choose for the M mount. As I said, I'd prefer an RF mount, but I'm not sure Canon will agree.

We all have our hunches and feelings about things Canon will do don't we? I'm basing mine on current and past build styles of the M line, not an apples to oranges situation at all. I don't see a rugged M in the future, an R crop aimed at fast AF birders and sports version, sure, that's easy to imagine, the R5 seems pretty damn rugged on paper as is. Still, if I had to put money on it, I'd say we'll see a higher MP with a particular pixel density sensor especially designed for a 1.6 crop on a FF, possibly that 83 sensor. Maybe a merging of lines for both sports and higher rez. Canon has a history of it with the 1D line.

 

[yungfat]

It’s finally time to sell all my EF lens...

 

[BeenThere]

It’s finally time to sell all my EF lens...

Not me, I will just use them with the EF/RF adapter. Over time (years) I will replace some as significantly better RF lenses become available.

 

[RunAndGun]

I'm more concerned about how the EVF affects the eyes, I've never used EVFs for long periods of time, but even short periods cause discomfort to me. But I'm shooting more and more landscapes and less and less action, especially this year, so I'll mostly be using the LCD screen.

Of course everyone is different and effected by things differently, but generally speaking, shooting with an EVF isn’t some medieval torture. I’ve spent over half of my life shooting through EVF’s, from B&W CRT’s, to LCD’s and OLED’s today. But, I haven’t shot With an R5 or really any mirrorless EVF and am basing what I’m saying on my experiences with EVF’s that we use on video cameras, which are MUCH larger and moveable.

 

[davidhfe]

Sony A9II EVF at 120Hz is reported to be very good. I didn't try it myself, but the R5/R6 have even faster readout and CPU and also have 120Hz EVFs.

...

Additional delays during continuous shooting - again the A9II is said to be very good at it, I expect the R5 to be on par. Time will tell.

You need to temper your expectations, especially when comparing to an A9. The A9's sensor is very different than anything else on the market. You gotta post a source if you say stuff like the "R5/R6 have even faster readout" because based on what I've seen there's zero evidence the R6, let alone the R5 will readout faster than a stacked sensor.

I am firmly in the "R5 is the best camera ever!!" camp but it's not gonna break the laws of physics.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

You need to temper your expectations, especially when comparing to an A9. The A9's sensor is very different than anything else on the market. You gotta post a source if you say stuff like the "R5/R6 have even faster readout" because based on what I've seen there's zero evidence the R6, let alone the R5 will readout faster than a stacked sensor.

Ok I'm not sure about readout but the R5 is able to shoot and process 8K and 4K/120 so it should be on par with Sony. Also the R5 shoots the same 20 fps in continuous shooting as the A9II, but from a higher-resolution sensor.
Specifically for a 5Mp EVF you don't even need to read the whole sensor.

 

[davidhfe]

No it doesn't work like that because it's meaningless, and also requires multithreading. If you have 2 frames being processed at the same time, you need 2 threads, 3 frames - 3 threads etc. It simply doesn't work like that.

...

What heppens in reality, the whole pipeline after the capture is basically readout plus applying some filters (de-mosaicing + current image style), after which it's basically ready for EVF right away. There's no point in breaking it down into many steps separated in time.

First off a Digic's DSP is not a CPU in the way an intel processor is and I'd caution you about getting too much into thread counts per frames and things like that but it's not like I have an X-ray of a de-lidded Digic so what do I know.

On the main point though, you're handwaving through a lot of steps, each which add latency. How quickly can a Digic X de-bayer a frame? How quickly can you load the resulting frame into the EVF's frame buffer? Yes, the entire system clearly operates at 120cycles per second (I mean it shoots 4K 120 ffs!) but all these little 5ms delays add up and then you put a giant 200ms delay for the wetware's reaction time and it all adds up. Which is why it's important to anticipate action. Which is exactly what OVF die hards say an EVF makes harder.

 

[davidhfe]

Ok I'm not sure about readout but the R5 is able to shoot and process 8K and 4K/120 so it should be on par with Sony. Also the R5 shoots the same 20 fps in continuous shooting as the A9II, but from a higher-resolution sensor.
Specifically for a 5Mp EVF you don't even need to read the whole sensor.

To be clear here:
- I a personally 100% unconcerned about the R5's EVF's latency. I think it will be stellar based on specs and the reviews to Date. (Battery, fatigue, etc are all other issues)
- This is all pure speculation until it's measured

But there's a conflation of latency with throughput in a lot of this thread, and it's really doing the discussion a disservice.

The optical path from a photon hitting the front of a lens to an OVF is effectively 0ms of latency. The digital path from photon>sensor>read>de-bayer>framebuffer>EVF is non zero. Doesn't matter if it's a 1fps or a 1000fps camera. Is that latency enough to matter? *We don't know yet*! But you can't say with a ton of confidence that the A9 with a low(er) DR, lower mp, stacked CMOS sensor will have the same characteristics as the R5s when it comes to latency, even if the R5 can clearly push more bits per second through its' pipeline end to end. Close enough to not matter? *We don't know yet*

The only point here is, again, let's not use camera forum physics and electrical engineering to tell somebody that their opinion of an OVF is wrong. If you've got a peer reviewed study or some hard numbers about processing time in either cameras' imaging pipelines, by all means, let's have at it.

 

[MrGuyWithACamera]

This actually makes me really sad. Like I understand why, but I've been shooting with their 6D series for a while now and I've wanted to get into the 5d series but I put off buying a mk iv in hopes of the mk v coming out as their last 5d series.

 

[MrGuyWithACamera]

I suppose the preorders of the R5 were too good.

Sad, because I I thought the Mark IV was not an adequate final point for this series.
Good tool but the series would have deserved something with big icing on top.

Honestly I'd be happy with like a 5Dmkiv SE

 

[unfocused]

We all have our hunches and feelings about things Canon will do don't we? I'm basing mine on current and past build styles of the M line, not an apples to oranges situation at all. I don't see a rugged M in the future, an R crop aimed at fast AF birders and sports version, sure, that's easy to imagine, the R5 seems pretty damn rugged on paper as is. Still, if I had to put money on it, I'd say we'll see a higher MP with a particular pixel density sensor especially designed for a 1.6 crop on a FF, possibly that 83 sensor. Maybe a merging of lines for both sports and higher rez. Canon has a history of it with the 1D line.

Actually, I think that is the most likely scenario as well. Cropping to 1.6 is so easy with the R (In fact, I'm embarrassed to admit that I inadvertently turned it on once during an event) that the only reason for a dedicated APS-C sensor R camera that I can imagine would be cost and I'm not sure Canon would have any incentive to make or sell an APS-C R camera at a substantial discount.

When the original 7D first came out, the production cost between full frame and crop sensor was substantial and the 7D offered people a premium camera at a significantly more affordable price than full frame. Now, with bargain full frames available, that market isn't as significant.

In my mind, that only leaves the birding, wildlife and sports enthusiast market that wants a crop sensor for more perceived reach (often as a second body). That market is not very price sensitive, so I'm not sure Canon really has to offer a dedicated APS-C body at all, if a high megapixel body can meet the same need. Particularly if people are trading two camera purchases for one.

 

[tron]

Actually, I think that is the most likely scenario as well. Cropping to 1.6 is so easy with the R (In fact, I'm embarrassed to admit that I inadvertently turned it on once during an event) that the only reason for a dedicated APS-C sensor R camera that I can imagine would be cost and I'm not sure Canon would have any incentive to make or sell an APS-C R camera at a substantial discount.

When the original 7D first came out, the production cost between full frame and crop sensor was substantial and the 7D offered people a premium camera at a significantly more affordable price than full frame. Now, with bargain full frames available, that market isn't as significant.

In my mind, that only leaves the birding, wildlife and sports enthusiast market that wants a crop sensor for more perceived reach (often as a second body). That market is not very price sensitive, so I'm not sure Canon really has to offer a dedicated APS-C body at all, if a high megapixel body can meet the same need. Particularly if people are trading two camera purchases for one.

You reminded me of 1Ds series. But there is nothing like that like 1Dxs for example with 50mp 10fps with huge buffer too. Or a 5DsRII with the same (50) Mpixels also with 10fps and big buffer to take advantage of the big EF-white teles...

 

[Otara]

I just cannot put my faith in its dependability, its build. It feels like a toy to me. And even though I don't feel a as if you read or maybe understood more than the first few words of what I wrote, I do agree with your last sentiment, it's not for me. Between owning a iphone and a FF dslr with a variety of glass, the M family isn't needed. Believe me,I gave it the old college try, it failed just like my M43 experiment a few years back as well. It always went back to one thing, build.These things won't survive the shortest drop or remain unscathed while being bumped in the field. The shit my 7D and 5D cameras have been though, it really impresses me.

But you and if not you, most certainly others would, if the only choice was between it and say a 5kg 2mp camera shooting at 1fps that focussed badly, no matter how indestructible it was.

Things usually arent as absolute as they can be discussed here, everyone has different priorities and the differences are often less extreme than they tend to be portrayed here.

Anyhow we'll see.

 

[slclick]

You reminded me of 1Ds series. But there is nothing like that like 1Dxs for example with 50mp 10fps with huge buffer too. Or a 5DsRII with the same (50) Mpixels also with 10fps and big buffer to take advantage of the big EF-white teles...

No, but as stated in the post where I referred to them doing it with the 1D line, they COULD with the R series. So, not sure why you have to point out what does not exist.