Canon EOS R5 Mark II to arrive before EOS R1? [CR2]

[David - Sydney]

It might be possible that the ADC requires a slower readout to get the higher bit depth? After all, bit depth is a function of the ADC that is taking analog voltages from the sensor and converting them to digital data. If the ADC is not fast enough to convert to 14-bit at the faster readout speeds required of electronic shutter to combat rolling shutter effect, then slowing down the readout frequency would give the ADC more time to do each computation.

See Neuro's reply and my further reply on processor bandwidth limitations

 

[Michael Clark]

The mention of Gerald Undone makes me think this is about DR in video. And in that case, he is correct. The R5C allows shooting in CLOG2, which has a gamma curve that captures more dynamic range than CLOG3 (or regular non-log). The regular R5 doesn't allow CLOG2, only CLOG3.

You are correct that both share the same sensor and in stills mode, shooting RAW, you will get identical DR. But the R5-non-C captures and stores video in such a way that it limits the video DR. On top of that, video DR is measured in a different way than still DR, which complicates discussions even more.

Also, Gerald is very clear in his review that the difference in video DR isn't due to the sensor, but caused by the available log profiles.

Then that is a function of software and possibly processing capacity, not of the sensor.

 

[Michael Clark]

I don't know when 1.0 was fixed. The major features were set when the announcements were made and they dribbled out over time especially for 8k video/AF etc/not time lapse etc. The finer details were not released until later but would have been earlier than the formal announcement as documentation etc needed to be in place by then.

Having a fixed timer for overheating would have been a simple way to implement component safe working temperatures and I am sure that the marketing department would have thought that the record times for those 3 modes would have been acceptable. You are right that having temperature sensors indicate that future firmware would have used those inputs. The implementation of raw lite modes negated any concerns for record times.

The weird thing is that the Sony A1 can't record raw video and has low bandwidth codecs from the beginning but there was no outcry about it. That the USH-ii SD cards can handle all videos modes indicate that the CFe card slots don't generate as much heat either.

Canon has long included thermal sensors inside EOS cameras that shuts the camera down completely if it gets too hot internally.

Apparently data from the internal temperature sensor(s) is also one of several factors used to determine how much noise reduction is applied (to JPEGs and the JPEG preview when shooting raw) when one of the automatic NR options (Low, Med, High) is selected. Temp is one of the things recorded in the maker notes section of every EOS digital camera I've ever owned. Just because many EXIF viewers (such as every software application produced by Adobe) do not display that data doesn't mean it isn't there.

The inclusion of temperature sensors does not necessarily prove intent to use the data from those sensors to shut down video recording at a lower threshold than completely shutting the camera down to prevent melting the processor or other solid state component.

 

[Michael Clark]

No.

Yes. Even CIPA says so in their explanations.

It's referenced in this "definition" of CIPA rating at PC Mag.

A link I had saved to a pdf from CIPA themselves that describes how compliance is self-certified by the manufacturers is now dead. I'll try to find the new ip addy if it is still available online somewhere.

 

[Michael Clark]

They still need to follow CIPA guidelines when testing.

Have you ever actually read the CIPA guidelines? There's a bit of wiggle room.

For example, it's left up to the manufacturer to decide if an external flash is attached and activated for half the shots or not for cameras with no built-in flash.

If it's set to TTL, then that consumes additional processing power. Even if the camera has a built-in flash, whether TTL or manual power control is used is determined by which is the "default" setting when shipped from the factory. The multiple pulses of the flash in TTL mode is much more energy consuming than manual control with a single pulse when a built-in flash draws it's power from the camera's battery.

If the "default" manual setting is 1/1, then that must be used. But if the "default" setting is 1/128, then that is what is used in the tests. Canon chooses to leave the default setting at TTL and full power (i.e. no negative FEC) as the default settings when doing CIPA testing. Other manufacturers have been known to use a "pre-release" firmware with TTL turned off and manual flash power set at the lowest setting (i.e. 1/128 or 1/64, whatever the lowest setting is) when doing CIPA testing and then "updating" the firmware between CIPA testing and release of the camera to the market.

The CIPA guidelines were clearly established early on when compact "point and shoot" cameras were the predominant digital cameras in the marketplace and SLRs were still using film.

Another example: The guideline requires the lens to be zoomed from one end to the other between every shot. In the case of DSLRs, this is ridiculous. What if a prime lens is attached to the camera during testing? Does it even matter when there is no camera powered zoom lens in use?

The guideline also requires 30 seconds between each shot in the test, with the camera's LCD continuously on. The camera is to be power cycled every tenth shot. How long the camera is left off is totally up to the manufacturer testing their own cameras. This might have been typical for usage of those early digital point-and-shoots, but it is far from typical usage of most ILC users. The guideline also requires the powered on LCD screen to be displaying "Live View" in real time (the earliest DSLRs didn't even have this capability). What if a camera's "default" usage is via an optical VF with the LCD screen turned off most of the time, even if LV is a "non-default" option? So a camera without Live View could be set to display a near black settings menu screen with only one line of text displayed, which obviously consumes less power than a Live View image of a bright scene updated at 15 fps. The brightness setting of the screen is also determined by the camera's "default" setting. If the firmware sets the screen at max brightness by default, that is what is used during testing. What if one camera's screen is much brighter than another at the respective brightest setting for each? If the firmware sets the screen at minimum brightness by default, that is what is used. Again, some manufacturers would create "working" firmware which set the screen to minimum brightness by default. Some manufacturers would test a camera with Live View capability in a room completely dark for the 0:29 between test shots and turn on the lights for one second for the test shot (because a brighter exposure uses less processing power), then immediately dim the lights again so that the Live View screen is displaying a scene with every pixel at (0,0,0).

 

[Michael Clark]

See Neuro's reply and my further reply on processor bandwidth limitations

See Kit's reply. I think he nails it on the head rather succinctly.

 

[Loswr]

Comparing one camera model's CIPA numbers to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer.

No.

Yes. Even CIPA says so in their explanations.

No.

Here is what CIPA says in CIPA DC-002-Translation-2020 Standard Procedure for Measuring Digital Still Camera Battery Consumption:

For digital cameras, long battery life is one of the features regarded as important. However, until now, digital camera manufacturers have been measuring their cameras battery life using their own methods, making it difficult to compare the battery life performance data listed in manufacturers catalogs. To cope with this inconvenience, the Camera & Imaging Products Association (CIPA) had published CIPA DC-002-2003 "Standard procedure for Measuring Digital Still Camera Battery Consumption (in 2003, the 1st edition of this standard)". By specifying the standard measuring procedures for high power-consuming functions such as color image display activation, use of flash, and zoom and retractable lens movement, comparable data can be made available to help end-users make a selection from a variety of digital cameras.

The standard was created for the express purpose of addressing the difficulty in comparing battery life measurements by different manufacturers using their own methods, by providing a standard methodology for all manufacturers to use and thus enable end users to compare battery life across different manufacturers.

Please share the part of the standard where CIPA explains that their standard is useless to compare battery life across brands, and should only be used to compare data across models from the same manufacturer.

Or just admit that you were wrong.

 

[Michael Clark]

No.


No.

Here is what CIPA says in CIPA DC-002-Translation-2020 Standard Procedure for Measuring Digital Still Camera Battery Consumption:



The standard was created for the express purpose of addressing the difficulty in comparing battery life measurements by different manufacturers using their own methods, by providing a standard methodology for all manufacturers to use and thus enable end users to compare battery life across different manufacturers.

Please share the part of the standard where CIPA explains that their standard is useless to compare battery life across brands, and should only be used to compare data across models from the same manufacturer.

Or just admit that you were wrong.

It's referenced in this "definition" of CIPA rating at PC Mag.

A link I had saved to a pdf from CIPA themselves that describes how compliance is self-certified by the manufacturers is now dead. I'll try to find the new ip addy if it is still available online somewhere.

 

[Michael Clark]

No.


No.

Here is what CIPA says in CIPA DC-002-Translation-2020 Standard Procedure for Measuring Digital Still Camera Battery Consumption:



The standard was created for the express purpose of addressing the difficulty in comparing battery life measurements by different manufacturers using their own methods, by providing a standard methodology for all manufacturers to use and thus enable end users to compare battery life across different manufacturers.

Please share the part of the standard where CIPA explains that their standard is useless to compare battery life across brands, and should only be used to compare data across models from the same manufacturer.

Or just admit that you were wrong.

Section 2.1 and all of section 4 of the document you linked (which is a more recent version of the one I referenced above) are riddled with allowable exceptions. Some manufacturers fully exploit these exceptions while others are more honest in their CIPA testing. In no case does CIPA actually audit any manufacturer's compliance with the "standard".

 

[Loswr]

It's referenced in this "definition" of CIPA rating at PC Mag.

A link I had saved to a pdf from CIPA themselves that describes how compliance is self-certified by the manufacturers is now dead. I'll try to find the new ip addy if it is still available online somewhere.

Funny, you challenge @EOS 4 Life with, "Have you ever actually read the CIPA guidelines?" then you reference a 'definition' of the standard on some other site. Yes, the standard does state that manufacturers are responsible for the fairness of their results as PC Mag states. Manufacturers are also responsible for conducting the testing themselves. Neither of those mean that results cannot be compared across manufacturers. Comparing across manufacturers is the exact reason the standard was developed. The committee that chaired the standard development comprises people from Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony, and there are working group members from those companies as well as several other digital camera and lens makers.

Your other (non) evidence to support your false claim is a dead link, but that link merely pointed to DC_002 which is the battery life measurement standard itself, which I linked on the CIPA website above, and from which I quoted directly. So feel free to click my link (here it is again: CIPA DC-002-Translation-2020 Standard Procedure for Measuring Digital Still Camera Battery Consumption), download and read the standard, and quote the statement that supports your claim that, "Even CIPA says [Comparing one camera model's CIPA numbers to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer] in their explanations."

Or, as I already suggested, just admit that you were wrong.

 

[Michael Clark]

Someone needs to be less pedantic. Clearly @TonyG was talking colloquially and made a good point. We invest money and time in our hobbies and the return on that investment comes in the form of satisfaction that pays concrete dividends by increasing our enjoyment of life, reducing stress and possibly even extending our lives. All of these can and do produce capital gains that can offset the original expense. Even just one additional year of quality living is worth more than the cost of a camera for most people.

The ghost of my eighth grade English teacher still haunts me to this day. If I was less pedantic she would torture me with that blasted ruler for all eternity.

 

[Michael Clark]

Funny, you challenge @EOS 4 Life with, "Have you ever actually read the CIPA guidelines?" then you reference a 'definition' of the standard on some other site. Yes, the standard does state that manufacturers are responsible for the fairness of their results as PC Mag states. Manufacturers are also responsible for conducting the testing themselves. Neither of those mean that results cannot be compared across manufacturers. Comparing across manufacturers is the exact reason the standard was developed. The committee that chaired the standard development comprises people from Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony, and there are working group members from those companies as well as several other digital camera and lens makers.

Your other (non) evidence to support your false claim is a dead link, but that link merely pointed to DC_002 which is the battery life measurement standard itself, which I linked on the CIPA website above, and from which I quoted directly. So feel free to click my link (here it is again: CIPA DC-002-Translation-2020 Standard Procedure for Measuring Digital Still Camera Battery Consumption), download and read the standard, and quote the statement that supports your claim that, "Even CIPA says [Comparing one camera model's CIPA numbers to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer] in their explanations."

Or, as I already suggested, just admit that you were wrong.

Again, as I said above, read the actual contents of the document you linked above, particularly sections 2.1 and the multiple "exceptions" listed in section 4.

 

[Loswr]

Section 2.1 and all of section 4 of the document you linked (which is a more recent version of the one I referenced above) are riddled with allowable exceptions. Some manufacturers fully exploit these exceptions while others are more honest in their CIPA testing. In no case does CIPA actually audit any manufacturer's compliance with the "standard".

You claimed, "Even CIPA says [Comparing one camera model's CIPA numbers to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer] in their explanations."

Not in how you choose to interpret them, not in how faithfully manufacturers follow the standard, you but that CIPA stated it. Please quote the language in the standard where CIPA says that comparing one camera model CIPA standard battery life to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer.

 

[Loswr]

Again, as I said above, read the actual contents of the document you linked above, particularly sections 2.1 and the multiple "exceptions" listed in section 4.

You were wrong (again), and you refuse to admit it (again).

Don Quixote, signing off. (But unlike you, a windmill serves a useful purpose).

 

[Michael Clark]

You were wrong (again), and you refuse to admit it (again).

Don Quixote, signing off. (But unlike you, a windmill serves a useful purpose).

Promises, promises.

 

[Michael Clark]

You claimed, "Even CIPA says [Comparing one camera model's CIPA numbers to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer] in their explanations."

Not in how you choose to interpret them, not in how faithfully manufacturers follow the standard, you but that CIPA stated it. Please quote the language in the standard where CIPA says that comparing one camera model CIPA standard battery life to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer.

Okay, perhaps for the more obtuse among us I should have instead said something like:

"Even a cursory examination of the CIPA standard, particularly sections 2.1 and the multiple exceptions listed in section 4, should lead anyone capable of even the simplest level of critical thought to conclude that there's so much wiggle room included in the actual document in how manufacturers, who self-certify their compliance with the standard when self-testing their own products, can apply the CIPA standard as to make comparisons between results from different manufacturers, who are not audited with regard to how they implement the various options included in the standard, all but meaningless."

I'll admit I was tragically mistaken to think that some of the readers here could connect the dots for themselves.

The introductory section of the CIPA document may say they created a true "standard" for comparing different cameras. But the way it was actually implemented in the document makes it fairly obvious they failed miserably at this objective.

Sure Canon, Nikon, et. al. were all involved in the creation of CIPA. The U.S. Government was intimately involved in every treaty between the United States and various groups of the indigenous people of North America which made promises for "as long as the grass shall grow", too. The Soviet Union was involved in negotiating every nuclear arms agreement between the Soviet Block and the Western Allies during the cold war. Yet they didn't allow Reagan's request to "trust but verify" their compliance, did they?

 

[Loswr]

The price in the UK for the R5 is still £4299, which converts into €4860.

Getting cheaper on this side of the pond.

 

[Jethro]

Okay, perhaps for the more obtuse among us I should have instead said something like:

"Even a cursory examination of the CIPA standard, particularly sections 2.1 and the multiple exceptions listed in section 4, should lead anyone capable of even the simplest level of critical thought to conclude that there's so much wiggle room included in the actual document in how manufacturers, who self-certify their compliance with the standard when self-testing their own products, can apply the CIPA standard as to make comparisons between results from different manufacturers, who are not audited with regard to how they implement the various options included in the standard, all but meaningless."

So your view is that manufacturers will manipulate data etc to gain some advantage (in CIPA metrics) as against other manufacturers' products, but they will be scrupulously consistent in applying it to comparing their own products? Or just that basically all standards such as this are useless, and we are left with anecdotal evidence in making any comparisons at all?

 

[David - Sydney]

See Kit's reply. I think he nails it on the head rather succinctly.

I am not following you...
Kit said
"Do you know when the firmware 1.0 branch had its feature freeze and the firmware 1.1 started to be developed? Could as well be before the R5 was even publicly announced.
The presence of the temperature sensors alone tells us that this functionality was planned since the beginning, just wasn't ready for the 1.0 release."
and I replied to Kit about the firmware freeze.
Neuoro showed that the processor does downgrade from 14 to 12 bit from 12fps etc based on processor limitations and I subsequently calculated the bandwidth limits for R3/R5 in different modes showing a common limit of ~11gb/s

 

[David - Sydney]

So your view is that manufacturers will manipulate data etc to gain some advantage (in CIPA metrics) as against other manufacturers' products, but they will be scrupulously consistent in applying it to comparing their own products? Or just that basically all standards such as this are useless, and we are left with anecdotal evidence in making any comparisons at all?

Ultimately, CIPA is a data point. A test like all others comes with caveats and virtually all reviewers agree that real life usage gives substantially better battery performance than CIPA.

Assuming (and we don't know for sure) that Canon are using the exact same testing methodology for the R6 and R6ii, then there are substantial improvements in the new version.

Canon have always been a conservative company from an engineering perspective but the R5/R6 let their engineering team off the chain.
If Canon really cared about CIPA results on comparison spec sheets and they could change their testing methodology, I would guess that they would have done it by now.