Canon to release major firmware update for the Canon EOS R5

[entoman]

Well...

Your post I replied to read a bit different though. You wrote "hyped by the media", implying that the need is not real, just a fad.

So sorry if I misunderstood you, but the post I replied to had a very different vibe from this one.

In any case, as I wrote, it's entirely your prerogative to decide how many mps are enough or too many for you.

For me, I can totally be fine with 45, but I'd be happier with 200+

By "hyped by the media" I was implying that the *clients* may believe (often wrongly) that high MP is necessary, when it may not necessarily be the case. IMO, the *photographer* should determine the client's end-usage, and advise whether it truly is necessary. And yes, the client is "always right" and can ignore the advice. Or the photographer can play safe, and buy a high MP body.

Of course, there's no such thing as *too much* MP, we'd all like maximum possible potential sharpness and resolution from our images, but large file sizes can have drawbacks, and smaller files can have advantages in certain situations. For example, I know pros who photograph cyclists in the Alps, and need to relay the files very rapidly to be processed/cropped/printed by a colleague, before the cyclists arrive and pick them up further up the mountain. Smaller files are also faster to process and use less storage, which is important to some folk.

In an ideal world, we would probably be shooting very high MP RAW files that could be transmitted and processed rapidly, but in practice there aren't many people who would want the hassle of 200MP RAWs. As stated previously, I think the best solution/compromise is to have cameras that can shoot high MP (without pixel-shift) but can also output much smaller RAWs via pixel-binning, thereby giving the photographer (and clients) choice. There may well be drawbacks that I haven't considered, but this is the direction I would like to see Canon etc take with future models

 

[entoman]

If there is no R52 this year that is a disappointment. The R5, as great as it was, is now getting to be old tech. It needs to be faster to focus and have better performance in electronic shutter mode, among other rumored updates. Software won't do much to address the performance shortcomings. Nikon will have their Z8 out soon, and from what I have heard it will be approaching Z9 performance and an R5 price point. That's an issue for canon until they update the body with newer and better performing hardware imo.

Although it makes interesting discussion, I'm not so sure that what Nikon (or Sony) get up to is relevant, at least not with high end models. In most cases, prospective purchasers of these models will already be tied into a system and own several lenses and perhaps more than one body, and a couple of expensive flash units. So for purely economic reasons, they are unlikely to switch brands.

It's a different story with budget models, which are generally bought by novices, who don't have the "baggage", and will consider a range of brands. They'll likely only be looking at the specs/price/styling of the budget models, so what manufacturers do with their high end bodies won't be relevant to their purchasing decisions.

As for the R5, it is still a highly capable camera, but I agree that it will benefit from being updated. I'm not expecting anything game-changing, but tweaks to the AF can make things easier for the photographer. But at the end of the day, it's the person behind the camera that makes the shot, and anyone who can't produce stunning photos with the R5 needs to spend their money on tuition, rather than on new gear.

 

[R5boy]

This doesn't make sense to me. The camera evaluates what's on the sensor to determine whether the image is in focus. No information from the lens is necessary to confirm that the place in the image surrounded by the focus assist box is sharp and so produce a visual confirmation (e.g. box turns green).

What am I missing?

Anecdotally, I was excited to inherit some of my granddad's vintage manual-focus Nikon lenses. I ordered an adapter and then was shocked to find that the focus assist arrows weren't accurate. If I snap the image when it confirms focus, it's always back-focused.

Thankfully, focus peaking is at least accurate.

With both features on at the same time, you can see stronger peaking behind what's in the focus box when the arrows converge and turn green. If I go with the arrows, focus is missed. If I adjust until the peaking is brightest, the arrows are diverged, but the image captured is properly focused.

It makes me wonder: Why would it confirm focus when it's not in focus, especially when it's evaluating what's actually on the sensor? It works for peaking but not the arrows and box. Makes no sense at all to me...

how did you get the arrows with a nikon lens, on a r5 ?

 

[blobmonster]

Well, having played with an R3, I am probably going to wait for the R5II and an EVF with OVF simulation.

I'd only buy an R5 now if they add the focus feature to automatically focus on the nearest eye. I just bought an R6 and was pretty miffed that wasn't in it, as it has been a Sony feature for a while I think. Might go back to my 5D4 if I can't get on with the R6. Main annoyance with the R6 sounds whimsical, but have discovered can't turn off the screen and use it just for image review like you can with the R5 in the INFO button cycling options. The reason I want this is because I take terrible photos through the LCD and compose much better through a viewfinder. I still want image review on the LCD as an option, and don't want to use up a button to manually switch it on/off completely leaving the evf off if I need a quick snap...

 

[David - Sydney]

I don't think so. If you look at sports photographers, they need to push out pics AFAP and more MP is not the way to go there. Maybe there will be an R3s or something. idk. But I suspect there being a moderately low (~24MP ish) high end and fast FF for quite some time to come.

The only way that Canon can manage both is to downsample/bin a larger mp sensor to a high quality lower mp file for sports photographers. More processor power needed but lower bandwidth so potentially higher fps without decreasing bit depth (R3 vs R5).
From what I understand, jpegs are commonly used so that processing removes the need to post process raw. HEIF will eventually become a standard but it will take a long time I think.

 

[David - Sydney]

Oversampled RAW should not be a thing.
I realize that the other Japanese camera companies do it but I am glad that Canon does not.

Why not as long as it is the user's choice?
It is a way for high mp sensor cameras to use processor power to output high quality lower mp files at higher speeds without hitting bandwidth issues.

 

[David - Sydney]

First to loose 2 steps of dynamic range by using electronic shutter to get them back via exposure bracketing?

I do think the camera needs different modes for fast speed (i.e. reduced DR) and "lazy shooting".
The combo of shutter mode with a lot of R5's functionality does not make sense.

I concur. The R5 should be able to output 14 bit raw files using electronic shutter at a slower burst rate than 20fps.

 

[David - Sydney]

Panasonic GH6 uses ProRes and the Nikon Z9 shoots ProRes RAW, so if these two companies can license Apple ProRes why cannot Canon? Especially now with new laptops with dedicated ProRes acceleration.

At no point did I say that Canon couldn't license additional codecs but my question is that why would Canon do it if it eats into their margins?
I agree that laptop power is no longer a blocking issue.

 

[David - Sydney]

My understanding is that the loss of DR with ES typically amounts to about 1 stop. The loss of DR is due to a reduction in bit depth (12 bit mechanical, 10 bit electronic in most cases), and that is done purely to increase readout speed. AFAIK, there is no reason why electronic shutter can't run on 12 bit and thereby retain the full DR. Presumably it's dictated by sensor design and processor power. Anyone with greater knowledge please contribute.

Based on some back-of-the-envelope calculations, the bit depth/sensor mp/fps issue for Digic X is the bandwidth rather than sensor design/readout speed.
When comparing the R3 and R5 on mech/electronic shutter/bit depth/fps, they all come to about the same limit of ~11gb/second.

 

[roby17269]

By "hyped by the media" I was implying that the *clients* may believe (often wrongly) that high MP is necessary, when it may not necessarily be the case. IMO, the *photographer* should determine the client's end-usage, and advise whether it truly is necessary. And yes, the client is "always right" and can ignore the advice. Or the photographer can play safe, and buy a high MP body.

Of course, there's no such thing as *too much* MP, we'd all like maximum possible potential sharpness and resolution from our images, but large file sizes can have drawbacks, and smaller files can have advantages in certain situations. For example, I know pros who photograph cyclists in the Alps, and need to relay the files very rapidly to be processed/cropped/printed by a colleague, before the cyclists arrive and pick them up further up the mountain. Smaller files are also faster to process and use less storage, which is important to some folk.

In an ideal world, we would probably be shooting very high MP RAW files that could be transmitted and processed rapidly, but in practice there aren't many people who would want the hassle of 200MP RAWs. As stated previously, I think the best solution/compromise is to have cameras that can shoot high MP (without pixel-shift) but can also output much smaller RAWs via pixel-binning, thereby giving the photographer (and clients) choice. There may well be drawbacks that I haven't considered, but this is the direction I would like to see Canon etc take with future models

Ok just a few things:
1. if you can't see that the way you phrased it can be read with negative connotations, I don't know what to say.
2. I know very little of photographing cyclists, but I understand why they may need smaller files. I am into fashion photography and in that field high mps are desirable. So there you go: there are niche groups that can argue different sides of the same argument.
3. I agree with your last paragraph at least I'd be happy to take the high mp body and I would simply ignore the binning function. Incidentally my IQ1-80 can shoot 80mp or 20mp images in that way.
4. I work in IT and understand about bandwidth, storage, etc. But it is also true that network and processing speeds have gone up and storage costs have gone down continuously for quite some time. The limitations that were in place time ago are much less constraining now.

 

[entoman]

Well, having played with an R3, I am probably going to wait for the R5II and an EVF with OVF simulation.

I'd only buy an R5 now if they add the focus feature to automatically focus on the nearest eye. I just bought an R6 and was pretty miffed that wasn't in it, as it has been a Sony feature for a while I think. Might go back to my 5D4 if I can't get on with the R6. Main annoyance with the R6 sounds whimsical, but have discovered can't turn off the screen and use it just for image review like you can with the R5 in the INFO button cycling options. The reason I want this is because I take terrible photos through the LCD and compose much better through a viewfinder. I still want image review on the LCD as an option, and don't want to use up a button to manually switch it on/off completely leaving the evf off if I need a quick snap...

It should be easy to gather information about nearest-eye priority from youtube videos or from the instruction manual, so why didn't you download the manual and read it, and check out a few videos before committing to a purchase?

I know several R6 users who shoot via the EVF and keep the screen folded to protect it, only folding it out when reviewing, and none of them have mapped the function to a button, they just choose the appropriate menu item. Suggest you check the manual.

 

[entoman]

Ok just a few things:
1. if you can't see that the way you phrased it can be read with negative connotations, I don't know what to say.
2. I know very little of photographing cyclists, but I understand why they may need smaller files. I am into fashion photography and in that field high mps are desirable. So there you go: there are niche groups that can argue different sides of the same argument.
3. I agree with your last paragraph at least I'd be happy to take the high mp body and I would simply ignore the binning function. Incidentally my IQ1-80 can shoot 80mp or 20mp images in that way.
4. I work in IT and understand about bandwidth, storage, etc. But it is also true that network and processing speeds have gone up and storage costs have gone down continuously for quite some time. The limitations that were in place time ago are much less constraining now.

As previously stated, there are good reasons why some people prefer high MP and why other people prefer modest MP, so ideally high end cameras would provide both options to keep all of us happy. At least we seem to be in full agreement about the desirability to have pixel-binning available on hi-res cameras for those occasions when neither JPEGs or large RAWs are appropriate.

I don't see any "negative connotations" in my original or subsequent posts, so "I don't know what to say" either...

Let's just say that it's easy for misunderstandings to arise during internet discussions, as opposed to when speaking face to face with someone

 

[Loswr]

As previously stated, there are good reasons why some people prefer high MP and why other people prefer modest MP, so ideally high end cameras would provide both options to keep all of us happy.

ideally for us users, yes. Perhaps less ideal for Canon, who might prefer us to buy two cameras instead of one.

 

[entoman]

ideally for us users, yes. Perhaps less ideal for Canon, who might prefer us to buy two cameras instead of one.

Unless they can convince us to buy a single camera that costs twice as much

... and then buy a second backup body, to mitigate our paranoia about a camera failing on an important shoot.

 

[Scenes]

It is an overheating issue.
The R5 should theoretically have the exact same readout speed of the R5 C which does have oversampled 4K 60.

The R5C also has a different sensor and CPU. They're similar but not the same as the R5 which is why the R5C can do more.

 

[Scenes]

Hopefully it’s more video codecs?
What really aggravates me with my R5 is I need a cf express card to record 4k 120 because it records at all-i and there is no option for ipb. I can record 8k ipb to an SD card. It’s also almost impossible to edit any H265 log footage in premier.
Sony gives you the options for ipb at H264 in log and it is a huge difference between trying to edit R5 footage.
Maybe a new feature not in any of the EOS R line will be clog 2? It’s usually reserved for the Cinema line. The dynamic range would be a big difference. That would give a huge fighting chance to make R5 footage more usable and convert some Sony fanboys.

Adding Clog2 doesn't magically give the sensor in your camera more dynamic range. The sensors with 16+ stop of dynamic range have clog2 as that's designed to get the most out of those sensors. It's like asking if I put formula one tyres on my vehicle does it make it a race car. No, it doesn't. Those tyres are designed and calibrated to work on an entirely different machine. The tyres don't make the Formula one car what it is but they do help get the best out it. If that makes sense? I don't drive. I don't even know why I'm making car analogy's.

 

[Scenes]

I'd like to see Canon log-2 in a future update, especially for the R5c.

That's really not how Clog2 works. It's not a magical fix all that gives your camera sensor more dynamic range. It's a specific tool that high-end cameras with 16+ stops of dynamic range use to get the most out of their sensors. Just adding it to any camera doesn't magically make it better. Canon said on launch day of the R5C that the reason it didn't have Clog2 is that the sensor wasn't capable of it. So adding it wouldn't make any difference.

 

[entoman]

It is an overheating issue.
The R5 should theoretically have the exact same readout speed of the R5 C which does have oversampled 4K 60.

Any steps that Canon take to prevent overheating are a winner for me. I don't shoot video and probably never will, but I frequently work in hot tropical climates where the camera body can become almost too hot to hold comfortably. Hot cameras produce more noise and shorten sensor life. They probably also shorten the life of memory cards and increase the risk of data corruption.

 

[Scenes]

There's a general understanding that the megapixels your camera comes with is set. You don't generally see posts saying..

"Gee, I see other cameras are 60 megapixels now. I hope Canon gives us that in an update, c'mon, just give it to us."

But many of the genuine requests here for various 'updates' read the same way. Y'all want magical improvements to hardware that didn't ship with the camera and it isn't capable of.
‍

 

[scyrene]

That's an issue for canon

Why?