Canon to release major firmware update for the Canon EOS R5

[Kit.]

And if we had flying unicorns, we'd all ride them.

If flying unicorns were as easy to obtain as a 14-bit electronic shutter (a wish from which the sub-topic started), we'd already have at least two, one from Canon and one from Nikon.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If flying unicorns were as easy to obtain as a 14-bit electronic shutter (a wish from which the sub-topic started), we'd already have at least two, one from Canon and one from Nikon.

Yes, my R3 writes 14-bit RAW files with full electronic shutter at 30 fps. But now you're apparently wishing for an 18-bit sensor. Thus the flying unicorn comment.

 

[Kit.]

Yes, my R3 writes 14-bit RAW files with full electronic shutter at 30 fps. But now you're apparently wishing for an 18-bit sensor. Thus the flying unicorn comment.

Technically, I'm just illustrating a concept. But... are you saying that 18-bit ADCs don't exist?

 

[entoman]

A great thing about mirrorless is you can use the exposure compensation and easily judge how much to underexpose bleached birds or overexpose backlit ones. If you underexpose using auto shutter speed or auto aperture at a fixed iso then you will introduce more noise as you will reduce the amount of light hitting the sensor. However, if you have the speed and aperture fixed and use auto iso, you don't decrease the amount of light and so don't add any noise.

Yes, but the problem I find with that method (which I've tried and switched from) is that as a bird passes backgrounds of different brightness, it will alter the exposure, although I want a constant exposure unless the light shining on the bird itself changes. Of course, it's possible to lock the exposure in auto modes with AEL, but I prefer to just set to manual metering. Half a stop or even a full stop of underexposure has a slight detrimental effect on noise, but Topaz DeNoise is so good that I'm absolutely happy to underexpose by that amount at ISO 1600, which is as high as I normally go. I prefer to shoot at around ISO 400-800 and have it capped at 1600.

 

[entoman]

For me, an image would normally be viewed at a ‘comfortable’ distance. If one sticks one’s eyes close enough to the image, then no matter how many megapixels are there, it would still look pixelated. While there is no absolute standard of ‘comfortable’ viewing distance, there seems to be some general consensus that it would roughly be about 1.5-2 times the diagonal of the image (e.g. for a 4x6 inch print, this distance would be about 11-14inchs). At these viewing distances, how much resolution is needed above which a person with ‘normal’ eyesight would not be able to tell the difference? The ‘average’ human eye (20/20) can see about 300 microradians of visual acuity and has a near point of 25 cm. That works out to 75 microns, or 338 pixels per inch, or one can approximate the PPI needed for a print viewed at distance x inch using PPI ~ 3327/x. For a 4x6 in image, the PPI at 11 in viewing distance (the most stringent in the viewing distance range) works out to a PPI of about 302, which translates into about 2.2mpx for the 4x6 print. If we repeat this for larger print and proportionally larger viewing distance, we would still arrive at about 2.2mpx for the image. Even if we were to use a viewing distance of 1xdiagonal (which is beginning to be uncomfortable for me), the mpx required would still be ‘only’ about 5.1mpx. So for viewing an image ‘normally’, very high mpx final images are not necessary. This does not, of course, negate other viewing preferences (such as ‘pressing nose against screen’ ) or the flexibility of heavy cropping afforded by high mpx sensors, or simply the comfort/desire of having a high mpx camera.

I don't print, I only look at my images on my 27" 5K iMac.

For *viewing*, I'm generally about 24-30" from the monitor.

For *editing* I'm much closer - about 9-12" (nose against the screen was my exaggeration!), and a lot of "tidying up" is done at 100%, 200% or even 400%.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Technically, I'm just illustrating a concept. But... are you saying that 18-bit ADCs don't exist?

No, I am saying that it will be a very, very long time before we see one in a consumer MILC.

 

[Jonathan Thill]

"Ordinary Filmmaker" doesn't strike me as being a very reliable source - about as accurate as Tony Northrup (sorry Tony! ).
Just seems like click-bait speculation aimed at getting folk to subscribe and make him some dosh.

Best thing to do is just make a personal wish-list of what you'd like to see in the update, and then be prepared to be disappointed when none of it appears.

Do I sound a little bit cynical?

100% agree

The guy has the same "contacts" as you and I, he reads Canon Rumors...

Being VERY cynical he has always struck me as cheap knock off of Sandy Rivers from How I met your Mother.



Sandy Rivers Segment - "In todays paper" Where he literally reads from todays paper

 

[AlanF]

Yes, but the problem I find with that method (which I've tried and switched from) is that as a bird passes backgrounds of different brightness, it will alter the exposure, although I want a constant exposure unless the light shining on the bird itself changes. Of course, it's possible to lock the exposure in auto modes with AEL, but I prefer to just set to manual metering. Half a stop or even a full stop of underexposure has a slight detrimental effect on noise, but Topaz DeNoise is so good that I'm absolutely happy to underexpose by that amount at ISO 1600, which is as high as I normally go. I prefer to shoot at around ISO 400-800 and have it capped at 1600.

BIF are different because of changing background illumination. It's best to use full manual.

 

[Kit.]

No, I am saying that it will be a very, very long time before we see one in a consumer MILC.

So, somewhere around R5 Mark IV?

 

[sanj]

and removing IBIS and cinema menus (with lag to reboot between)

The cinema menus are fantastic. The lag is absolutely immaterial. I wish that it had IBIS

 

[Killerbob]

The removal of the 30 minute limit is wishful thinking. It's not a technical issue. It's a TAX issue.

Canon would have to reclassify from stills camera to video camera and back tax all R5 units sold ever, to be able to do this.

It's not going to happen.

No it's not. True - EU had a tax on Videocameras - defined as something that could record more than 30 minutes. But that tax hase been removed several years ago

 

[OskarB]

No it's not. True - EU had a tax on Videocameras - defined as something that could record more than 30 minutes. But that tax hase been removed several years ago

And to be pedantic: it was not a tax, it was a customs duty.
EU does not have taxes. Taxes are still each countries decision and go directly to each countries own budget.

 

[fr34k]

Its a bit frustrating to have to keep the screen closed so as not to be annoyed by it, that's all.

OK. So I was browsing the R5 a bit and there may be a workaround for you that works on the R6 too:
You can set a specific button to turn off the screen. Although you might have to sacrifice a button, this might work for you. Try it out.

 

[Botts]

Gah! I was just about to pull the trigger on an R6 Mark II, then I saw this post

The body quality and resolution of the R5 had the R6 II feeling like a compromise to me, but motorcycle AF is a killer feature for me.

If the R5 gets only the motorcycle AF upgrades, it becomes the perfect camera for me. I need it before May 15, so there's some time to wait and see.

 

[David - Sydney]

OK. So I was browsing the R5 a bit and there may be a workaround for you that works on the R6 too:
You can set a specific button to turn off the screen. Although you might have to sacrifice a button, this might work for you. Try it out.

I use the mf-n button to manually switch between eve and rear lcd underwater as the housing permanently blocks the face sensor

 

[Michael Clark]

The customizability of the 1-series bodies and the R3 is very useful to me. There are some restrictions on what buttons can be assigned to what, but generally I find them logical and have not ever felt a need to assign something that I couldn't.

The integrated grip is one of those very personal ergonomic things. I typically use fairly heavy lenses (currently 28-70/2, 70-200/2.8, etc.) and I find the bit of extra weight on the body provides better balance, making handholding more comfortable despite the increased weight. I used battery grips years ago (with the T1i, 7D and 5DII) and I find the integrated grip far more comfortable to hold (because it only protrudes forward like the regular grip, whereas the add-on grips protrude backward as well to accommodate the transversely oriented batteries).

The 5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, and 5D Mark IV did away with the front-to back oriented batteries, but left a rear bulge anyway, though it is not as pronounced as the 5D Mark II and 7D were. The battery tray now slides in and out from the left side of the camera, with the long dimensions of the batteries running end to end from one side of the camera to the other.

 

[Michael Clark]

Thanks! I could probably run some of that same coffee onto the monitor to mask all those blown out highlights and crushed blacks from my R5 footage! I mean, that data ain’t gonna recover itself.

Or I could just wait for someone to click ‘buy it now’ on the Canon and jump ship to any of the other brands with enough DR to not look like old iPhone footage.

You really should try harder than that for what Sony is paying you.

 

[Michael Clark]

Sad to hear about later dates for a R5_II, but it's great to get a "substantial" (hopefully) R5 firmware update soon.

Many things have been mentioned as possible in that update. I hope that they include a front/back (or full 3D) AF limit as well as a motion trigger so that you can have a "photo trap" to video things that infrequently appear in a fixed area (eg. near a food feeder). I'd like to see "aperture bracketing" added. Current filename ending #s auto-wrap to 0 every 10,000 shots (AFAIK still) and I find that really annoying and hope it could be expanded to more than 4 ending digits.

It's actually every 9,999 shots because they always skip '0000'.

The four-digit limitation is part of the DCF (Design rule for Camera File system) standard now controlled by JEITA. DCF has been around since 1998 (which pre-dates JEITA). DCF 2.0 has been in place since 2010.

 

[harrylarsen]

Excellent news. I though Canon had already abandoned the R5 updates.

For me the best will be:

• Being able to change fps in electronic shutter mode, maybe 5, 10 and 20 fps.
• Pre-shooting buffer
• Additional tracking for more animals, or improve and refine the actual AF.

20fps at full speed, but cutoffs after 5,10,15 fps.

 

[Michael Clark]

I bought the Canon protect filters for my ef 70-200 f/2.8L is II and ef 24-70 f/2.8L II. While working as a sports photographer sometimes it really is just too wet, muddy, dusty, sandy etc etc for me not to err on the side of caution.

I assumed when I got them I would only have them on the lens when working and for my personal use would take them off.
However after doing some brief testing with them I really could not tell a difference with the filter on and off in regards to sharpness or autofocus speed and the filters simply stay on there now.

They were not extensive tests but enough that I felt comfortable to use them.

I've never used filters to shoot sports, mostly HS football and baseball, even in heavy rain. I also do a lot of theatrical/concert work where there are bright light sources in a very dark overall scene. Filters in those environments almost always cause issues with ghosting.

My EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II is 13 years old and the front element is still as pristine as the day I bought it. (The IS unit, on the other hand, is almost brand new. The original one was about to give up the ghost when I had it replaced in 2021.) The hood is *always* attached when the lens cap is off. If I am in blowing sand, near salt water, etc. I use the 77mm Hoya HMC that's been in my bag for those 13 years and been used maybe 3-4 times.

My EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L is almost as old and the front element of it is also as pristine as the day I bought it. I haven't used it as much for sports, preferring either the EF 17-40mm f/4 L for the wider AoV or the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS for the tank-like build quality on a second body. The "reverse zoom" design of the original 24-70/2.8 lens combined with the hood attached to the main barrel protects the front element well. It also provides a narrower AoV for 70mm, when the secondary barrel is fully retracted, than for 24mm when the secondary barrel and the front element is fully extended. I just have to remember to "park" the zoom at 70mm when it's hanging from my side while I'm using the 70-200/2.8 or Sigma 120-300/2.8 on my primary body.

The hoods, on the other hand... All of them have scratches, scuffs, paint marks, even duck tape holding them together. (I use black duct tape for holding cracked hoods together, gaffer tape for just about everything else.)