The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]

[scottburgess]

I know folks expect a 5DV to come in 2020-2021, but I would generally expect the prosumer bodies to come out less frequently from now on. The road maps have to extend quite a distance into the future, perhaps to 2029 or beyond today for existing camera lines given the development cycles involved, so just because something appears on a road map does not mean its release is imminent.

The business case for extended time between releases appears strong to me. Technology improvement is not progressing as fast as it was, driven in part by limitations in chip manufacturing. Bodies are more durable and satisfy customers for a long time. Canon probably needs a larger technology gap between EF body versions to induce enthusiasts to upgrade; that particular challenge is increased with the mirrorless line now released. The reasonable business response is to extend the time between bodies in the 5D line to once every 6-7 years instead of every 4 and make the upgrades as substantial as possible (I think a lower frequency than that plays havoc with consumer expectations). So perhaps a 5DSR body will make it out for Christmas of 2021, but I would expect the 5D Mark V closer to the late 2022/ early 2023 time frame. The latter makes sense to me given the enthusiast propensity for spring purchases and the need for a wider gap between the 5D and 5DSR body release dates.

On the plus side, I would expect the new models to demonstrate one or two intriguing new features and some respectable incremental improvements in image quality, and that the interchangeability of grips and similarity of menus/buttons will be retained in the 5D lineup release pairs.

If I were Canon, I would also consider carefully leaking a little information to enthusiasts via interviews provided to sites like Canon Rumors and Canon News as release times approach. I tend to believe that letting enthusiasts know that a new camera is expected in the next year or year and a half can whet their appetites and keep them from jumping ship, especially when revealing details of a highly desired feature. It also shows appreciation for prosumer enthusiasm for Canon products by sharing the information where they hang out. It also wouldn't hurt if company executives explained changes in release cycles in the manner I've done above so enthusiasts better understand the industry.

 

[dtaylor]

But again what does the absolute DR value from Photostophotos tell you?

Note that I am not defending any particular site or measurement methodology. In general I am highly critical of the way DR tests are presented and the way they are interpreted by the average person. I'm only pointing out that by reducing image size you can in fact increase dynamic range. This is a very real thing and at the extremes can be used to turn visible light sensors into ionizing radiation detectors.

These "absolute" and "precise" measurements and scores have little bearing on real world photography, as does arguing about pixel DR vs 8x10 print DR. In the real world you have to perfectly expose to the right to maximize DR, which on most cameras means clipping some highlights according to the camera histogram and shot review. Cameras typically base these off the JPEG, not the RAW, which means you have to be tethered to a PC or intuitively know your sensor's true range and how far over you can go.

In the real world the noise floor that is acceptable in the pushed shadows is going to vary with subject matter, view size, and audience. There is no "absolute" reference. What's acceptable in an 8x10 urban print is not the same as what's acceptable in a 24x36" landscape print.

And in the real world post processing, especially NR, has a significant impact on final recoverable DR.

Lots of people read these scores and pat themselves on the back (if their badge says Sony or Nikon) or worry (if their badge says Canon). Yet when I directly challenge people obsessed with these scores I find that their images do not exploit the DR that could be found on any of Canon's old 18mp APS-C models. You have to know how to exploit a sensor's DR to actually get its DR. Most people obsessing over these tests do not.

 

[dtaylor]

Canon seems to see the M series as a niche market.

I don't know how Canon sees the M, but the original M killed any future P&S purchases for me. It's just as small and convenient as most P&S bodies but with far better IQ.

Perhaps that is in fact the reason for the M's success. Cell phones are killing the low end of the P&S market. Perhaps people who might have been in the market for a higher end P&S in the past are looking at the M and thinking why not jump to an interchangeable lens APS-C camera?

 

[Maximilian]

I know folks expect a 5DV to come in 2020-2021, but ...

Thanks, Scott, for trying to get back on topic but ...

Oh, I love it when a thread gets hijacked.

Thread title is: "The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]"

16 pages full of DR (that topic will never die), 90D, EOS M, EOS R and anything in between *lol*
I think we can be optimistic by subtracting 2 pages about an upcoming 5D5

But it's okay... bring chips... bring beer... let the fun begin...

 

[knight427]

You forgot the mirror. The RF lenses focus is shorter than that of the EF lenses. the 5D therefore can not have RF mount.

Unless the 5DV has a removable mirror box and was then both EF and RF compatible.

remember this?

Canon is Developing a Mirrorless-to-DSLR 'Converter': Report

One of Japan's largest newspapers has published a report that contains two very interesting tidbits for Canon mirrorless shooters. First, they claim that

petapixel.com

 

[slclick]

We'll take you back to the currently airing program...

Wish List for 5DV:

Lose weight ala 5D4 > 5D3 (60 grams)
Same dual cards (CF)
Illuminated buttons
Keep the Joystick
Keep the mp's in the 30's
Tilty Flippy great but I understand
same battery
AF point brightness control

 

[Lurker]

Thanks, Scott, for trying to get back on topic but ...

Oh, I love it when a thread gets hijacked.

Thread title is: "The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]"

16 pages full of DR (that topic will never die), 90D, EOS M, EOS R and anything in between *lol*
I think we can be optimistic by subtracting 2 pages about an upcoming 5D5

But it's okay... bring chips... bring beer... let the fun begin...

Thanks for the recap. I didn't understand how this rumor had gotten/could get to 16 pages and now I don't have to go looking.

 

[dtaylor]

Thread title is: "The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]"

Wait...we were talking about the 5D mark V?

Well then...it better have 20 stops of DR (as measured in an 8x10 print) and 24p video or CANON. WILL. BE. DOOMED.

 

[unfocused]

Lol. APS-C cameras far outsell FF, and the M series is the bestselling MILC. But it’s a niche market. Sure.

Well, to be honest, all dedicated cameras are niche products today.

 

[unfocused]

I know folks expect a 5DV to come in 2020-2021, but I would generally expect the prosumer bodies to come out less frequently from now on. The road maps have to extend quite a distance into the future, perhaps to 2029 or beyond today for existing camera lines given the development cycles involved, so just because something appears on a road map does not mean its release is imminent.

The business case for extended time between releases appears strong to me. Technology improvement is not progressing as fast as it was, driven in part by limitations in chip manufacturing. Bodies are more durable and satisfy customers for a long time. Canon probably needs a larger technology gap between EF body versions to induce enthusiasts to upgrade; that particular challenge is increased with the mirrorless line now released. The reasonable business response is to extend the time between bodies in the 5D line to once every 6-7 years instead of every 4 and make the upgrades as substantial as possible (I think a lower frequency than that plays havoc with consumer expectations). So perhaps a 5DSR body will make it out for Christmas of 2021, but I would expect the 5D Mark V closer to the late 2022/ early 2023 time frame. The latter makes sense to me given the enthusiast propensity for spring purchases and the need for a wider gap between the 5D and 5DSR body release dates.

On the plus side, I would expect the new models to demonstrate one or two intriguing new features and some respectable incremental improvements in image quality, and that the interchangeability of grips and similarity of menus/buttons will be retained in the 5D lineup release pairs.

If I were Canon, I would also consider carefully leaking a little information to enthusiasts via interviews provided to sites like Canon Rumors and Canon News as release times approach. I tend to believe that letting enthusiasts know that a new camera is expected in the next year or year and a half can whet their appetites and keep them from jumping ship, especially when revealing details of a highly desired feature. It also shows appreciation for prosumer enthusiasm for Canon products by sharing the information where they hang out. It also wouldn't hurt if company executives explained changes in release cycles in the manner I've done above so enthusiasts better understand the industry.

Generally I agree. But I think there is an unknown that could affect this assessment. We really don't have any idea what the development and production costs are for interchangeable lens cameras.

With nearly 100 years of single lens reflex manufacturing under their belt, it's possible Canon has reduced costs to the minimum, so that the increased investment for new camera models may be much less than we suspect. It's possible that as manufacturers try to squeeze every dollar possible out of the enthusiast market, they find that producing more variations more frequently can actually increase their profitability.

One example: many people on this forum claim that they skip every other generation of a particular model. If Canon finds that to be a typical pattern for enthusiasts, they may elect to offer new models every three years, instead of every four, thus putting enthusiasts on a six-year replacement cycle as opposed to an eight-year replacement cycle.

It is also possible that Canon may try to further subdivide the market by offering more models, rather than less. I'm not suggesting that this will happen, I'm simply suggesting that we don't know if it would yield more profit to have several variations of basic DSLR and Mirrorless models. Certainly, Canon and Nikon both followed that philosophy with their APS-C DSLRs. In that case, it was driven by price point. It's possible they could follow a similar strategy based on features -- megapixels, video functionality, autofocus system, etc.

We don't have enough information to know if longer cycles with more significant upgrades will yield more profit than shorter cycles with less significant upgrades. But, I'm guessing Canon has a pretty good idea of which is more profitable.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Note that I am not defending any particular site or measurement methodology. In general I am highly critical of the way DR tests are presented and the way they are interpreted by the average person. I'm only pointing out that by reducing image size you can in fact increase dynamic range. This is a very real thing and at the extremes can be used to turn visible light sensors into ionizing radiation detectors.

But how so? By shrinking you reduce what they call the 'photographic' DR. It doesn't change the actual DR or physical characteristics of the sensor. For the most FF sensors, there's a hard limit of 14 stops, and resizing can only change the DR within about 2-4 darkest stops where the noise is.

And in the real world post processing, especially NR, has a significant impact on final recoverable DR.

Noise reduction = loss of detail, apart form improving the visual representation, I have never been able to actually 'recover' anything using the NR.

 

[dtaylor]

But how so?

That's been explained more than once by more than one person in this thread. I admit I had a hard time visualizing it at first to and, years ago, initially questioned the different DR ratings for screen and print at DxO. But it's an observable fact.

You're right that for pictorial photography you're only going to gain so much. DxO scores only change by 1-1.5ev from screen to print. But if you're willing to sacrifice most or all spatial detail for luminance detail, you can detect some incredibly weak signals.

Noise reduction = loss of detail, apart form improving the visual representation, I have never been able to actually 'recover' anything using the NR.

Noise reduction = loss of some spatial detail, but it can also increase the recoverability / usability of color and luminance detail. I've had several shots were the pushed shadows were unacceptable for print before NR, and perfectly fine after.

 

[Romain]

I was crying to have a 90d and a 5DV, then everybody here was laughing at me... I've said that the near future was the DSLRs, then everybody here was laughing at me... And now, people realizes that DSLRs had 10 years more to live... Shut up with miroless, respect Kodak please!.. 97D and 5dVI will come mates!!!! I love my 135L and my 100L macro more than ever with this fresh rumor

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Adam and his Zone System I think.

And for linear RAW data, why is 1 bit different than 1 stop of DR, if noise is ignored?

Because there is no 1:1 correspondence between the bit depth of a digital sensor and the maximum DR it can do. It's a fallacy that has been around since the dawn of the digital age.

A "digital"sensor is really a collection of a bunch of analog charge collectors. When the analog charges accumulated by each detector are converted to digital information, how much distance is one "step" (that is, how much more charge is needed to increase a digital value by "one") is strictly arbitrary. The difference between the noise floor and full well capacity can be divided between as little as one bit (it's either "off" or "on" at some arbitrary charge level) or as many bits as one desires. Sure, the bit depth can limit the number of expressible steps between a minimum and maximum digitally recorded value, but there's nothing that says the difference between 0 and 16,383 that requires 14-bits has to be exactly 14 stops. We can choose to assign "0" to an analog voltage value that is half full well capacity and "16,383" to an analog value that is three-quarters of FWC. Anything less than half of FWC is recorded as "0" during ADC, and anything more than 75% of FWC is recorded as 16383 during ADC.

 

[Michael Clark]

So how many bits and what type of ADC did Adams have in his b&w negative film?

The chemistry of film is, ironically, more "digital" than the collection of analog charge collectors we call a "digital" sensor. "Digital" images are analog electrical charges until analog-to-digital conversion transforms those analog electrical charges into digital information.

How many photons are needed for each crystal of the chemicals in a film's emulsion to react and chemically change determines its photographic sensitivity. The crystals are primarily made of a silver halide. That is, a salt that contains silver and one of the group VII halogens. For photographic use the three used are silver iodide (AgI), silver chloride (AgCl), and silver bromide (AgBr).

Emulsions that are more sensitive to light require less exposure to transform bits of the silver halide crystals they contain into small specks of silver we call sensitivity specks. Emulsions that are less sensitive to light require more exposure to transform bits of the silver halide crystals they contain into small specks of silver we call sensitivity specks. These bits of silver are what we consider to be the latent image. When a chemical reaction to the photons that make up visible light change a bit of a silver halide crystal into a sensitivity speck on the surface of a silver halide crystal that change can not be visually observed. Only when chemical developer is added does the silver in the sensitivity speck react with the developer to transform the entire silver halide crystal of which it is a part into atomic silver that is visible in the negative.

Each silver halide crystal has a threshold of how many photons must be absorbed by any specific sensitivity speck on its surface before it will react with the developer. If a sensitivity speck absorbs one photon less than needed, it does not react to the developer in an way differently than a sensitivity speck that absorbed no photons. If a sensitivity speck absorbs the needed number of photons, it will react the same way as any similar specks that have absorbed the same or any greater number of photons. Each silver halide crystal in a film emulsion is truly digital: it's either "on" or "off". If it is "on", the developer frees all of the group VII halogen atoms it contains and leaves atomic silver. If it is "off", none of the group VII halogen atoms it contains is freed and the entire crystal does not react with the developer.

 

[Michael Clark]

In japan

Globally. As in all sales anywhere added together.

Far more APS-C cameras are sold globally than FF cameras are sold globally.
More Canon mirrorless cameras are sold globally than any other manufacturers mirrorless cameras.

One has to restrict the category to "only FF mirrorless cameras" sold globally before Canon is no longer #1 in global sales.

 

[Architect1776]

I don't know how Canon sees the M, but the original M killed any future P&S purchases for me. It's just as small and convenient as most P&S bodies but with far better IQ.

Perhaps that is in fact the reason for the M's success. Cell phones are killing the low end of the P&S market. Perhaps people who might have been in the market for a higher end P&S in the past are looking at the M and thinking why not jump to an interchangeable lens APS-C camera?

Totally agree. If I can save enough it is a camera I would like to get. The M6 disappointed me though as I would have like to have a built in viewfinder with IBIS.

 

[Architect1776]

Globally. As in all sales anywhere added together.

Far more APS-C cameras are sold globally than FF cameras are sold globally.
More Canon mirrorless cameras are sold globally than any other manufacturers mirrorless cameras.

One has to restrict the category to "only FF mirrorless cameras" sold globally before Canon is no longer #1 in global sales.

Perhaps because they have only recently gotten seriously into it with the RF mount.
Let us see how those figures shake out in 4-5 years.

 

[riker]

I am certainly not crying about buying a 90D and not having an M6 II. The 90D has the best of both worlds, enabling me to do very well indeed the nature photography I want using the OVF, high fps with real time view and little black out, and having the ergonomics to hold large lenses. And I am using also in liveview for portrait work with eye AF and for some landscapes. It's one of the best DSLRs ever made and maybe a way for the future.

....although M6II has higher FPS by default, plus u have RAW burst which gives you 30 FPS. So your demand for high FPS and little blackout is better served by the M6II than the 90D.

 

[AlanF]

....although M6II has higher FPS by default, plus u have RAW burst which gives you 30 FPS. So your demand for high FPS and little blackout is better served by the M6II than the 90D.

The 30 fps in burst mode is only an18 Mpx crop of the crop and 12 bit vs 14 bit, and something I would not use very frequently, if ever. Blackout for a DSLR is not determined by fps - it's a very small fraction of the time between frames, which you don't notice because you are looking at real time events for the majority of the time. With mirrorless, you are often looking at a slide of the previous frame and not real time. 10 fps is enough for me - I can do 24 fps on my Sony but never use it.