Canon 5D MARK V probably in June/July?

[SteveC]

Disk space is ridiculously cheap these days.....

IMHO, not that much of an argument any more...and if it is, you can always choose to shoot in a lower resolution which generates smaller file sizes....

C

You're right about disk space. Recently I moved over to a NAS, and had about 1 TB of files; mostly pictures and videos I had taken over the years (concentrated in two epic overseas trips). I can see already that that's going to grow, a lot! --since I just took a short trip somewhere and managed to eat up 40 GB just taking pictures at a zoo.

But...It's not a matter of disk space, not when someone is talking about RAM--and the person you replied to, was. It's when a picture is loaded into "current" memory and the person is doing things to it in their editor. RAM has to be big enough to hold the picture, otherwise parts of it are having to be swapped in and out of a disk. Even if it's an SSD that will slow things down.

(The distinction between RAM and disk space is often lost these days, both are technically "memory," but RAM is short term, and goes away when the computer is shut down, and disk space is long term. When a computer is actually processing a picture or video, it wants to do so in RAM but will do so on the disk--much, much, slower--if it must. And even "disk" comes in two flavors--SSD (faster but more expensive) and actual hard drives (slower but much cheaper) so there's now actually three tiers of "memory" now.)

However, even a "small" amount of RAM by today's standards should suffice for a picture (all bets are off if you're doing focus stacking or averaging 30 shots of the moon together, though---that's multiple pictures). It's really video that chews up huge amounts of memory.

I apologize to anyone who actually knew all of this before I tried to explain it.

 

[unfocused]

We are approaching Valentine's Day, generally a time for romantics, not semantics.

It's not semantics. When you are speaking for a company like Canon your remarks are very carefully crafted and vetted. It's more than a little ironic that so many people on a forum dedicated to Canon users are so exuberant when it comes to embellishing the company's statements.

 

[stevelee]

To bring the OVF performance close to the rumored performance of the R5, Canon would have to go with hardware close to that of the new 1DX III.

Are you saying that the R5 will have an OVF? I haven't read all the rumors. In what ways is its OVF superior to that of the 5D IV?

Do the R cameras not have anti-aliasing?

 

[Joules]

Are you saying that the R5 will have an OVF? I haven't read all the rumors. In what ways is its OVF superior to that of the 5D IV?

Do the R cameras not have anti-aliasing?

The R5 will certainly not have an OVF, sorry if I expressed myself in a confusing manner.

What I'm saying is that in LiveView, there's nothing that should differ between an R5 and a 5D V. In the R5, everything available in LiveView is also going to be available in the EVF, after all that's what mirrorless is known for.

But on the 5D V the 20 FPS electronic shutter for example would require the mirror to move at 20 FPS for that to be available in an OVF - which even the 1DX III mirror can't do. So a 5D V would only have the mechanical 12 FPS, or likely less, in OVF mode. An since even the 1DX III with its dedicated AF processor and the completely new AF sensor array can't do eye AF in OVF mode, there no reason to believe the 5D V would be capable of that.

My point is that pulling all the tricks you can do in LiveView / EVF with the OVF in a DSLR will likely require more new, specialized hardware like we see in the 1DX III or not be possible at all.

And the current R models do have low pass / anti aliasing filters jn them. There was no rumor concerning the presence or absence of such a filter on the R5 yet.

 

[YuengLinger]

It's not semantics. When you are speaking for a company like Canon your remarks are very carefully crafted and vetted. It's more than a little ironic that so many people on a forum dedicated to Canon users are so exuberant when it comes to embellishing the company's statements.

Here's what my dictionary says about the verb "mothball," though you can put whatever sense you dislike on it: "To withdraw from use or service and keep in reserve: put aside" (Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Dictionary)

I'm sure the extremely careful reps of Canon new exactly how reasonable people would interpret their statements. And I doubt any of them would be in the slightest surprised or offended by anything I've ever written here. Or even aware of it!

 

[docsmith]

You make quite a few assumptions. Some of them may be correct. I have no way of knowing, so I suspect that you might not either. An industrial engineer might give some insight is he or she had experience in camera manufacturing. Right off to me, it would seem that developing new technology and implementing it in silicon would be more expensive, at least in the short run, that just putting in some mechanical parts that don't differ that much from what you have been making for 60+ years.

I assume (there it is again) that you are referring to my statement that mirrorless is less expensive to manufacture than DSLRs. Really, I've read it enough times and it does make sense to this engineer. Basically, with mirrorless, you are completely removing the mirror box, AF sensor array (which sometimes has its own dedicated processor), and OVF. So, all costs associated with those are now gone. As I've read, perhaps most importantly, accurately aligning those parts is labor intensive. That labor cost is also gone. As for "new technology"...any camera with Liveview already can function as a mirrorless body. So, the "added" cost is an EVF, which is basically the same as what's been in video cameras, bodies like the M5/R/RP/DC-EVF/a couple of g series etc for years/decades now. Heck, in terms of "new technology" and "silicon" displays, Canon has plenty of experience with LCDs on the back of their DSLRs. You also essentially reference development costs, but if you think about it, Canon has already very intelligently been spreading the development costs over DSLRs (DPAF since the 70D), the M series and lately the R and RP.

So, yeah, I am good with that "assumption."

Now regarding my original point, if that cost savings will be passed onto consumers impacting the price point spread between the hypothetical 5DV and rumored R5...the main "new tech" rumored for the R5 is IBIS. They could try to recover development costs for IBIS and some of those video features with the R5. Canon could choose to pocket any extra profit as the market is preconditioned to expect a $3,500 entry point for a "5D" equivalent. But my original point, I am thinking more and more Canon wants us to give up our DSLRs and transition to the R ecosystem and buy expensive lenses.

We'll see. But I am surprised by the specs of the rumored R5, this would help explain that.

 

[unfocused]

I think - but I may be mistaken - that a 5D Mark V is coming sooner than later because:
1) it's probably a joint development along with the R5 (many people present the R5 as the mirrorless version of the 5D line and I do think many components can be shared), so it makes sense to introduce them (almost) together
2) providing both camera at almost the same time would also allow Canon to see people's response to this mirrorless vs DSLR choice
3) on the other hand, releasing the 5D Mark V a year or so after the R5 does not make any sense to me, especially if the 5D Mark V is similarly spec'ed. People will probably switch to a R5 rather than wait yet another year, thus leaving the 5D Mark V with a rather thin market. Not worthwhile imho. Canon has to come up with a new compelling DSLR, otherwise people will think DSLR is dead which it isn"t yet. The 1DX III mainly appeals to Olympics photographers, so that won't do (at least not for me).

Careful, logical thinking like this is dangerous on this forum

 

[SteveC]

I think - but I may be mistaken - that a 5D Mark V is coming sooner than later because:
1) it's probably a joint development along with the R5 (many people present the R5 as the mirrorless version of the 5D line and I do think many components can be shared), so it makes sense to introduce them (almost) together
2) providing both camera at almost the same time would also allow Canon to see people's response to this mirrorless vs DSLR choice
3) on the other hand, releasing the 5D Mark V a year or so after the R5 does not make any sense to me, especially if the 5D Mark V is similarly spec'ed. People will probably switch to a R5 rather than wait yet another year, thus leaving the 5D Mark V with a rather thin market. Not worthwhile imho. Canon has to come up with a new compelling DSLR, otherwise people will think DSLR is dead which it isn"t yet. The 1DX III mainly appeals to Olympics photographers, so that won't do (at least not for me).

At the very least, your reasoning is a powerful argument for them doing it soon...or not doing it at all.

 

[unfocused]

Here's what my dictionary says about the verb "mothball," though you can put whatever sense you dislike on it: "To withdraw from use or service and keep in reserve: put aside" (Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate Dictionary)

I'm sure the extremely careful reps of Canon new exactly how reasonable people would interpret their statements. And I doubt any of them would be in the slightest surprised or offended by anything I've ever written here. Or even aware of it!

Here we go again. How many times do I have to give you the quote from Canon?

“As you know, last year we launched the RF mount and EOS R system. To date we’ve launched ten critically acclaimed lenses, and as it’s a new system we plan to continue this, launching more RF lenses while still fully supporting the EF lens system. And of course, should the market demand it, we are ready to create new EF lenses. But for now, our focus is on RF.”

Not a word about withdrawing "from use or service." Nothing about keeping "in reserve." Nothing even about putting aside.

In fact, as I re-read the quote, I notice that they specifically reference creating "new EF lenses." No mention at all about not updating existing lenses. Certainly no suggestion they intend to retire any EF lenses.

I recognize that you have convinced yourself of the inevitability of RF replacing EF. It's certainly possible, but that is not what I criticize. My criticism is based solely on the way people on this forum embellish this simple straightforward quote and pretend that is says something that it doesn't.

If Canon is content to wait and see how the market shakes out, why should forum experts think they are so much better at predicting the future?

 

[BillB]

And the current R models do have low pass / anti aliasing filters jn them. There was no rumor concerning the presence or absence of such a filter on the R5 yet.

I think it is likely that Canon will use the approach it is following with thev1DXIII and less the effect of the filter on resolution.

 

[Bennymiata]

A 5D5 IS coming.
There, I've stuck my neck out.

Canon would be crazy not to release a 5D5. The 5D series has been a big seller for Canon, and with so many pros and amateurs using them now and are waiting for a replacement, they would lose a lot of good will from those users if they don't release it and soon.

 

[Jethro]

I think - but I may be mistaken - that a 5D Mark V is coming sooner than later because:
1) it's probably a joint development along with the R5 (many people present the R5 as the mirrorless version of the 5D line and I do think many components can be shared), so it makes sense to introduce them (almost) together
2) providing both camera at almost the same time would also allow Canon to see people's response to this mirrorless vs DSLR choice
3) on the other hand, releasing the 5D Mark V a year or so after the R5 does not make any sense to me, especially if the 5D Mark V is similarly spec'ed. People will probably switch to a R5 rather than wait yet another year, thus leaving the 5D Mark V with a rather thin market. Not worthwhile imho. Canon has to come up with a new compelling DSLR, otherwise people will think DSLR is dead which it isn"t yet. The 1DX III mainly appeals to Olympics photographers, so that won't do (at least not for me).

All of that makes sense, but there is not even a hint of a rumour of an imminent 5D V. The only DSLR said to be coming this year is the new rebel. So, if your logic is as good as it sounds, and they don't announce a 5D V in parallel to (or soon after) the R5, then that suggests there will likely not be one.

All this assumes that the R5 is actually the 5D equivalent in the R series. The alternative view is that it might be a subtly different category. Meaning that they could differentiate a different enough 5D V down the track to justify releasing it separately. Maybe the 5D V retains a bigger / tougher build quality, and the R5 has similar features but a smaller profile etc?

 

[Deleted member 68328]

All of that makes sense, but there is not even a hint of a rumour of an imminent 5D V. The only DSLR said to be coming this year is the new rebel. So, if your logic is as good as it sounds, and they don't announce a 5D V in parallel to (or soon after) the R5, then that suggests there will likely not be one.

Well, there was a rumour about a "5D Mark V definitely coming" some time ago. But I think that due the excitement around future R products, the rumour mill is definitely R-biased atm. But you're right about last part.

All this assumes that the R5 is actually the 5D equivalent in the R series. The alternative view is that it might be a subtly different category. Meaning that they could differentiate a different enough 5D V down the track to justify releasing it separately. Maybe the 5D V retains a bigger / tougher build quality, and the R5 has similar features but a smaller profile etc?

Due to the naming R5 and R6, I definitely doubt this argument though. Again, we all may be wrong, but the name scheme is too indicative of R5 being the 5D mirrorless and the R6 the 6D.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

why should forum experts think they are so much better at predicting the future?

...well, it's because they are "forum experts"....

 

[Michael Clark]

It looks to me like putting in the same old mechanical parts just doesn't cut it anymore.

The 1DX uses a different kind of low pass filter, a different drive mechanism for the mirrors, and a radically different focus sensor. And even so, it doesn't manage to deliver features like eye AF in the viewfinder, and technically it is matched in speed by a far cheaper model, if the R6 specs are on point.

To bring the OVF performance close to the rumored performance of the R5, Canon would have to go with hardware close to that of the new 1DX III. There will be a cost associated with that. And I believe this is a significant cost, which is also the reason we're not getting an EOS 7D III. Pushing beyond the AF and speed of the current DSLR may require mechanics that become only feasible if you have a 1D X kind of price tag to work with.

On the other hand, putting a 90D sensor and 5DIV/1D X II AF routines (that have been around since 2016, vs. the 1D X/5DIII AF routines from 2012 that the 7D II got in 2014) into the existing mirrorbox of the 7D II without increasing frame rate would have cost almost nothing, and would have sold like hotcakes in 2018-19. The decision to not replace the 7D Mark II was a marketing one, not a technical one. Ditto for Nikon and the D500.

 

[Michael Clark]

It looks to me like putting in the same old mechanical parts just doesn't cut it anymore.

The 1DX uses a different kind of low pass filter, a different drive mechanism for the mirrors, and a radically different focus sensor. And even so, it doesn't manage to deliver features like eye AF in the viewfinder, and technically it is matched in speed by a far cheaper model, if the R6 specs are on point.

To bring the OVF performance close to the rumored performance of the R5, Canon would have to go with hardware close to that of the new 1DX III. There will be a cost associated with that. And I believe this is a significant cost, which is also the reason we're not getting an EOS 7D III. Pushing beyond the AF and speed of the current DSLR may require mechanics that become only feasible if you have a 1D X kind of price tag to work with.

On the other hand, bringing performance of an actual EVF up to the performance of an actual OVF (in terms of "lag") doesn't cost a thing, right?

 

[Jethro]

On the other hand, bringing performance of an actual EVF up to the performance of an actual OVF (in terms of "lag") doesn't cost a thing, right?

I'm really fascinated to see what the new generation of EVFs on the upcoming bodies looks like. Even assuming they save the best for the 1DX III, that's what will drip-feed down into other models that I might be actually able to buy in years to come.

 

[Michael Clark]

You're right about disk space. Recently I moved over to a NAS, and had about 1 TB of files; mostly pictures and videos I had taken over the years (concentrated in two epic overseas trips). I can see already that that's going to grow, a lot! --since I just took a short trip somewhere and managed to eat up 40 GB just taking pictures at a zoo.

But...It's not a matter of disk space, not when someone is talking about RAM--and the person you replied to, was. It's when a picture is loaded into "current" memory and the person is doing things to it in their editor. RAM has to be big enough to hold the picture, otherwise parts of it are having to be swapped in and out of a disk. Even if it's an SSD that will slow things down.

(The distinction between RAM and disk space is often lost these days, both are technically "memory," but RAM is short term, and goes away when the computer is shut down, and disk space is long term. When a computer is actually processing a picture or video, it wants to do so in RAM but will do so on the disk--much, much, slower--if it must. And even "disk" comes in two flavors--SSD (faster but more expensive) and actual hard drives (slower but much cheaper) so there's now actually three tiers of "memory" now.)

However, even a "small" amount of RAM by today's standards should suffice for a picture (all bets are off if you're doing focus stacking or averaging 30 shots of the moon together, though---that's multiple pictures). It's really video that chews up huge amounts of memory.

I apologize to anyone who actually knew all of this before I tried to explain it.

You forgot L1 and L2 cache inside the processor. That's where having enough memory can really speed things up. It's also very expensive to put a lot of L1/L2 cache into a processor.

 

[Michael Clark]

The R5 will certainly not have an OVF, sorry if I expressed myself in a confusing manner.

What I'm saying is that in LiveView, there's nothing that should differ between an R5 and a 5D V. In the R5, everything available in LiveView is also going to be available in the EVF, after all that's what mirrorless is known for.

But on the 5D V the 20 FPS electronic shutter for example would require the mirror to move at 20 FPS for that to be available in an OVF - which even the 1DX III mirror can't do. So a 5D V would only have the mechanical 12 FPS, or likely less, in OVF mode. An since even the 1DX III with its dedicated AF processor and the completely new AF sensor array can't do eye AF in OVF mode, there no reason to believe the 5D V would be capable of that.

My point is that pulling all the tricks you can do in LiveView / EVF with the OVF in a DSLR will likely require more new, specialized hardware like we see in the 1DX III or not be possible at all.

And the current R models do have low pass / anti aliasing filters jn them. There was no rumor concerning the presence or absence of such a filter on the R5 yet.

Then again, at this time the DSLRs can still do far better tracking of moving subjects than the MILCs can. We'll have to wait until this summer to see if that changes with the R5.

 

[SteveC]

You forgot L1 and L2 cache inside the processor. That's where having enough memory can really speed things up. It's also very expensive to put a lot of L1/L2 cache into a processor.

I didn't "forget" about those, I didn't know about them in the first place. (My knowledge of processors is WAY behind; I have to ask someone else to interpret processor names and tell me which one is better.)