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

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,105
543
That is not what I've asked, I know Canon did not anounced creating the 7D(3), and that they merged some of the 7D(2) features into the 90D (which is not a 7D upgrade).

I've asked that question since it seems Canon is making both EF and RF models co-exist with similar features, the R and the 5D(4), the RF and the 6D(2), and probably the 1Dx(3) with the Rx, than no they say they will go and develop the 5D(5) with probably an equal R(2) to match it, than going along this logic, why not make the 7D(3) and R7 if it was rumored already that they are into a crop-sensor RF model?
I don't recall any credible rumors about a forthcoming "R7". I've only seen baseless theorizing by folks here and at similar sites that Canon might offer such a camera.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,105
543
EOS is a system with an awkward incompatibility split down the middle. Canons new lenses don’t work with their flagship bodies. I don’t think your analogy is valid.
Tires for "crossover" vehicles do not fit full sized SUVs, and vice versa, either. Nor do brake shoes, wiper blades, not to mention body fenders and glass parts.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,105
543
I don't think anyone but Canon can answer your question with any sort of reliability, so take all of this with a grain of salt.

The impression I've been given from all the rumours is that Canon wouldn't release a 7D III along side a crop sensor RF mount equivalent because they may not release release a 7D III at all, let alone a 7D III with a crop equivalent. I believe the 7D series had been updated on a 5 year cycle, and we're right at year 5 of waiting for a 7D III, so the feeling that no 7D III is coming may be realistic. Why they'd choose not to continue the 7D line is anyone's guess, but if they stopped producing a camera which has strong sales then I'd bet they have a reason which makes sense for them. Here's a few grasping at straws ideas on why they may not refresh the 7D:
  • Maybe it was cannibalizing higher end bodies for the price point so they don't plan on replacing it? Maybe that's why the 90D got a bit of a specs boost from the 80D?
  • Maybe they'll release a new camera in that niche on EF-M mount? I.e. the m5II?
  • Maybe they'll release an RF mount body with a new and improved autofocus system to fill that niche instead of the 7D? Mirrorless bodies could hold a lot of promise for a 7D - style camera with really great autofocus tracking, and incredibly fast burst rates - the m6II is a good example of what kind of performance is possible in a crop mirrorless body.
  • Maybe the 7D series benefit - a relatively cheap and ruggedized body with great autofocus and burst rates - will not stand out with some of the technical advancement of late? Crazy fast burst rates are moving into lower tier camera bodies (i.e. M6II), incredible autofocus capabilities seem to be more software based than hardware (on mirrorless anyway - though even lower-end mirrorless bodies are getting very advanced autofocus capabilities), and the only thing missing seems to be the ruggedized body. Maybe that's not enough niche for Canon to justify? Rumour has it Nikon went the same route and will not update the D500 (the 7DII's most direct competitor), so maybe the niche for rugged/price-conscious/high-burst rate/great autofocus just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint any longer.
Really, it's anyone's guess. The only fact we have to work from here is that a 7D III is late from a release cycle point of view, and whether it is coming at all remains to be seen. Probably not an answer which will make anyone happy, but the fact is no-one (myself included) knows why the 7D III isn't here yet or what direction Canon is headed with the 7D series.
In the case of the Nikon D500 it is more than just a rumor. A high level Nikon executive confirmed in an official interview that there will be no D500 DSLR replacement in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: amorse

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,304
Or it means they lied through their teeth about the 80D and are now telling a story closer to the truth about the 90D. I don’t read DPReviews ridiculousness and haven’t since they out right lied about the 5DSr in their review of that camera, the reviewer even came here to try to justify his lies and failed miserably.

Just look at trustworthy sites like Photonstophotos, who are completely open about their methodology, and show me where there is any kind of measurable difference. I’m not saying the 90D isn’t a great camera, I am saying for 80D owners looking to get a measurable increase in IQ they will be disappointed. They will get tons of other improvements, just not IQ.
Photonstophotos just measures DR and sensor noise. It doesn’t measure IQ. So, as great a site as it is, its measurements showing the 80 and 90 have the same DR don’t tell you which one has the better IQ because DR is only one factor as you surely know. How do you know that there is not a measurable increase in IQ? There is a 15% increase in linear resolution without increase in noise, and 15% is measurable.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,963
1,176
119
Photonstophotos just measures DR and sensor noise. It doesn’t measure IQ. So, as great a site as it is, its measurements showing the 80 and 90 have the same DR don’t tell you which one has the better IQ because DR is only one factor as you surely know. How do you know that there is not a measurable increase in IQ? There is a 15% increase in linear resolution without increase in noise, and 15% is measurable.
Because for the last few years DR and IQ have been entirely synonymous across the photography world.

But let me turn that around, if the only measurable increase in IQ is the bump in resolution, how does that enable DPReview to give it the glowing review? Both the DR and the high iso performance are effectively the same as the 80D. By that measure then 5DS/r should have jumped to the top of the field when it came out, but they panned it.

No, it’s just DPR being DPR...
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,304
Because for the last few years DR and IQ have been entirely synonymous across the photography world.

But let me turn that around, if the only measurable increase in IQ is the bump in resolution, how does that enable DPReview to give it the glowing review? Both the DR and the high iso performance are effectively the same as the 80D. By that measure then 5DS/r should have jumped to the top of the field when it came out, but they panned it.

No, it’s just DPR being DPR...
DR and IQ have certainly not been entirely synonymous across the photographic world, unless you live on a different planet.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,963
1,176
119
DR and IQ have certainly not been entirely synonymous across the photographic world, unless you live on a different planet.
Not to people with brains, but then they aren‘t the same people who endlessly fret about DPReview comments. Try reading anything written there in the last four years that hasn’t conflated DR/high iso performance and image quality.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
545
412
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Photonstophotos just measures DR and sensor noise. It doesn’t measure IQ. So, as great a site as it is, its measurements showing the 80 and 90 have the same DR don’t tell you which one has the better IQ because DR is only one factor as you surely know. How do you know that there is not a measurable increase in IQ? There is a 15% increase in linear resolution without increase in noise, and 15% is measurable.
I prefer Photonstophotos to DxOMark, but all of them are flawed. Photonstophotos shows 1 stop decrease in DR on the very same sensors in the crop mode (4ex Nikon and Sony FF sensors in crop mode). That's because in their measurements they do some sort of normalisation as if everything is printed with the same print size. But the DR shouldn't change just because of cropping.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
545
412
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Not to people with brains, but then they aren‘t the same people who endlessly fret about DPReview comments. Try reading anything written there in the last four years that hasn’t conflated DR/high iso performance and image quality.
DR, resolution, number of bits per pixel, high ISO noise all contribute to the final image quality, but they're not image quality.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,408
786
But the DR shouldn't change just because of cropping.
Why not? If one cycle of the spatial frequency at which you sample the signal starts to be represented by a smaller number of pixels, the pixels themselves being of the same quality, why wouldn't the DR decrease?
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,304
I prefer Photonstophotos to DxOMark, but all of them are flawed. Photonstophotos shows 1 stop decrease in DR on the very same sensors in the crop mode (4ex Nikon and Sony FF sensors in crop mode). That's because in their measurements they do some sort of normalisation as if everything is printed with the same print size. But the DR shouldn't change just because of cropping.
What photonstophotos do is to compute the DR for a 8"x10" (I recall) print viewed at approximately arm's length. This means that a Canon APS-C output is enlarged 1.6x1.6 times, increasing the effects of noise and lowering DR. That would be a true comparison if you used the same lens on a crop as for a FF but stood back 1.6x further so both the FF and crop filled the frame identically. But, as you point out that is nonsense if what you are doing is using the same lens but standing at the same distance away and comparing a crop from the FF with the same view as from the APS-C.

Edit - Kit.'s reply just appeared while mine was being posted. He is of course correct about the former case and you the second.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,809
3,304
Not to people with brains, but then they aren‘t the same people who endlessly fret about DPReview comments. Try reading anything written there in the last four years that hasn’t conflated DR/high iso performance and image quality.
To get to the real point of contention, you claimed that purchasers of the 90D would be disappointed because they would not see a measurable increase in IQ over the 80D. There is a 15% increase in resolution, and every serious review in addition to the dpr one has said the increase is "palpable".
If you don't believe me, trawl through
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-90d-review-34051
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-eos-90d-review/
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review#section-lab-tests
https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/canon-eos-90d
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/canon-eos-90d-hands-on-first-look
https://www.pcmag.com/review/370416/canon-eos-90d
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_eos_90d_review/news
And digitalcameraworld has even measured the resolution: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review#section-lab-tests
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
545
412
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Why not? If one cycle of the spatial frequency at which you sample the signal starts to be represented by a smaller number of pixels, the pixels themselves being of the same quality, why wouldn't the DR decrease?
Why would it though? DR by definition is not a function of number of pixels. The way they measure DR becomes such a function, but by definition the DR is simply a difference between the darkest and brightest parts of the scene the sensor is able to capture.
 
Sep 15, 2017
4
0
Knoxville, USA
In addition to the features already mentioned for the 5D Mark V the addition of focus bracketing would be very useful for in field macro photography. If it has this feature and some increase in resolution among other improvements I would upgrade from my 5D mark IV.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
384
343
118
Williamsport, PA
EOS is a system with an awkward incompatibility split down the middle. Canons new lenses don’t work with their flagship bodies. I don’t think your analogy is valid.
Awkward incompatibility? Let us see:
Every EF/EFs lens ever made works 100% perfectly with all new RF mount bodies and M mount bodies.
Of course new mirrorless lenses will not work on EF bodies. Neither does Nikon or Sony equivalents.
Try fitting a new Nikon S mount lens on the antiquated F mount body or the Sony mirrorless lenses on their old Alpha models.
Try to get most Nikon F mount lenses to even work on the Z cameras, yes they mount but do not function as designed to function.
Canon has done a superb job maintaining compatibility and with the RF mount all the old R, FL and FD lenses now come to life again and I believe even the old Leica screw mount lenses as well.
Pretty impressive.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
545
412
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
What photonstophotos do is to compute the DR for a 8"x10" (I recall) print viewed at approximately arm's length. This means that a Canon APS-C output is enlarged 1.6x1.6 times, increasing the effects of noise and lowering DR. That would be a true comparison if you used the same lens on a crop as for a FF but stood back 1.6x further so both the FF and crop filled the frame identically. But, as you point out that is nonsense if what you are doing is using the same lens but standing at the same distance away and comparing a crop from the FF with the same view as from the APS-C.

Edit - Kit.'s reply just appeared while mine was being posted. He is of course correct about the former case and you the second.
I think the problem is they have to do sampling from some area in order to measure noise from the given image. The sensor size/resolution affects the noise measurements which in turn affect the resulting DR. I wonder if anyone is doing tests on a scene with fixed light levels, similar to this http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/dslr/cal/index.html - the points where the tones become indistinguishable would indicate the actual dynamic range. I'm not sure what setup they use in practice.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,408
786
Why would it though? DR by definition is not a function of number of pixels.
There is nothing in DR's definition that would say that it's "not a function of number of pixels".

The way they measure DR becomes such a function, but by definition the DR is simply a difference between the darkest and brightest parts of the scene the sensor is able to capture.
Of the scene, but not of the image. The pixel noise being equal, the more pixels cover the signal, the lower levels of the signal can be extracted. Basically, a consequence of the Shannon-Hartley theorem.
 

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
369
288
Hamburg, Germany
The way they measure DR becomes such a function, but by definition the DR is simply a difference between the darkest and brightest parts of the scene the sensor is able to capture.
The dynamic range measured by Photons to Photos takes into account how apparent noise is (signal to noise ratio) for what you call the darkest parts. As noise becomes more apparent with higher magnification (cropping), a larger sensor area corresponds to a higher dynamic range if everything else is the same.