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

Joules

EOS RP
Jul 16, 2017
371
294
Hamburg, Germany
Awkward incompatibility?
RF and EF-M lenses are incompatible though. People have a point when they say that it is not a perfect solution. But neither is using an APS-C mount for a FF sensor (Sony E) nor is using a FF mount (Nikon Z) for APS-C sensors. So awkward is maybe the wrong word. Canon delivers the best of both worlds - in two separate systems.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,193
713
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.
I agree with this and add a lighter body and dual slots of the same configuration.
 

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
546
413
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
There is nothing in DR's definition that would say that it's "not a function of number of pixels".
But there's nothing in DR's definition that says it is. :)
Extrapolating this method on a 30mp sensor and cropping it to two pixels, you'll find two pixels have a DR 15 million times less than the whole sensor. But two pixels should have the same DR.

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.
But by cropping you also reduce the amount of information. What you said is applicable to the case where we increase the number of pixel per area unit and measure the same image projected to the same area, just with more pixels.

You may say let's compare FF and crop sensors using different lenses, so that the projected image will cover all sensor area of the both FF and crop sensors. But that'd mean DR depends on the focal length of the mounted lens.
 

yeahright

EOS M50
Aug 28, 2014
45
16
@Quarkcharmed That's simply the difference between per-pixel-DR and per-image-DR. The source of so many discussions is that the term 'DR' is in fact ambiguous and different people are talking about different things. When cropping, the per-pixel-DR remains the same, but the per-image-DR decreases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quarkcharmed

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,966
1,177
119
ephotozine: "There's a clear increase in detail captured when compared to the Canon EOS 80D, however, despite the additional pixels on the sensor, and therefore smaller pixels, the noise performance of both cameras is quite similar," Is the only key 'image quality' comment I can find.
Cameralabs: "The image quality, as you’ve seen, certainly has the potential to beat 24 Megapixel rivals, but not by a huge margin and crucially only when fitted with a quality lens."
digital camera world: "Canon’s new sensor does not provide the definitive step up in resolution that the figures left us hoping for. Worse, the increased pixel density does appear to have had an effect on the EOS 90D high ISO performance."

And on....

The only sensor improvement any of these reviews seem to list is resolution, not DR (it's the same), not high iso performance (its the same), bit depth (the same), color reproduction (its the same).

I stand by my comments, if people are looking for an image quality improvement over their 80D they will be disappointed, with a slight caveat, unless resolution is the be all and end all of your measurement of IQ. Now for a few people, like yourself, who is often focal length limited, that is a good reason to get one, for anybody that never found 24MP limiting (I'd venture that is vastly more common) then getting a 90D will ONLY add more MP to your 'image quality'.

I do not equate resolution to image quality in and of itself, assuming you have enough for your uses, and the numbers we are talking about don't show an improvement in color reproduction due to more sampling, tonality or any other metric most photographers would include when talking about 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
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoicalEtcher

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
386
344
118
Williamsport, PA
RF and EF-M lenses are incompatible though. People have a point when they say that it is not a perfect solution. But neither is using an APS-C mount for a FF sensor (Sony E) nor is using a FF mount (Nikon Z) for APS-C sensors. So awkward is maybe the wrong word. Canon delivers the best of both worlds - in two separate systems.
Canon seems to see the M series as a niche market. In a way like the Nikon J series it seems but far superior to it in that at least Canon M seamlessly uses all EF and EFs lenses.
We cannot predict what will happen in the volatile period we are in for "Real" cameras so who knows what will win. My daughter is now wanting to quit digital and go to film and there appears to be a niche trend going that way now.
So all is up in the air.
 
Sep 2, 2019
2
2
I would replace my R with mk ii if it has 2 uhs-II card slots larger meg pixels and a fully water tight body. I was hoping that this would be the EOS R pro and be available before the Olympics i 2020.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shunsai

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
465
270
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.
Analogy is not a logical form of argument. It's what you use when you want to distract from the fact that you don't have a logical argument.:)

Unless we are talking about Legos, I don't know anbody who purchases vehicle with the idea of them having interchangeable parts. EOS is a system that promotes interchangeability. It's the main reason many photographers choose Canon.
 
Last edited:

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
546
413
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
@Quarkcharmed That's simply the difference between per-pixel-DR and per-image-DR. The source of so many discussions is that the term 'DR' is in fact ambiguous and different people are talking about different things. When cropping, the per-pixel-DR remains the same, but the per-image-DR decreases.
Good explanation, however looks like this per-image DR doesn't make much sense. Simply put, cropping doesn't blow highlights out and un-cropping doesn't recover highlights. Photonstophotos data is only usable to compare sensors of the same size, relative comparison probably works, but absolute DR values (e.g. 12 or 13 stops) are meaningless.
 

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
465
270
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.
Explain to me again how I mount Canon's RF lenses on my EF bodies? I must have missed that part.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: lglass12189

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,966
1,177
119
Good explanation, however looks like this per-image DR doesn't make much sense. Simply put, cropping doesn't blow highlights out and un-cropping doesn't recover highlights. Photonstophotos data is only usable to compare sensors of the same size, relative comparison probably works, but absolute DR values (e.g. 12 or 13 stops) are meaningless.
But we dont look at pixels at an individual level we look at the images a collection of pixels make.

Both measures have a value but if you want to know what you will end up seeing then the noise per image makes a lot more sense, similarly, if you are going to compare different sensor sizes some kind of normalization also makes sense. To me it seems obvious that a same sized output is a realistic constant, that means a crop sensor is enlarged a lot more than a 'ff' one, which might seem 'unfair', but if I look at an image on my screen at full screen size I wouldn't want a smaller sensor to have a black border all around it I'd want to see it full screen.

So another way of looking at it. Take two images from the same place with ff and crop sensors and apply settings to achieve the same fov and dof. Use the same zoom lens for both images and it has a piece of dust on it (our 'noise'). The dust is obviously a constant size, but when we look at the two images full screen the dust spot in the crop image appears bigger so impacts the crop camera image more. The dust is the same size in real life (image noise at the per pixel level) but is more apparent in the image from the smaller sensor (normalized image output noise level).
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,812
3,314
ephotozine: "There's a clear increase in detail captured when compared to the Canon EOS 80D, however, despite the additional pixels on the sensor, and therefore smaller pixels, the noise performance of both cameras is quite similar," Is the only key 'image quality' comment I can find.
Cameralabs: "The image quality, as you’ve seen, certainly has the potential to beat 24 Megapixel rivals, but not by a huge margin and crucially only when fitted with a quality lens."
digital camera world: "Canon’s new sensor does not provide the definitive step up in resolution that the figures left us hoping for. Worse, the increased pixel density does appear to have had an effect on the EOS 90D high ISO performance."

And on....

The only sensor improvement any of these reviews seem to list is resolution, not DR (it's the same), not high iso performance (its the same), bit depth (the same), color reproduction (its the same).

I stand by my comments, if people are looking for an image quality improvement over their 80D they will be disappointed, with a slight caveat, unless resolution is the be all and end all of your measurement of IQ. Now for a few people, like yourself, who is often focal length limited, that is a good reason to get one, for anybody that never found 24MP limiting (I'd venture that is vastly more common) then getting a 90D will ONLY add more MP to your 'image quality'.

I do not equate resolution to image quality in and of itself, assuming you have enough for your uses, and the numbers we are talking about don't show an improvement in color reproduction due to more sampling, tonality or any other metric most photographers would include when talking about image quality.
I have made it absolutely clear through all I have written that there is a 15% increase in resolution over the 80D, and resolution of detail is a component of IQ. This was in response to your categoric statement that owners of the 90D will be disappointed that there is no improvement in IQ. You changed your tack from: there is no difference in IQ; to DR and IQ are synonymous and the 80D and 90D have the same DR; to the latest that resolution of detail is not part of IQ for those who don't want it. Just because 24 Mpx is not limiting for you does not mean that resolution of detail is not a part of IQ.

Here are some points you were unable to find
From actual measurements
“A lot of talk is centred on the new sensor, which resolves a level of detail exceeding anything we’ve recorded from an APS-C camera in the past.
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/canon-eos-90d-hands-on-first-look/7

We were expecting the 90D to produce some excellent results, thanks to its new sensor, and the camera certainly delivered. There were plenty of details in the results, in both highlights and shadows.
https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/canon-eos-90d/3

The resolution increase is palpable. Wildlife photographers will have a bit more room to crop distant subjects, just to cite one use case.
https://www.pcmag.com/review/370416/canon-eos-90d
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,414
791
But there's nothing in DR's definition that says it is. :)
Extrapolating this method on a 30mp sensor and cropping it to two pixels, you'll find two pixels have a DR 15 million times less than the whole sensor. But two pixels should have the same DR.
No, they shouldn't. You are losing all the higher-frequency components of the signal (the Nyquist-Shannon theorem). Also, from the whole sensor exposed to the same "2-pixel" scene, you can recover lower signal levels for your "2-pixel" frequency (so, basically, a constant to half cycle signal) if the noise is the photon shot noise (or another kind of additive white noise).

But by cropping you also reduce the amount of information.
That's the whole point. The DR is a measure of the amount of information you can get about the original scene.

What you said is applicable to the case where we increase the number of pixel per area unit and measure the same image projected to the same area, just with more pixels.
We measure DR on a kind of image we consider as a "signal". We are typically interested in the information that has lower spatial frequencies than the Nyquist limit - otherwise we would be using the wrong instrument to the task.

You may say let's compare FF and crop sensors using different lenses, so that the projected image will cover all sensor area of the both FF and crop sensors. But that'd mean DR depends on the focal length of the mounted lens.
No, it's the other way around: the parameters of the lens we use to measure the sensor's DR are chosen to be up to the task.

The "DR" of the "sensor+lens" combination is kinda another topic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Proscribo

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,966
1,177
119
Alan you have more time and inclination than me on this.

I stand by my initial comment, people coming from an 80D to a 90D looking for improved ‘image quality” will be disappointed, that actually stemmed from a comment about how ridiculous DPReviews about change was, the 80D was bad and the same performance from the 90D in all but resolution is fantastic, yet when the 5D MkIII and 5DS/r did exactly the same thing the 5DS/r was absolutely panned! The only thing I have added to my initial comment is ‘unless resolution is their only measure of IQ’, nothing you have linked to has said any different, there is essentially no change in any other metric associated with image quality.


I have made it absolutely clear through all I have written that there is a 15% increase in resolution over the 80D, and resolution of detail is a component of IQ. This was in response to your categoric statement that owners of the 90D will be disappointed that there is no improvement in IQ. You changed your tack from: there is no difference in IQ; to DR and IQ are synonymous and the 80D and 90D have the same DR; to the latest that resolution of detail is not part of IQ for those who don't want it. Just because 24 Mpx is not limiting for you does not mean that resolution of detail is not a part of IQ.

Here are some points you were unable to find
From actual measurements
“A lot of talk is centred on the new sensor, which resolves a level of detail exceeding anything we’ve recorded from an APS-C camera in the past.
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/canon-eos-90d-hands-on-first-look/7

We were expecting the 90D to produce some excellent results, thanks to its new sensor, and the camera certainly delivered. There were plenty of details in the results, in both highlights and shadows.
https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/canon-eos-90d/3

The resolution increase is palpable. Wildlife photographers will have a bit more room to crop distant subjects, just to cite one use case.
https://www.pcmag.com/review/370416/canon-eos-90d
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
386
344
118
Williamsport, PA
Explain to me again how I mount Canon's RF lenses on my EF bodies? I must have missed that part.
Where di I say that.
Intelligent people all know that is not possible to mount RF lenses on EF bodies just like Nikon and Sony failed miserably to do that as well with their ancient bodies with mirrors and the new S and e mount lenses.
Guess you missed that.
At least as I so eloquently pointed out is Canon is unique in that ALL EF and EFs lenses work 100% perfectly on the RF cameras as well as the M series cameras. Unlike the loser Sony old lenses for mirror cameras and Nikon as well there are a very limited that fully function on their new mirrorless mounts. Guess canon destroys the competition there. PS if you want to be a pro get the EF system and grow with 100% compatibility to the RF system. Or just go straight to the RF system and use ALL the old lenses and new ones that yes are different because you CANNOT do those designs on a mirror body but you seem to have slept through that class as well.
 

Graphic.Artifacts

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 1, 2017
465
270
Where di I say that.
Intelligent people all know that is not possible to mount RF lenses on EF bodies just like Nikon and Sony failed miserably to do that as well with their ancient bodies with mirrors and the new S and e mount lenses.
Guess you missed that.
At least as I so eloquently pointed out is Canon is unique in that ALL EF and EFs lenses work 100% perfectly on the RF cameras as well as the M series cameras. Unlike the loser Sony old lenses for mirror cameras and Nikon as well there are a very limited that fully function on their new mirrorless mounts. Guess canon destroys the competition there. PS if you want to be a pro get the EF system and grow with 100% compatibility to the RF system. Or just go straight to the RF system and use ALL the old lenses and new ones that yes are different because you CANNOT do those designs on a mirror body but you seem to have slept through that class as well.
Just more of the same nonsense. Canon's new flagship professional lens trinity doesn't mount on any of Canon's existing flagship professional bodies nor will they mount on the expected Flagship 1DX Mark III or 5D Mark IV. Those lenses with IS are something pro photgraphers have been requesting for years and they can't use them unless they commit to an R which is a significant downgrade from the pro bodies. You can talk around that fact all you like but that won't change anything. I'm not spilling any secrets here. Anybody with any sense figure all this out for themselves a long time ago.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
3,193
713
Nothing wrong with having the glass come before the body, unless you're really impatient. The bodies they do have are no slouches btw. Be happy the lenses are there, better than nothing...boy, some people are so damn hard to please.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joules and amorse

BeenThere

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 4, 2012
858
187
Nothing wrong with having the glass come before the body, unless you're really impatient. The bodies they do have are no slouches btw. Be happy the lenses are there, better than nothing...boy, some people are so damn hard to please.
Yep, competitive posting has become de rigueur.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: slclick

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,120
548
It'll ship in limited quantities by July 2020 for the Tokyo Olympics at an even higher MSRP than the debut price of the Mark IV.
I really doubt Canon sees the 5D Mark V as an "Olympics" camera. They'll still be in full 1D X Mark III promotion mode.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM