Wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5 appears for certification

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
yeah charts that say nikons and sony to have 10 stops dynamic range... plenty of independent tests show results on 14-15 stops, That website makes no sense

Not to mention that scores THE SAME CAMERA 2 stops worse when in crop, when in fact images cropped have the exact same DR, they are just cropped, highlights/shadows dont clip faster by goingcrop
15 stops of DR in a 14bit file? Some kind of magic ...
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
852
637
15 stops of DR in a 14bit file? Some kind of magic ...
Rather reminds me of the old jokes about compressing a 1 MB file over and over again til you get it down to one byte. I guess that works if there are only 256 possible 1MB files.
 

koenkooi

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 25, 2015
1,011
790
15 stops of DR in a 14bit file? Some kind of magic ...
You can have an arbitrary number of stops in even a 1-bit file. Just define zero as 1 lux and one as 1048576 lux, and BAM 20 stops! Just have a look at what C-LOG does in the Cine range, the C300III does 16 stops in a 12-bit file. As the 'LOG' name implies, the relation between input and storage doesn't have to be linear.
 

Stig Nygaard

7DII & G5XII
Jul 10, 2013
43
59
Copenhagen
www.flickr.com
As far as i understand, not 'with 8k DCI', but 'if 8K DCI'.
We don't know for sure if it's DCI.
At the Cine online event a month ago, Canon said the camera does 8K DCI video recording and uses the full width of sensor to do that.

EDIT: They did apparently not exactly say it in the broadcast, but it is stated in the associated press release:
or directly from the source (notice asteriks note in bottom of press release):
 
Last edited:

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
You can have an arbitrary number of stops in even a 1-bit file. Just define zero as 1 lux and one as 1048576 lux, and BAM 20 stops! Just have a look at what C-LOG does in the Cine range, the C300III does 16 stops in a 12-bit file. As the 'LOG' name implies, the relation between input and storage doesn't have to be linear.
I know all that. Are we shootings stills in c-log now? :)) trickery aside, the claim was that Sony a7r4 sensor outputs DR is 14-15 stops. So..
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
I can show you a 8bit jpg with 16 stops of DR. What does one thing have to do with the other?
Out of camera? :)

A Reasonable expectation is 7-10 stops of DR in a 8 bit JPEG if acceptable quality. Key word: acceptable.


Anyway... a7R3 sensor DR at ISO 100 is about 0.7 stop wider than the same in 5d4.
 

x4dow

EOS M50
May 16, 2020
31
33
Out of camera? :)

A Reasonable expectation is 7-10 stops of DR in a 8 bit JPEG if acceptable quality. Key word: acceptable.

[/URL]

Anyway... a7R3 sensor DR at ISO 100 is about 0.7 stop wider than the same in 5d4.
Yes
Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras.

Colour but rate has nothing to do with dynamic range. One is the number of gradient of the same colours, the other is the number of stops of light between darkest and lightest before clipping. Completely unrelated.
Always laugh when clueless youtubers say a 10bit video camera is more likely to give more DR because its 10bit.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
Yes
Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras.

Colour but rate has nothing to do with dynamic range. One is the number of gradient of the same colours, the other is the number of stops of light between darkest and lightest before clipping. Completely unrelated.
Always laugh when clueless youtubers say a 10bit video camera is more likely to give more DR because its 10bit.
Not even remotely interested in the discussion at this level. As I said. “ trickery aside”... Bottom line is: Sony a7r3 sensor DR advantage over 5d4 is around 0.7 stop and at iso 100. Not much at all. And at iso 200 there is hardly any advantage left at all.
Nice and simple.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,387
657
Yes
Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras
hdr mode is basically in camera shadow pushing, along with software to hold the highlights. Some of us are more wound up about how far shadows can be pushed at base iso than others. People who talk a lot about how far you can push shadows at base ISO like to use magic numbers that they call DR. It gets pretty silly sometimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM

yeahright

EOS T7i
Aug 28, 2014
82
49
I can show you a 8bit jpg with 16 stops of DR. What does one thing have to do with the other?
DR in photography is defined as the ratio between lightest areas and NOISE LEVEL, not between lightest areas and darkest areas (see here, for example). Otherwise the DR wouldn't decrease as you increase ISO. In a sensibly designed camera with an appropriate file format, the DR you find in a RAW file is mainly determined by analog noise sources such as sensor read noise, etc. The bit depth of the file will be at least as high as the DR of a single pixel, everything else would be throwing away valuable information from the sensor. In real-world cameras this is the case, which is why you see noise in RAW files even at base ISO. If you choose to limit the bit depth of the file to smaller values than would be warranted by analog noise, you make quantization noise dominant instead. But by doing that, you are increasing the noise level, and therefore reducing the dynamic range in your image. A 1-bit file with value 1 defined 2^20 times as bright as value 0 therefore does NOT have a DR of 20 stops.
 

David_E

Macrophotography
Sep 12, 2019
119
148
www.flickr.com
  • Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
  • Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
  • Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
  • Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
Good list of hypotheticals, but they don’t really have much relevance in the real world. You could have added that the EF-to-RF adapter is made of aluminum, which is flammable at about 2600C—a potential fire hazard.
Obviously adapters exist, no I don't believe in them nor do I use them...
So, in fact, you don’t know anything at all about the EF-to-RF adapter, but only have the hypotheticals that you made up. They are no different from extension tubes, bellows, or tele-extenders*, none of which has a reputation for ruining lenses, cameras, or photographs.

*except that, unlike tele-extenders, the lens adapters are empty tubes with no glass elements.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
204
310
Good list of hypotheticals, but they don’t really have much relevance in the real world. You could have added that the EF-to-RF adapter is made of aluminum, which is flammable at about 2600C—a potential fire hazard.

So, in fact, you don’t know anything at all about the EF-to-RF adapter, but only have the hypotheticals that you made up. They are no different from extension tubes, bellows, or tele-extenders*, none of which has a reputation for ruining lenses, cameras, or photographs.

*except that, unlike tele-extenders, the lens adapters are empty tubes with no glass elements.
I'm not sure why you are so fixated on my decision to not use adapters and stick with native lenses for my work but whatever keeps you entertained so be it. But saying that an adapter could be lost, forgotten, or misplaced during a shoot preventing you from using the lens it was meant to adapt is about as far from hypothetical as it gets; just like every other reason why I don't use adapters.

I'm typically running at least two video cameras during a shoot, lighting, audio, gimbals, a photography camera, shooting b-roll, doing interviews, etc etc. I'm simply not going to add anything to my gear that will increase its complexity unnecessarily if there is a better/simpler way to do it. Get over yourself and get a life...who knows maybe even get outdoors and shoot once in awhile, adapters are not a part of my workflow and never will be.

I also only use tool less parts (nato rails, thumbscrews, quick release etc) for all of my gear, I don't add anything that uses batteries unless absolutely necessary (i.e external monitors, lights, audio recorders, etc), I don't buy anything that uses custom cables, I don't buy anything that uses non standard inputs or outputs, all for the same reason; simplicity, interoperability, and speed in setup/takedown. I guess that to you makes no sense either. Everyone has set up their gear and made their purchasing decisions based on what works best for their workflow. It's time to take the blinders off and realize that other people have workflows or shooting conditions that you may not have considered.

If I was shooting with a single body, had plenty of setup and tear down time, and was doing this for a hobby then sure I'd get an adapter and be perfectly fine with it. But with my workflow where I need to be able to switch lenses between bodies very quickly, set up and tear down multiple configurations throughout a day, etc. there's no way I am adding a solution that requires an adapter to my workflow.
 
Last edited:

Kit.

EOR R
Apr 25, 2011
1,821
1,134
yeah charts that say nikons and sony to have 10 stops dynamic range... plenty of independent tests show results on 14-15 stops, That website makes no sense
Still, how about your pictures to illustrate your point? Do they make sense? Do they exist at all?

Not to mention that scores THE SAME CAMERA 2 stops worse when in crop, when in fact images cropped have the exact same DR, they are just cropped, highlights/shadows dont clip faster by goingcrop
Shadows don't "clip".
 

tron

EOS 5D SR
Nov 8, 2011
4,483
730
The one for the 1Dx Mark III does not include Ethernet, since it is built in to the camera. It may offer extended range since it is extenal antenna, but, unlike the 1DX, the R5 should have the faster wifi (5gHz) built in, so it should already be fast.

As Pixel said, I think this is more for the extended professional functions such as FTP, better remote control, etc.
Hmmm 5DIV has FTP software as standard functionality.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I would like to know what new sensor tech they are using. Is it a stacked sensor? What about dynamic range? Canon has indicated it is an all new sensor. It will be interesting to see - I expect the announcement this week.

Hopefully some youtubers will have had a chance to test it and provide first impressions - I'd hate to rely only on marketing spin from Canon.
You won't know about DR until the camera is out in the wild and can be tested by independent labs. I don't recall Canon ever announcing specific numbers regarding DR for any of their cameras.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I assume you missed my reasons why I do not use adapters, from your perspective "The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside" ; making such a statement does not make it true it simply means that you refused to consider viewpoints that are not your own. So, I will repeat my list of why I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time:

  • Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
  • Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
  • Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
  • Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
  • I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
Obviously adapters exist, no I don't believe in them nor do I use them and no a discussion on CR will not change my mind. If EF was already perfect Canon would not have created a new lens mount so if you want to get the best experience from an RF mount camera you will need to get RF mount lenses...it's that simple. Can you get a great experience using an adapter, I'm sure you could, can you save a lot of money sticking with EF lenses and adaptors for your RF mount camera, I'm sure you could, will anyone notice the quality difference between an EF mount lens on an RF mount body, probably not. Does any of that mean I will get an adaptor and use EF lenses on an RF body if I buy one...no I will not for the reasons that I previously stated.
Re: using adapters, would you say that:

I COULD NOT, WOULD NOT, ON A BOAT.
I WILL NOT, WILL NOT, WITH A GOAT.
I WILL NOT USE THEM IN THE RAIN.
NOT IN THE DARK! NOT IN A TREE!
NOT IN A CAR! YOU LET ME BE!
I DO NOT LIKE THEM IN A BOX.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM WITH A FOX.
I WILL NOT USE THEM IN A HOUSE.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM WITH A MOUSE.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM HERE OR THERE.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM ANYWHERE!
I DO NOT LIKE ADAPTER SHAMS!
I DO NOT LIKE THEM, SAM-I-AM.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
I assume you missed my reasons why I do not use adapters, from your perspective "The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside" ; making such a statement does not make it true it simply means that you refused to consider viewpoints that are not your own. So, I will repeat my list of why I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time:

  • Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
  • Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
  • Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
  • Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
  • I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
Obviously adapters exist, no I don't believe in them nor do I use them and no a discussion on CR will not change my mind. If EF was already perfect Canon would not have created a new lens mount so if you want to get the best experience from an RF mount camera you will need to get RF mount lenses...it's that simple. Can you get a great experience using an adapter, I'm sure you could, can you save a lot of money sticking with EF lenses and adaptors for your RF mount camera, I'm sure you could, will anyone notice the quality difference between an EF mount lens on an RF mount body, probably not. Does any of that mean I will get an adaptor and use EF lenses on an RF body if I buy one...no I will not for the reasons that I previously stated.
Seriously, your first three points, though fairly miniscule, are legitimate gripes.

Your fourth point proves that you know absolutely nothing about what you are saying.


Try it, you'll like it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: SteveC

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
2,511
1,438
EF-to-RF adapters are clearly a disadvantage if you are using both EF and RF lenses. Either you buy each EF lens its own adapter, then it's not so much of an issue except for cost. Or you keep switching lenses and adapters when you go from an EF lens to an RF lens. In situations where quick lens swaps are desired, I would consider it a PITA to switch from EF lens A to RF lens B to EF lens C. If the adapter stays on EF lens A after use, during the switch from RF lens B to EF lens C you'd have to 1) remove adapter from EF lens A, 2) remove EF back lens cap from EF lens C, 3) attach EF back lens cap to EF lens A, 4) attach adapter to EF lens C, 5) remove RF lens B from body, 6) remove adapter RF back lens cap, 7) attach RF back lens cap to RF lens B, 8) attach EF lens C with adapter to body. Without adapters (i.e. with only RF lenses) you'd only have to 1) remove RF lens B from body, 2) remove back lens cap from RF lens C, 3) attach back lens cap to RF lens B, 4) attach RF lens C to body. That's 4 steps instead of 8.
I guess that all depends on how you shoot. It's extremely rare for me to change lenses during a shoot. If I need more than one lens I take more than one body.