A few Canon EOS R5 Mark II specifications [CR2]

[AlanF]

That's true, Alan, but it depends on the tele lens attached, that is, the angle of view finally. So if you attach a bit shorter lens to your crop camera, you may have the same field of view than with a longer lens on FF. I shoot both crop and FF, and if I decide to go for crop, it's for me a trade-off. I accept more out-of-frame shots but hope for a good one with higher resolution in that series. That's why faster fps on a crop camera is important.

You weren't discussing a shorter lens on crop in your comment to @Michael Clark that he was speaking nonsense, you were talking about tighter framing with crop, implying the same lens. In any case, put the shorter lens on the FF and you still have a wider fov than the shorter lens on crop! Also, if you are using a shorter lens on crop to give the same fov as FF, you need only the same fps as for FF, not more.

 

[digigal]

What a beautiful wild cat and capture - but you can see the artifacts of enlargement (?) if you look close?

I agree with you by the way: there are circumstances where higher resolution is better. I shoot fashion and sometimes big crops are done to extract a detail. These circumstances may be niche or completely irrelevant for others, but are important for some.

I am sure someone will chime in soon to tell us that 24mp is all we need, because, reasons

Great picture of the bob cat. As a wildlife photographer, I'm almost always faced wanting more reach or needing to crop more than I would like. I just watched a YouTube by James Quantz, a professional photographer's who's main camera is an R5 (45 MP) but also uses a Sony A93 (25 MP), Sony A7R5 (60 MP), and a Fuji GFX2 (102 MP). He does commercial photography of pro and college sports players and teams and some of the pictures are then made into large banners that are hung from arena walls. For those he wants to have high MP files. He video shows the comparison of the same shot taken with the different cameras at the same spot and then using Topaz Software to uprez the lowest resolution file to match the highest (Sony A93 to size of Fuji GFX2) and shows the results. Very interesting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTEtcnSDWyk
I enter some of my pictures in international wildlife competitions and such techniques are not allowed but for commercial applications or "normal" situations this may be a viable solution.
Catherine

 

[digigal]

I'm not a wildlife photographer either, but doesn't common sense say (all other things being equal) more frames per second will get you more chances for keepers.

Or it can just get you a lot more of the same bad picture! I know from experience!!

 

[Michael Clark]

Luck is fundamental of course. We're trying to tip the odds in our favour, and I don't think it's less valid to do that with technology (higher frame rate, better autofocus, higher resolution, whatever) than with technique or external factors like travel, camouflage, etc. Those film photographers still needed luck to get a shot, and fieldcraft and technical skill are still important now. Obviously though, the wow factor of eg getting a bird's wings in a pleasing position is lessened by higher fps as the chance of success is so much greater.

Some have called Neil Leifer's photo of Cassius Clay (he had just changed his name to Muhammed Ali and it had not yet been adopted by most of the press at the time) standing over Sonny Liston the greatest sports photo of the 20th Century. He took it with slow Ektrachrome film using a flash mounted in the rafters that took several minutes to recharge. One shot was all he got. Now go and look at the movie film of the moment. Ali had his arm in the captured position for a very small fraction of a second as he waved it back and forth. As Leifer has often said, "When the great ones are lucky enough to be in the right spot at the right time, they don't miss." He backed it up time after time after time, from the late 1950s into the 1980s shooting for Sports Illustrated and then into the new millennium shooting for Time and other national/international hard news publications.



Ali vs. Liston film. Slow it down to 0.25 speed and at 2:44 you can see Leifer's flash pop precisely at the instant Ali's right hand reaches the apex of its swing across his body near his left shoulder. Ali's hand was in that position for maybe 1/50 to 1/100 of a second. Unless one is using a camera with 50-100 fps, depending upon spraying and praying is just as likely to get one frame just before the decisive moment and the next frame just after the decisive moment. Yes, there are cameras that can now approach 50 fps at full resolution in stills mode. But how many current sports shooters have the time to go through dozens and dozens of frames to find the one with the peak action and push the image over the wires before the guy standing right next to them has already pushed an inferior shot and made all of the money? (Interestingly enough, Leifer's color image didn't get processed until he had returned to SI's offices in NYC and thus it didn't really catch on as the definitive photo of that fight, much less of Ali's career, until years later. AP photographer John Rooney's grainy B&W photo taken from a spot just to Leifer's left, developed in Lewiston. ME at the fight location was the one on the front page of most newspapers in the U.S. the next morning. SI didn't even put Leifer's photo on the cover of that week's issue.)

 

[Michael Clark]

The opposite. You rely on luck if you take just one photo when the eagle lands on its nest after a six-hour wait from your hide. I do not recommend it.

There's a well known saying about luck: "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity."

Those who consistently nailed the shot even back in the single frame film days did so because they had prepared and developed their skill set before they found themselves in the right place at the right time.

 

[AlanF]

Or it can just get you a lot more of the same bad picture! I know from experience!!

I now get far fewer keepers at 20 fps than 5 fps because I dispose of so many good as well as bad, but some of the keepers I would not have got without 20 fps!

 

[EricN]

I now get far fewer keepers at 20 fps than 5 fps because I dispose of so many good as well as bad, but some of the keepers I would not have got without 20 fps!

I thought you would say something along these lines

 

[bergstrom]

R5ii release delay until maybe July, acording to sonyrumours

 

[EOS 4 Life]

implying the same lens

I can see how you inferred that but I didn't.
You can always use a shorter lens on a crop sensor to get the equivalent focal length.
In such, that is not an advantage of using a full-frame camera.

 

[AlanF]

I can see how you inferred that but I didn't.
You can always use a shorter lens on a crop sensor to get the equivalent focal length.
In such, that is not an advantage of using a full-frame camera.

A 1.6x shorter lens will give you the same fov on a 1.6x crop and equivalent focal length to FF. But, he had written:

Sorry, but that's nonsense. Because he wouldn't have seen the bobcat through his optical or electronic viewfinder. It would have been a bit more centered in an image with a tighter frame.

an image with a tighter frame = narrower field of view = not using a 1.6x shorter lens on a crop sensor to get the equivalent focal length.

 

[Quack]

Only if you're depending upon random luck instead of developing a sense of timing that was required back in the days of film when 2.5 fps was blazing speed with a battery powered motor drive.

The usual "old-time technique and ability were king" bullcrap. As someone who has done a fair bit of bird photography over the past few years, and has seen hundreds if not thousands of comments from new bird and wildlife photographers an various outlets, we do not depend on random luck, and it, in fact, takes a good deal of practice and skill to capture the shots we get. Is luck a part, it sure is and it was just as much a factor when you had one shot at getting that moment. Wildlife, especially birds, are often moving faster than the eye can see, so luck is involved and allows us to get shots that were never made by those old-time photographers. The idea that you don't need skill and a practiced sense of timing with today's cameras - regardless of their FPS - is just ignorance talking.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The usual "old-time technique and ability were king" bullcrap.

It's not (exactly) bullcrap. In the old times, technique and ability were king. But it's not the old times anymore.

 

[scyrene]

Some have called Neil Leifer's photo of Cassius Clay (he had just changed his name to Muhammed Ali and it had not yet been adopted by most of the press at the time) standing over Sonny Liston the greatest sports photo of the 20th Century. He took it with slow Ektrachrome film using a flash mounted in the rafters that took several minutes to recharge. One shot was all he got. Now go and look at the movie film of the moment. Ali had his arm in the captured position for a very small fraction of a second as he waved it back and forth. As Leifer has often said, "When the great ones are lucky enough to be in the right spot at the right time, they don't miss." He backed it up time after time after time, from the late 1950s into the 1980s shooting for Sports Illustrated and then into the new millennium shooting for Time and other national/international hard news publications.

View attachment 216852

Ali vs. Liston film. Slow it down to 0.25 speed and at 2:44 you can see Leifer's flash pop precisely at the instant Ali's right hand reaches the apex of its swing across his body near his left shoulder. Ali's hand was in that position for maybe 1/50 to 1/100 of a second. Unless one is using a camera with 50-100 fps, depending upon spraying and praying is just as likely to get one frame just before the decisive moment and the next frame just after the decisive moment. Yes, there are cameras that can now approach 50 fps at full resolution in stills mode. But how many current sports shooters have the time to go through dozens and dozens of frames to find the one with the peak action and push the image over the wires before the guy standing right next to them has already pushed an inferior shot and made all of the money? (Interestingly enough, Leifer's color image didn't get processed until he had returned to SI's offices in NYC and thus it didn't really catch on as the definitive photo of that fight, much less of Ali's career, until years later. AP photographer John Rooney's grainy B&W photo taken from a spot just to Leifer's left, developed in Lewiston. ME at the fight location was the one on the front page of most newspapers in the U.S. the next morning. SI didn't even put Leifer's photo on the cover of that week's issue.)

tl;dr

 

[AlanF]

5 fps with a 5DSR/100-400 (Galapagos, 2019). Would have got more at 20 fps.

 

[SwissFrank]

It doesn't.
Canon needs to reduce the bit depth to read faster but at the same FPS ES and MS have the same bit depth.

I may be mis-remembering from the EOS R but on this forum someone supplied a screenshot of an earlier manual (maybe the specs page??) that stated the ES gave 12-bit and MS gave 14-bit... but that portion had been removed from later manuals. The website had version 5 of the manual, or something, and I didn't have anything older myself.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I may be mis-remembering from the EOS R but on this forum someone supplied a screenshot of an earlier manual (maybe the specs page??) that stated the ES gave 12-bit and MS gave 14-bit... but that portion had been removed from later manuals. The website had version 5 of the manual, or something, and I didn't have anything older myself.

It's stated on the R5 full specs page on Canon EU.

 

[P-visie]

I may be mis-remembering from the EOS R but on this forum someone supplied a screenshot of an earlier manual (maybe the specs page??) that stated the ES gave 12-bit and MS gave 14-bit... but that portion had been removed from later manuals. The website had version 5 of the manual, or something, and I didn't have anything older myself.

RAW: RAW, C-RAW 14 bit (14-bit with Mechanical shutter and Electronic 1st Curtain, 13-bit A/D conversion with H+ mode, 12-bit A/D conversion with Electronic shutter, Canon original RAW 3rd edition).

Source as Neuro has mentioned: https://www.canon-europe.com/cameras/eos-r5/specifications/

 

[definedphotography]

R5ii release delay until maybe July, acording to sonyrumours

Not sure how there can be a release delay when the camera (let alone a release date) has not been announced yet.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Not sure how there can be a release delay when the camera (let alone a release date) has not been announced yet.

Trolls tend to wear dark glasses in their caves. Makes it hard for them to see reality.

 

[john1970]

If you check out this video from Jan Wegener - a renowed wildlife photografer - from 15:30 he gives a number of reasons why he thinks more MPIX are very important if you are a wildlife photographer - including reach and noise.

To clarify, Jan Wegnener is mainly a bird photographer. If one photographs larger mammals (e.g. bears, elephants, etc.) more MP is not as useful IMO.

If you like to photograph small bird, my suggestion would be a Nikon Z9 /Z8 + Nikon 800 mm PF f6.3 lens for 45 MP and long reach. I specifically purchased such a kit for that sole purpose.