A few Canon EOS R5 Mark II specifications [CR2]

Haha, you are basically doing the opposite of me. I use mechanical almost all the time, in some situations EFCS. I don't like the 12-bit files you get by using ES so I never use it. Maybe the R5II will improve on that.
There's really no reason to use full mechanical shutter on the R5. It only makes sense when shooting high speed with very wide apertures.
Otherwise, mechanical shutter means shutter shock and increased chances of blur.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
They didn’t wait that long. They had the R1 sensor several years ago, back when the R1 was so noncompetitive before launch they had to open all the boxes, pry off the R1 badge and replace it with an R3 badge then put them in new boxes. They had so many extra sensors from unsold units they filed them down and used them in the R100 instead.

Really, this stuff is all common knowledge. Try to keep up.
Did they then also switch out the bodies to the smaller R3 body? Common sense says they weren't done with the R1 sensor and decided to move forward with the R3 regardless, knowing it would still rival anything the competition could come up with. And the competition is still two decades behind with their lack of eye-control AF.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Does anyone have an explanation why electronic shutter reduces the bit depth?

The only idea I have is that data is at some point transferred in 4-bit "nybbles" (a half-byte) and they had time to get 12 bits out with 3 transfers but not enough time to do the last two bits with another transfer. Or more generally but for the same kind of reason, when doing electronic shutter they had to do it fast and only had time to transfer width * depth * 12 bits , but with mechanical shutter they could accept reading the data and taking 17-33% longer. But this reasoning is purely from first principles, without knowing any info whatsoever about R5's, their sensors or electronics,
'Electronic shutter' works in all cases, even behind mechanical. But the readout is slow. The 14-bit depth takes 4 times more time than the 12-bit depth. Perhaps Canon didn't want the heavy rolling shutter effect to show in the electronic shutter mode.
 
Upvote 0
This seems like a wish list for a Canon camera that will match/beat the Nikon Z8 (and seems like it would be pretty close to the A1). If any of this is true then it is likely the camera I want as I sold my R5 a month or so ago. The R5 was very good for autofocus and the image quality was great but I never got to a point where I could rely on it as it often errored out while shooting and often at a point where I missed the moment. I really hope the R5 II is back to the reliability of most of my 5D cameras. Never had a problem with video on that thing other than the usual with the overheating but that was expected.

The next question will be if these rumors are correct/close will this camera come in at a price close to the Z8 or will it be more like the A1. Really hoping it is in line with the price the R5 came out at but I have a feeling that is wishful thinking.
 
Upvote 0
Did they then also switch out the bodies to the smaller R3 body? Common sense says they weren't done with the R1 sensor and decided to move forward with the R3 regardless, knowing it would still rival anything the competition could come up with. And the competition is still two decades behind with their lack of eye-control AF.
I should have added the [/sarcasm] tag. My bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
So what are the practical benefits of a stacked sensor? The R5 is a front-side sensor, right? So stacked should cut noise just a tiny bit? And maybe a bit more dynamic range? But then what practical advantages would we see between back-side and stacked?

Back side illuminated vs front side = generally, higher dynamic range.

Stacked vs non-stacked = higher readout speed.

I think, being 'stacked' also implies 'BSI'
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Back side illuminated vs front side = generally, higher dynamic range.
Yet the FSI R5 has more DR than Sony’s BSI sensors. The improved DR is meaningful when pixels get smaller than 2 microns, i.e., smartphones. The tech was originally developed to enable higher pixel density for smartphone sensors.

Stacked vs non-stacked = higher readout speed.
That’s the main/only advantage.

I think, being 'stacked' also implies 'BSI'
Yes, stacked sensors must be BSI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
There's really no reason to use full mechanical shutter on the R5. It only makes sense when shooting high speed with very wide apertures.
Otherwise, mechanical shutter means shutter shock and increased chances of blur.
ES @20fps is 12bit
ES only available in single shot or 20fps and 20fps can be a big data storage/workflow issue in post
Can't use flash with ES
ES can be prone to banding with indoor lighting
I haven't done any shooting with EFSC.

I did find the following information from one user which may or may not be accurate. Food for thought though:
* Bokeh is best with Mechanical Shutter Mode with wide aperture lenses.
* Bokeh is slightly reduced with EFCS Mode.
* Mechanical Shutter Mode also eliminates Rolling Shutter distortion effects with fast moving subjects.
* Electronic Shutter may produce odd bokeh under some instances and it will definitely have issues with 'flicker' (horizontal banding) when shooting under many types of artificial lighting (indoor lighting).
.
Mechanical Shutter is best for:
* Maximum Bokeh
* Sporting
* Action (airshows, golf, performances etc)
* Portraits where Bokeh is important.
* High Shutter Speeds.
* Better than EFCS and Electronic if Neon Light is in frame (including signage).
* Shooting in artificial light which might cause banding/flicker.
.
EFCS (Electronic First Curtain Shutter) is best for:
* Everyday photography.
* Eliminating Shutter Shock potential.
* Shooting in artificial light which might cause banding/flicker.
* Better than Electronic if pulsating Neon lighting is in frame.
* Landscape Photography.
* Portrait Photography.
* Photography where bokeh is not absolutely critical.
* Slower Shutter Speeds.
.
Electronic Shutter is best for:
* Silent Shutter (it's absolutely silent).
* Slower Shutter Speeds (there's no shutter vibration).
* Eliminating Shutter Shock completely.
* Rapid 20 fps continuous shooting.
* When maximums frame-rates are essential to capture a moment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
Upvote 0
Those specs look great to me and the stacked sensor (more info for AF) and pre-capture match two of my wish list.

An improved, larger EVF (I have glasses), and CFe4 (faster buffer clear) are the two other wish, but less important.

Looks like a great replacement for my 5D4, and I would not pick the R1 instead due to reaolution.
 
Upvote 0
ES @20fps is 12bit
ES only available in single shot or 20fps and 20fps can be a big data storage/workflow issue in post
Can't use flash with ES
ES can be prone to banding with indoor lighting
I haven't done any shooting with EFSC.

I did find the following information from one user which may or may not be accurate. Food for thought though:
* Bokeh is best with Mechanical Shutter Mode with wide aperture lenses.
* Bokeh is slightly reduced with EFCS Mode.
* Mechanical Shutter Mode also eliminates Rolling Shutter distortion effects with fast moving subjects.
* Electronic Shutter may produce odd bokeh under some instances and it will definitely have issues with 'flicker' (horizontal banding) when shooting under many types of artificial lighting (indoor lighting).
.
Mechanical Shutter is best for:
* Maximum Bokeh
* Sporting
* Action (airshows, golf, performances etc)
* Portraits where Bokeh is important.
* High Shutter Speeds.
* Better than EFCS and Electronic if Neon Light is in frame (including signage).
* Shooting in artificial light which might cause banding/flicker.
That list is misleading and inaccurate. It completely misses the heavy shutter shock in Mechanical shutter mode on the R5.
The Mechanical shutter is very bad for portraiture because of the shutter shock.


https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4524415

(my own investigations and measurements)

EFCS only has 'reduced bokeh' at high shutter speeds (faster than1/500 - 1/1000) and very wide apertures. This is where Mechanical shutter may help. But typically you need bokeh for portraiture and you rarely shoot portraits at 1/1000s.

Otherwise, the Mechanical shutter has 0 (zero) advantages over EFCS. EFCS is perfect for action and fast shutter speeds, as well as continuous shooting.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
That list is misleading and inaccurate. It completely misses the heavy shutter shock in Mechanical shutter mode on the R5.
The Mechanical shutter is very bad for portraiture because of the shutter shock.
I think that potential shutter shock is based on shutter speed. Anything under ~1/200s may be prone to it but I haven't experienced any issues with it yet especially with long exposures for landscapes/astro up to 120seconds
(my own investigations and measurements)

EFCS only has 'reduced bokeh' at high shutter speeds (faster than1/500 - 1/1000) and very wide apertures. This is where Mechanical shutter may help. But typically you need bokeh for portraiture and you rarely shoot portraits at 1/1000s.
Rarely but outdoor/wide aperture would have high shutter speeds
Otherwise, the Mechanical shutter has 0 (zero) advantages over EFCS. EFCS is perfect for action and fast shutter speeds, as well as continuous shooting.
EFCS on the R5 drops to 13bit (vs 14 for MS and 12 for ES). I prefer maximum bit depth for landscapes/astro :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I think that potential shutter shock is based on shutter speed. Anything under ~1/200s may be prone to it but I haven't experienced any issues with it yet especially with long exposures for landscapes/astro up to 120seconds
The shutter shock is not potential, it's very real. I posted a couple of links with the tests. Yes the peak is around 1/100s or so. That's a very usable shutter speed in portraiture (esp. with flash), in landscapes etc.
EFCS on the R5 drops to 13bit (vs 14 for MS and 12 for ES). I prefer maximum bit depth for landscapes/astro :)
That's very wrong indeed, where did you get that information? EFCS doesn't drop to 13 bits, it's full 14 bits.

It only drops to 13 in high speed continuous, but the same would apply to Mechanical, which, by the way, requires two curtain actuations per exposure and therefore slower. EFCS has 8fps and mechanical - 6fps in high speed continuous.

Again, with the R5, there's absolutely no reason to shoot landscapes in Mechanical shutter mode but there are reasons to not shoot - shutter shock + excessive wear of the shutter mechanism.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Anyone got links to proper testing regarding the 'reduced bokeh' ? I'd like to look at high def comparisons (EDIT : on its impact on R5 images)

I am often at high speed wide open shooting people, so I'd like to educate myself. This is because I set my aperture, then auto speed with a set minimm and auto iso with a set maximum. So if there is a lot fo light, camera will go f2 iso 100 and give me 1/2000, which has never been an issue to me so far. And bokeh is super important to me (ugly backgrounds I need to cleanly and consistently remove). I often shoot high speed (fast action at public events). I currently shoot 5D4, only mechanical. Will move to R1 or R5 II next.

Thanks in advance for any links you can share.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
So what are the practical benefits of a stacked sensor? The R5 is a front-side sensor, right? So stacked should cut noise just a tiny bit? And maybe a bit more dynamic range? But then what practical advantages would we see between back-side and stacked?
Stacked sensor allows for extremely fast sensor readout, which dramatically reduces rolling shutter defects, which is very problematic for any action photography. The R5 readout speed is about as fast as it gets for a non-stacked sensor and RS artifacts are pretty low. The R3's stacked sensor is much faster--as are all the other cameras with stacked sensors--so RS problems are limited. if the R5II is even faster yet, than RS issues will be non-issues. The only way to completely eliminate rolling shutter artifacts is with a global shutter. Others can chime in with other benefits.
 
Upvote 0
Anyone got links to proper testing regarding the 'reduced bokeh' ? I'd like to look at high def comparisons.

I am often at high speed wide open shooting people, so I'd like to educate myself. This is because I set my aperture, then auto speed with a set minimm and auto iso with a set maximum. So if there is a lot fo light, camera will go f2 iso 100 and give me 1/2000, which has never been an issue to me so far. And bokeh is super important to me (ugly backgrounds I need to cleanly and consistently remove). I often shoot high speed (fast action at public events). I currently shoot 5D4, only mechanical. Will move to R1 or R5 II next.

Thanks in advance for any links you can share.
The above messages about EFCS and bokeh applied to the R5. If you shoot with 5DIV though the viewfinder, there will be no issues with bokeh.

IIRC, the 5DVI may have similar to the R5 issues with bokeh if you use EFCS in Live View. But I forgot the exact settings (I sold my 5DiV in 2020), they can be found in the manual.
 
Upvote 0
I went from EOS-1Ds MkIII to R and it was an absolutely massive upgrade over 11 years. Then from R to R5 felt like the same such leap again. Now it's only been, what, 3 years since the R5 came out?

But for me Eye AF is the killer feature that I think will make as big a jump as IBIS did to my shooting. ...

I'll meet you half-way that the rest of this sounds like basically the same camera, though I'd like pre-burst, and I bet there's dozens of nice little upgrades as well. And the stacked sensor might have another stop of dynamic range?

But to be clear I'd pay $2000 in a second for the same old R5 MkI if the ONLY improvement was eye AF. In fact I'd pay $5000 in a second for it. It worked well on my EOS-3 and thanks to that I got more shots with non-centered subjects and excellent focus than I have since.
[Emphasis added to original text]
Did you stop reading after my "lackluster" comment? Here is that quote in context:
I hope this specs are accurate. If so, I might preorder.

I've frequently been critical of Canon's lackluster upgrades (along with their slowness in catching up to Sony sensor technology). However, these specs check just about all my boxes. The stacked sensor (I'm absolutely giddy over the "faster readout than the EOS R3" claim), improved AF and improved ergonomics (finally, some audible feedback when shooting in ES mode?). This camera could very well become my go everywhere body.
As you can see, I'm very positive about the R5II (if you look at my history, you'll see that I was not positive about the upgrade from the 5DMIII to the 5DMIV). So, I'm not sure if you're trying to pick a fight, or only read every other line, but please explain how you're meeting me halfway since I'm actually more positive about the potential upgrade than you are (no where did I say that the II "sounds like basically the same camera). That's not meeting me halfway, you actually ran in the other direction from my praise ("giddy") of the rumored specs.

Color me confused by your misread of my comments.
 
Upvote 0
EFCS only has 'reduced bokeh' at high shutter speeds (faster than1/500 - 1/1000) and very wide apertures. This is where Mechanical shutter may help. But typically you need bokeh for portraiture and you rarely shoot portraits at 1/1000s.
LOL. Clearly you’ve never tried to shoot outdoor daytime portraits with a fast prime. That common use case is exactly described by ‘high shutter speeds and very wide apertures’.

At f/1.2-f/2, I needed a 3-stop ND filter on the lens to get ISO 100 shutter speeds under 1/8000 s. Now the R3 obviates the ND filter with an extra 3 stops of max shutter speed (1/64000 s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
I find the R5 II rumored specs are a little disappointing for a 4-year cycle.

They seem to be:
- 30 fps
- Faster sensor read out
- Finally sprung for heat paste on the chip so you can get some flow out of the camera
- Pre-burst
- Possibly some ergo features, like the smart nipple and eye AF (doubt the eye AF)
- E Shutter gets flash

There are some things that were unmentioned that could drag me to thinking positively about the body. Here’s the wish list. Any two would shift me to the buy column:
- Having full bit depth with electronic shutter
- Supporting the 2x speed new CFexpress 4.0 standard
- Multi-shot hi-res shots saved as RAWs in camera
- Firmware that would stay connected to my phone as well and as simply as my ear buds do. This to facilitate image transfer to my desktop without some wonky jpeg-fest cloud service that will shut down some number of months in the future.

The think I really want and apparently cannot have:
- > 60mp sensor

-Tig
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Others can chime in with other benefits.

Another effect is that AF gets more info per second with shorter lag, so can improve AF reactiveness.
A side effect is also the need of much faster chips to handle the bandwidth, and then beefiers chips then naturally have larger capacities to handle higher fps or video.

Getting a stacked sensor that is faster than R3 on the 5 line is a big step to me.

Similarly, a better IBIS also helps AF.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0