A few Canon EOS R5 Mark II specifications [CR2]

[Canon Rumors]

Announcement

We have turned off linking on the forum for regular members. This will be partially temporary.

Canon Rumors has tended to avoid linking or promoting certain YouTube personalities, as they can be quite divisive for the community. That is sadly by design in some cases (Alcohol confessions are a heck of a thing).

Discussions can flow freely on those YouTube Channels and we believe that's the best place for them.

Forums such as these rarely turn a month over month profit, but are a continuous cost of resources, and the resources required are always growing, especially in storage. We'd like to keep them going and we will. We just don't feel using resources to promote these personalities, and potentially creating negativity is prudent.

We are going to be cleaning up this thread so no one feels singled out, but that will take a bit of time.

Sorry for the inconvenience, but we will need to work out a few things over the weekend. Certain types of linking will be turned back in the next 24-48 hours.

Canon Rumors Premium members will be able to post more types of links.

However, just like the RF 35mm f/1.4L USM, we don't want to talk much about what's going on with that program until there is something to talk about. We can say, we finally see a light at the end of the tunnel (on both counts). and It has required new eyes with motivation to solve problems.

Thanks for your understanding.

 

[sanj]

Who are you to make that call? Photographers call their own speciality out of ambition, sales, interest or whatever. If you think his wildlife photos may improve provide examples of how you believe he can do better.

No one.

 

[Michael Clark]

I think that's right for most people, but...

In the next 48 hours a nature magazine's editorial crew is going to decide to use my bobcat photo for their fall cover or use someone else's. It's an extreme crop on the far left side of the frame, perhaps 8-10 percent of the pixels to cover an 8.5 x 11 inch area. When these things happen (and in wildlife, they do quite a lot), an increase in resolution by 30 percent to 60 mp would be many times more effective than a dynamic range boost of two stops; of missing two bits of file information; etc.

I recognize most people won't have that need, but for those of us who do, I'd like Canon to be a brand we can rely on through the generations of cameras to stay on top of our competition.

The jerk competing against me (actually a super-nice guy) for this cover shoots a Nikon. I've resorted to doubling the pixels in Lightroom to make his advantage less obvious. Mine has a much better composition and soul, but, you know, editorial people will make the strangest decisions, especially these days when they ditched the photo editor and those calls are made by the random liberal arts graduate scribes filtering through.

My point still stands. For there to be any real difference, you'd have need to have shot it with, say a 180 MP sensor, not a 60 MP sensor compared to the 45 MP sensor you actually had.

 

[Michael Clark]

2nd reply: consider the R7 as an addition to your R5, its pixel density would make an about 80 MP sensor in full frame. For wildlife with teles, it really makes a difference, in particular because one mostly shoots with more open apertures. The smaller pixels are, the more is the sweet spot moving towards lower f-stop numbers, because of diffraction blur kicking in. With actual de-noising software, even ISO 6400 images from the R7 offer surprisingly good quality.

If he'd used a crop sensor, the cat would have probably been outside the edge of the frame and not captured at all.

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

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.

 

[Michael Clark]

Maybe, but he confirms the majority view was otherwise than his own.

Didn't you mother ever ask you what you would do if "everyone else" jumped off the side of a cliff?

The majority is often wrong.

Especially when they were declaring the 5D Mark III an insignificant, incremental upgrade based purely on the resolution listed on the spec sheet before it was even released to the public.

If you saw no improvement between the 5D Mark II and the 5D Mark III AF system, then either one of two things is probably true:

- You are incredibly skilled and rarely, if ever, missed with the 5D II in spite of its limitations
- You are incredibly unskilled to the point of being unable to take advantage of the significant improvements the 5D III AF system had over the 5D II AF system

 

[neuroanatomist]

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.

Couldn’t afford that. My thumb could almost hit 1 fps.

 

[Michael Clark]

Couldn’t afford that. My thumb could almost hit 1 fps.

The first ILC I actually owned was a used Konica FS-1 I bought in 1986. It had a built in 1.5 fps winder that was powered by 4 AA batteries contained in the removable grip on the right side of the camera. I was never very fast with my thumb on borrowed Nikon F2s, Canon AE-1s, AE-1Ps, Pentax K-1000s, etc. that I used before I bought my Konica. The next body I bought was a film EOS Rebel SII, and I've only bought EOS bodies ever since (other than a Canon Powershot A540 compact that was my first digital camera). So I've never actually owned an SLR with a manual film lever.

I was deadly fast with the "pump action" film advance of my cheap off-brand compact 110 back in my younger days, though.

 

[EricN]

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.

No offense intended, but @AlanF knows this subject very well and I'll trust him more than you

 

[sanj]

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 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.

 

[snapshot]

Couldn’t afford that. My thumb could almost hit 1 fps.

my elan 7e could shoot 4 fps and if i had a 36 frame roll, i could have done that for 9 seconds, then it would have taken me 2-3 minutes to get a new roll loaded, then i would have to get all that developed. only then i found out if i had any keepers. wow, no wonder my 5d Mark II seemed like a huge upgrade! seriously, I didn't shoot bursts back then. I was pretty stingy with the film.

 

[Jethro]

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.

This is surely true. Of course you need the skill to get your settings and set-up and angles etc right, and the patience to wait for the right shot to appear. But having done all that, you would surely want to then capture as many incrementally different shots as you can, to have the best chance of getting a Money Shot.

 

[koenkooi]

This is surely true. Of course you need the skill to get your settings and set-up and angles etc right, and the patience to wait for the right shot to appear. But having done all that, you would surely want to then capture as many incrementally different shots as you can, to have the best chance of getting a Money Shot.

If I understood the interwebs correctly: you must use manual focus and manual exposure on your leaf shutter rangefinder and balance the light with a manual flash for such photos.

That is the only true way, if you miss the shot, it’s because your camera is not stills-focused enough!

 

[scyrene]

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.

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.

 

[justaCanonuser]

If he'd used a crop sensor, the cat would have probably been outside the edge of the frame and not captured at all.

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.

 

[AlanF]

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.

That's not necessarily nonsense. I have hundreds of my best shots where fast flying birds are are at the edge of full frame because they were too fast for me to keep up with. The wider field of view is the major reason I prefer to use FF for birds in flight, both for finding and then keeping in frame while tracking.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

EFCS is mainly needed to avoid the shutter shock problem. If the ES in the prospective R5II isn't fast enough so that the mechanical shutter is required, why wouldn't there be an EFCS mode?

I said it won't just have EFCS.
It may have no mechanical shutter at all.
Some of the entry models only have EFCS.
That won't happen with the R5 II.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I am curious about the eye AF. For those that have the R3 is it really that useful (esp in lower light settings)?

Yes, it is.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Eye AF II will also be added to the EOS R5 Mark II.

I have no idea what Eye AF II even is.
Right now we have DPAF II which includes eye detection AF.

 

[justaCanonuser]

That's not necessarily nonsense. I have hundreds of my best shots where fast flying birds are are at the edge of full frame because they were too fast for me to keep up with. The wider field of view is the major reason I prefer to use FF for birds in flight, both for finding and then keeping in frame while tracking.

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.