A few Canon EOS R5 Mark II specifications [CR2]

[john1970]

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

I saw the "delay" on mirrorlessrumors.com as well. Honestly, at this stage it will be announced when it is announced. At this stage, I would almost rather have Canon release some lenses including the mythical 200-500 mm f4.

I am glad that Canon made the R1 development announcement, but I have feeling that I won't see that until late Q4 2024 or early Q1 2025. Will continue to use my R3 until that time.

 

[AlanF]

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.

I agree that the Nikon Z8(9) + 800mm/6.3 is great gear and gives stunning results. However, the RF 200-800mm on the R5 gives good results and has about 0.5kg or more less weight and greater versatility to compensate for its narrower lens.

 

[3kramd5]

If you're talking about controlling AF via your own pupil, I could not get it to calibrate properly on my R3 trial, but I have glasses, so I was getting inconsistent result.

Pity. It still works pretty well with my Elan 7NE. Of course, it's only having to choose between 7 AF points so...

 

[EricN]

I agree that the Nikon Z8(9) + 800mm/6.3 is great gear and gives stunning results. However, the RF 200-800mm on the R5 gives good results and has about 0.5kg or more less weight and greater versatility to compensate for its narrower lens.

I'm seeing a lot of great photos with R5 +200-800. Given the softness towards 800, I think you can't lose much by going from 45 to 30mp - not to mention with 400mm on the R5, I often see atmosphere distortion already.

 

[[email protected]]

Lovely post and photo. So who made it to the cover? Resolution or soul?

Soul's winning. I haven't heard officially. Everyone's correct on the artifacts, of course. I figure I'll totally re-post process if it's chosen. The tweaks I've made in the last week were at their request to boost various things (brightness, sharpness) which I wouldn't have done.

 

[Viggo]

Going by rumored specs I find the R5 II more interesting than the R1, I think that’s a first for me in 20 years. I also know the 1d always looked okay reading specs, but something very different in use, so will be fun to see. 1-series are completely out of my budget these days, so I won’t be trying it out for fun…

 

[TwoWheeler]

Gotta love the internet - where else could people get in heated arguments over rumored specifications of a camera that doesn’t exist?

 

[Jethro]

Gotta love the internet - where else could people get in heated arguments over rumored specifications of a camera that doesn’t exist?

TBF this is the Canon Rumors site, and the R5 II and R1 specs are widely expected to be announced in the short term future ...

 

[Michael Clark]

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.

There's nothing to prevent someone with skillful timing to use today's equipment to their advantage over those who are just spraying and praying. Regardless of the gear, the more skill one has, the better one's chances will be of getting the shot one wants to get compared to a less skillful practitioner using that same gear.

 

[Michael Clark]

tl;dr

 

[TwoWheeler]

TBF this is the Canon Rumors site, and the R5 II and R1 specs are widely expected to be announced in the short term future ...

Yeah, it was more of a general statement. Here, people are just kicking around what might be. Elsewhere, it’s getting fairly ugly, as usual.

 

[SwissFrank]

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/

Interesting!

The site here in Japan does NOT mention this: (you can search for "14" if you don't read Japanese, and there's no mention.) https://personal.canon.jp/product/camera/eos/r5/spec

And here's the Japanese manual: 45 occurrences of "14" but all in numbered parts lists or page numbers. https://cam.start.canon/ja/C003/manual/c003.pdf

 

[scyrene]

More like.

 

[pzyber]

If it has a stacked sensor, then probably. The R3 outputs 14-bit RAWs with electronic shutter. I use only ES on my R3, on my R8 I use only mechanical (EFCS).

I most likely would as well if I had an R3.

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.

I use EFCS when needed. Although in some situations I've gotten shutter shock from EFCS too when in burst mode, so it's not always a perfect solution.
EFCS can also effect the background blur (especially at higher shutter speeds) so I prefer the mechanical shutter.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I most likely would as well if I had an R3.



I use EFCS when needed. Although in some situations I've gotten shutter shock from EFCS too when in burst mode, so it's not always a perfect solution.
EFCS can also effect the background blur (especially at higher shutter speeds) so I prefer the mechanical shutter.

Not exactly. As above, EFCS only affects bokeh at high shutter speeds and wide apertures. That's the only case the mechanical shutter is better. If you have shutter shock from EFCS in burst mode, it'll be worse if you switch to mechanical shutter.

In other words, technically it's better to use EFCS by default and Mechanical or ES 'when needed' - well unless you shoot wide aperture and high SS all the time by default.

 

[koenkooi]

Not exactly. As above, EFCS only affects bokeh at high shutter speeds and wide apertures. That's the only case the mechanical shutter is better. If you have shutter shock from EFCS in burst mode, it'll be worse if you switch to mechanical shutter.

In other words, technically it's better to use EFCS by default and Mechanical or ES 'when needed' - well unless you shoot wide aperture and high SS all the time by default.

And ‘wide’ in this context means f/1.8 or wider. My widest RF lens is f/2, so I’ll never need MS with my current gear

 

[pzyber]

Not exactly. As above, EFCS only affects bokeh at high shutter speeds and wide apertures. That's the only case the mechanical shutter is better. If you have shutter shock from EFCS in burst mode, it'll be worse if you switch to mechanical shutter.

In other words, technically it's better to use EFCS by default and Mechanical or ES 'when needed' - well unless you shoot wide aperture and high SS all the time by default.

And that's about 90% of my shots, so for me mechanical the best option as default. I don't use mechanical at slower shutter speeds when shutter shock is appearant so why would i switch to mechanical in those situations? I use whatever would give me the best results for the situation.

 

[justaCanonuser]

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:

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.

I never talked about a shorter focal length, I do know that the focal length of a lens doesn't change with sensor size (I am a physicist by eductation). What I simply meant is what you really see if you peer through the viewfinder, okay?

 

[DSB]

Sometime around 5D mk III I just stopped being interested in Canon series 1 cameras. Too expensive, with lower resolution and features that didn't do anything for my photography. And this has continued with R system, as well. I really liked the R3 viewfinder and how the size fit my hands, but it just didn't make financial sense and R5 has proven to be very competitive in just about any area of photography I've thrown at it.

I was disappointed it won't be getting a high resolution sensor. This seems to be Canons Achilles heel atm. If there was a R5S, with 60+ megapixels, I'd buy it in a hearbeat. Unfortunately, I've decided to invest into medium format Fuji. I just can't wait anymore for Canon to finally bring their long promised high res sensor to market.

 

[neuroanatomist]

I was disappointed it won't be getting a high resolution sensor. This seems to be Canons Achilles heel atm.

The lack of Styx-dipping invulnerability in that spot is what led to Achilles’ demise. Somehow, I don’t think the lack of a 60+ MP camera spells doom for Canon. Oh, wait…you think there’s an arrow named Sony out there, right?

I just can't wait anymore for Canon to finally bring their long promised high res sensor to market.

I must have missed when Canon made that promise. Do you have a link or reference for that?

Or are you of the belief that because you want something or something has been discussed on the internet, that comprises a promise from the manufacturer to deliver it?