Canon announces development of the EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera

[Del Paso]

There will never be an RF 135mm f/1.4L.

Unfortunately, I'm "afraid", you're right.
Fortunately, because I could never justify buying it...

 

[Ozarker]

Unfortunately, I'm "afraid", you're right.
Fortunately, because I could never justify buying it...

I'd buy it if they made it, just because it was there.

 

[Ozarker]

It's like saying there never be an RF 28-70mm f/2L.
Might have been true for the old EF mount, but with the RF mount, it is certainly possible to make it.
Although they probably won't do a 70-135mm f/2 tele zoom and the 135mm f/1.4 prime, they will do one of two, and of course it may take some time.

Now don't go dashing my hopes for a RF 70-135mm f/2L!

 

[Go Wild]

Awesome. And you are 100% right about 4k. I would not shoot even a simple thing like a training video on 1080. It has to be 4k!!!

Thanks! There is no point in recording 1080p now, unless if you are making some holiday movies. If you are working in image you will want that your video stay updated for some time, and 4k is more and more in the houses. In 2/3 years almost all tvs in people´s home will be 4k. And you will want to have 4k content to show....Even if you don´t deliver the project in 4k, but you still have it in 4k to export later.

Great reply and great video. I doubt it'll do much good though ... well maybe it might convince a few.

Jack

Thanks Jack. It´s normal that people who only shoots stills disregard the video specs. But the times of video cameras only and stills cameras only are almost over. We will see more and more hybrid cameras that can make both things. I believe cinema cameras will remain, but we will have more and more professional cameras that make video and photo.

Another reason to include high spec video on a still camera is to help consolidate the number of camera models by Canon. Sure some would prefer less video features if it were less costly.

But Canon would prefer to have a capable jack-of-all-trades R5 that covers the needs of the vast majority of pros. Much better for the bean counters in a shrinking market.

Of course, if you put more power into a camera it will be expected that the camera can reach more potencial buyers and also different kind of buyers. I don´t know if Canon will make a video centric mirrorless, but with this R5 it will certainly attract not only photographers but a

8K in itself my night not be important for you (or me). But is a sign that Canon has done big steps forward when it comes to sensor readout speed. This will improve camera performance in a lot of ways, including for 4K video.

It probably mean less "jello-effect" when panning in 4K videos (compared to similar resolution sensors with slower readout). It might mean it is possible to do fullsensor 4K/60p with dualpixel AF. It probably also reduces EVF lag and increases AF performance.

8K video in R5 will probably be RAW only. One thing is having reached the sensor readout speed making 8K possible, another thing is the processing needed to transfer 8K into a common videoformat. Also even simple contrast based AF probably requires some of that processing, so I expect the 8K RAW video to be *without* AF. DEFINITELY without dualpixel AF, which would require two times "8K readout" from sensor. For sure that ain't possible in first generation 8K.

But point is, the good news is not 8K. The good news is the high speed of sensor readout apparently achieved.

Yes, that´s it. Personally, i don´t care about 8k, it´s too much at this point and the file size will be huge. But....that represents a lot to Canon and of course, like you said, it will give us better sensor readout.
Possibly I will use it when the scene justifies it, don´t know....

Having 8k is like condoms! Better have it and don´t use it, than need it and don´t have it!!

 

[photographer]

I know I have answered a similar post before, but I think it is worth repeating. No need to weep for those like myself who bought the R. And really no need to insult us with your moronic "koolaid" comment.

You see, not everyone just reads the spec list. Each photographer will have some items that they care more about than others. And - perhaps more importantly, having specs does not mean the specs are worth having if they don't function well.

Not everyone needs IBIS. I own 3 lenses (one RF and two EF) lenses that I use with my R. 2 have IS and the 3rd lens is a wide angle that allows me to shoot at slow shutter speeds - especially as the R has a very good sensor at high ISOs. I have never taken a shot that needed IBIS with that lens and don't need it with the other 2. While 2 cards slots would always be preferred, I have no problem having 1. I have no interest whatsoever in 4K and - quite frankly, the Canon lens range is far more extensive and has far more older affordable lenses than Sony.

So, why would I say that the Canon R is not only competitive, but a better value than the Sony A7 III - at least for me and I'm sure others as well? It's not just because I had bought earlier versions of the A7 (by far the worst cameras I ever bought) but because: I prefer Canon's color. I prefer Canon's ergonomics (by a wide margin), I prefer Canon's EVF (other reviewers also consider it to be better). A fully articulating screen is a requirement for me to do my how-to art videos, the aforementioned Canon lens selection is not only larger but far superior (a common criticism of Sony lenses by pro reviewers is how many lenses are seriously decentered.). Sony also has a reputation for having a very poor dust removal system. And Canon's R has the "dust screen" - a simple but very useful spec. Add in Canon's reputation for having well made reliable products that are easier to use and get the shot.

So, aside from the 2 card slots, Canon has the A7 III beat in every category that I am most interested in and most need.

So, no need to weep for me. I purchased an excellent camera.

In addition, we buy the body (unlike lenses) for a few years. So in the future we will buy a new R (5, 5s, 6, ...) body, but we will continue to use great EF and RF lenses for many years to come.

 

[Del Paso]

The entrance pupil diameter is not necessarily equal to the aperture
stop diameter, because of the magnifying effect of lens elements in
front of the aperture. "Apparent aperture" is the key.

Canon explains it very nicely illustrated in this video:

Note how making the rear elements bigger and putting them closer to the
sensor allows for smaller overall diameters and better balanced systems.

Yes, that is physics.

And also yes, Sony can't do that with their small mount diameter.

Closer to the sensor rear elements have one disadvantage: the impossibility using an extender with protruding front elements (cf.RF 2,8/70-200).

 

[katysei]

The body looks bulkier than eos R, and rumours prcing it around $4000
I do hope r6 will be more like RP and much cheaper.(sub $2000)

 

[brad-man]

Closer to the sensor rear elements have one disadvantage: the impossibility using an extender with protruding front elements (cf.RF 2,8/70-200).

It's only a problem if you try to use an EF extender on an RF lens. So don't do that. Wait for an RF extender...

 

[Sharlin]

It's only a problem if you try to use an EF extender on an RF lens. So don't do that. Wait for an RF extender...

No, the RF extenders that were just announced at the same time as the R5 protrude far into the lens… Obviously you can’t even try to use an EF extender with an RF lens because the mounts aren’t physically compatible.

 

[koenkooi]

It's only a problem if you try to use an EF extender on an RF lens. So don't do that. Wait for an RF extender...

Canon announced those as well and, no, they won’t work on the RF70-200.

 

[Del Paso]

The current EOS R was dead on arrival!

It simply does not compare to the others in its price range. Like the A7III. The Sony came with IBIS, dual slots, uncropped 4k and extensive lense range.

But it’s all relative, if the EOS R were $1300-$1400, then I’d say it’s priced correctly. To compete with higher end APS-C like the X-T3.

The people that bought it at +$2000 I weep for them. They were definitely drinking the Canon koolaid.

Hopefully with the EOS R6 we see them compete in that $2000 range better. And EOS R drops down in the $1400 range with the RP in the $1000 range.

The EOS R FORTUNATELY doesn't compare to the soni 7 IIi.
It doesn't have:
-Poor service
-Poor ergonomics
-Silly menu
-unreliable dust-removing
But if somebody can live with all these shortcomings, why not...

 

[brad-man]

Canon announced those as well and, no, they won’t work on the RF70-200.

I must have missed any mention yet of which lenses the RF converters will work on. Would you please provide a link?

 

[Sharlin]

I must have missed any mention yet of which lenses the RF converters will work on. Would you please provide a link?

There’s no official word as of yet, but the way they protrude into the lens makes them almost certainly mechanically unusable with any lens with a short backfocus distance.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

8K in itself my night not be important for you (or me). But is a sign that Canon has done big steps forward when it comes to sensor readout speed. This will improve camera performance in a lot of ways, including for 4K video.

It probably mean less "jello-effect" when panning in 4K videos (compared to similar resolution sensors with slower readout). It might mean it is possible to do fullsensor 4K/60p with dualpixel AF. It probably also reduces EVF lag and increases AF performance.

8K video in R5 will probably be RAW only. One thing is having reached the sensor readout speed making 8K possible, another thing is the processing needed to transfer 8K into a common videoformat. Also even simple contrast based AF probably requires some of that processing, so I expect the 8K RAW video to be *without* AF. DEFINITELY without dualpixel AF, which would require two times "8K readout" from sensor. For sure that ain't possible in first generation 8K.

But point is, the good news is not 8K. The good news is the high speed of sensor readout apparently achieved.

Very insightful about the flow on benifits of achieving 8k... promising!

I've heard this theory a few times now that the 8k could only be raw due to processor limitations... I'd love to believe that's the case but wouldn't that severly undercut the c500 mark ii ? I have a hunch they may return to MJPEG

 

[Go Wild]

Very insightful about the flow on benifits of achieving 8k... promising!

I've heard this theory a few times now that the 8k could only be raw due to processor limitations... I'd love to believe that's the case but wouldn't that severly undercut the c500 mark ii ? I have a hunch they may return to MJPEG

Wiil they undercut the C500? Well.....yeah...a bit, but at the same time...no. It´s a different kind of users. People who buy the C500 mkII they don´t care about mirrorless or hybrid cameras, in these days those cameras have some video directed specifications that make those people want that camera. I see this as a different users. In some situations they might cross...like me. I do have a cinema camera and I will sell it because i think, for what i do that having the new 1dxmkIII and this EOS R5 I can make the jobs without need to have another cinema "only" camera! With the plus...that I also don´t need to have a separate camera for stills! And this is the power of hybrid cameras and why i love it so much! You carry less stuff and you also benefict of all the good thinks of DSLR or mirrorless! But, cinema line cameras users....i think they wont trade those cameras for this ones.

MJPEG SCARES ME A LOT! I am also starting to think that Canon might put that crappy codec on this one! It´s the only thing I hate in 1dxmkII video! I am praying hard that the R5 has the same codec of the 1dxmkIII and also records HEVC or H.265.

 

[brad-man]

There’s no official word as of yet, but the way they protrude into the lens makes them almost certainly mechanically unusable with any lens with a short backfocus distance.

You are quite correct. But since one of the virtues of the RF mount is the short back focus distance, I would question the accuracy of the images of the RF converters at the beginning of the RF100-500 thread. I find it highly unlikely that Canon would design its own teleconverters to not work with the RF 70-200. IOW, the images of the RF converters are bogus.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not necessarily. I will delete images during a lull while in the field whatever the fullness of the memory card. Same when I return to hotel room.

I do a lot of deleting in camera after a day’s shoot. For BIF type shooting there are a lot of frames either out of focus, poor exposure with blown highlights, part of bird cut off, or lousy composition or background. I toss these immediately. Many more get tossed when I get to the computer. Never had any regrets. For landscapes, I usually keep all until I cull at the computer.

How many shots have you missed that you didn't even see while you were chimping instead of watching?

Memory cards are cheap.

 

[Sharlin]

You are quite correct. But since one of the virtues of the RF mount is the short back focus distance, I would question the accuracy of the images of the RF converters at the beginning of this thread. I find it highly unlikely that Canon would design the RF 70-200 to not be compatable with its own teleconverters.

Question the accuracy of Canon’s own press release images? On the contrary, I’m fairly sure that they’re accurate. Short BF distance also has its disadvantages.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Wiil they undercut the C500? Well.....yeah...a bit, but at the same time...no. It´s a different kind of users. People who buy the C500 mkII they don´t care about mirrorless or hybrid cameras, in these days those cameras have some video directed specifications that make those people want that camera. I see this as a different users. In some situations they might cross...like me. I do have a cinema camera and I will sell it because i think, for what i do that having the new 1dxmkIII and this EOS R5 I can make the jobs without need to have another cinema "only" camera! With the plus...that I also don´t need to have a separate camera for stills! And this is the power of hybrid cameras and why i love it so much! You carry less stuff and you also benefict of all the good thinks of DSLR or mirrorless! But, cinema line cameras users....i think they wont trade those cameras for this ones.

MJPEG SCARES ME A LOT! I am also starting to think that Canon might put that crappy codec on this one! It´s the only thing I hate in 1dxmkII video! I am praying hard that the R5 has the same codec of the 1dxmkIII and also records HEVC or H.265.

That's true that a lot of cinema camera users will prefer the form factor and extra features of those type of cameras. But there will also be a large number of people like yourself who may no longer see the point of owning a seperate cinema camera and stills camera when they can just combune the two.

I think it would be safe to say that if Canon did 8k Raw internally in this form factor the camera would be totally revolutionary! But like you, I'm thinking the MJPEG may be all we get... wouldn't the 1dxiii do 5.5k h265 if it could? I think heat might be the reason 5.5k is raw only?

Aaahhh so many unknowns!

 

[scyrene]

However, how you interpret this: "...as well as process 8K video into higher-quality 4K video."

I interpret it to mean, one answer to 'why do we need 8K?' is 'you can downsample it into crisper 4K' (just a people have said they do with 4K to HD). It's nothing to do with what the camera is outputting. I think people are trying to second guess Canon's words too much.