Canon announces more mind blowing specs for the Canon EOS R5

davidhfe

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
307
459
no. It is a video-optimized camera. A lot of video ballast for pure stills shooters and a high price to cross-subsidize the few who will really adequately use 8k video (today and tomorrow).

You're looking at this the wrong way. Canon didn't set out to build a video-optimized anything. They engineered the best set of components they could and then build the features based off the capabilities of those components. This is an imaging-optimized camera that doesn't force you to make decisions about what gear you're going to carry today. They've hit the sweet spot in so many use cases:
- Really nice "all-round" resolution for 2020 and beyond. This is the only place you might say they designed for video, and it's a decision that works great for many still shooters!
- Fast! If that means silent shooting, high speed electronic shutter, or video you're covered.
- A 12 fps shutter on a full frame camera! In 2012 you had to buy a 1DX for that sort of performance. Amazing what you can do when you remove the mirror.
- My guess is the auto focus on this will blow folks out of the water regardless of how you're capturing images

I'm not saying it's the perfect camera for everyone, but it's super in-line with what we've come to expect (or have wanted to expect) out of the 5 series. It seems like a lot of "photo-only" voices are just unrealistic about how unit costs and R&D works. And I get that some folks need more megapixels—speed vs resolution is a totally reasonable tradeoff to make. Most of ya'll are being realistic about it but I definitely feel there's this minority contingent here that thinks canon can magically drop 8K video and produce a 150mp sensor that still shoots 20fps for $2000 with 20 stops of DR.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,923
1,871
[..]
The speeds and buffer depths and choice of CFExpress and SD are just as valuable for stills. We're talking 45MP here at 14bit RAW for stills. That is a TON of Data to sling at 20fps in electronic shutter mode. [..]

The 1DX3 is 12-bit RAW in all electronic shutter modes to combat rolling shutter, so I expect the 20fps on the R5 to be 12-bit as well. Still a massive amount of data.
 

picperfect

EOS 90D
Mar 29, 2020
112
92
minority contingent here that thinks canon can magically drop 8K video and produce a 150mp sensor that still shoots 20fps for $2000 with 20 stops of DR.

wrong. you can write all you want, 4k and 8k video does not come for free but causes significant additional cost compared to a stills camera.

And to repeat, i don't want an unrealistic camera, but [in addition to all the "hybrid" cameras] at least *one* realistic, pure stills FF camera with 35-45 MP, 6-8 fps, good DR, without any video/audio clutter (except internal low rez feed for EVF), at an affordable price - e.g. 1999
 

bmfotonet

I'm New Here
Jun 17, 2017
21
14
Chicago
Visit site
It's not that bad, and actually if you use PP you do not want a Xeon processor (found that out the hard way). I have a Core I9 CPU, 64GB of RAM, NVME project storage, and an SSD drive for cache all bundled into an HP Z4, and an older 980 TI GPU, total build I think around $3500. I think Davinci Resolve will have no problems with this footage and if it does that's what proxy files are for. If you really can't afford to upgrade then use proxys on import and go do something else for a few hours while they are created.

Just out of curiosity what is the issue with Xeon processors and Premiere Pro?

I owned an HP Z4 a few years ago with a Xeon processor that I used for an IT lab workstation before everything moved to the cloud. I used it to run an entire virtual environment with lots of VMs. I never tried editing video with it.
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,685
4,120
Irving, Texas
Clearly I've struck a nerve with you, life is too short for internet squabbles. I stated my opinion, you may either accept it or not, others respectfully disagreed with me which I respect. The only point I'll refute is no one cares about my retirement when my mother, daughters & grandson all care about my retirement. Either way, I stated my retirement because I'm proud of myself for doing so and celebrating the fact that I'm not bothered by internet disagreements, they are such a miniscule things in the grander scheme of life. You then proceed to "one up" me by stating you have been even more successful, you clearly care and I thank you for it. I also celebrate your success and being retired younger than myself, you must have worked incredibly hard to do so. I ask to see peoples work because I'm a fan of photography & video, I love to see people envision and create things I've never done or just might not have been talented enough to do so, it's nothing more, nothing less. 10 years on this forum and I've never criticized anyone's interpretation of art, I'm simply a frugal fan.

I am not your antagonist and I will not be, seek easier prey as this is not what you want.

Cheers.....
One up you? Far from it. Some people get sidelined early. Retirement isn't always by choice. Neither are tax rules that prevent access to a lifetime of savings without huge penalties.
 

koenkooi

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
1,923
1,871
12 bit RAW in video. 14 bit in Stills far as I know. Where did you see 12bit RAW at 20fps electronic/silent shutter??
I the user manual at the end, it has a table with all modes and limitations.

See:

 
  • Like
Reactions: PureClassA

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
Just out of curiosity what is the issue with Xeon processors and Premiere Pro?

I owned an HP Z4 a few years ago with a Xeon processor that I used for an IT lab workstation before everything moved to the cloud. I used it to run an entire virtual environment with lots of VMs. I never tried editing video with it.

I had endless frustrations with a fully loaded Dell 7910 (Dual Xeon processors, 256GB of memory, quad NVME card, tiered SSD storage, 980TI GPU) and still could not edit 4K 60FPS LongGOP video footage in PP without proxies. Opened tickets with Adobe, wrote test result after test result on the Adobe forums; finally some Adobe Engineer flat out admitted that PP is not optimized for LongGOP (already figured that out) but also that Xeon processors while fantastic for things like virtualization and server services simply have too high of a timing latency for PP since PP does most of its work with the CPU, vs. DR which uses the GPU. For realtime editing playback of 4K LongGOP in PP you need lower CPU timing latency which Xeons are not built for.

He said one of the latest i7s would have been a better solution than dual Xeons. Based on Puget Systems extensive tests, I ended up with a Z4 with an Intel Core i9-7940X which their tests demonstrated was the perfect CPU for PP. Ironically I now use DR which barely touches the CPU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bmfotonet

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,977
868
The more I scroll through your website, the more I'm intrigued to hear your story about photography, like how did you start and what all cool things happened along the way to get you all those cool shots and videos you have at your page.
AAAA. Thanks. I am full on revising my website now. I so needed this encouragement. Email me and we will figure a way to connect.
sanjay@sanjayfgupta.com
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2015
307
459
wrong. you can write all you want, 4k and 8k video does not come for free but causes significant additional cost compared to a stills camera.

And to repeat, i don't want an unrealistic camera, but [in addition to all the "hybrid" cameras] at least *one* realistic, pure stills FF camera with 35-45 MP, 6-8 fps, good DR, without any video/audio clutter (except internal low rez feed for EVF), at an affordable price - e.g. 1999

OK so there are two things here:
- Wanting to pay less to get fewer photo features. Lower MP, less fps, likely decreased AF capability, but cheaper. Totally reasonable, but that's not really where the 5D line has typically hit?
vs
- Thinking the video features are compromising the stills capability or price of the R5. The general consensus is whatever those features add in terms of cost are more than made up by additional sales. And most critically, the video features make for better photo features, too.

We all have different use cases, but for me personally I draw a straight line between fast read/processing and things I really want, like:
- Class leading AF
- 12/20 shooting
- Usable silent modes

If I'm paying for the above anyways for the stills features I want, I'd really want to get every capability out of the camera possible.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,977
868
Yeah, people can even crop the eyes only of their cats in their cat vids ;). But irony aside, the R5 is a dedicated pro tool and there is no question that the film/video industry will start using it. I think what Canon does with the R5 is logical. It is just not a camera for those only wanting to shoot stills.
I think it is great for stills too. I will use it for both. But will buy it only when the market opens up.
 

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,977
868
no. It is a video-optimized camera. A lot of video ballast for pure stills shooters and a high price to cross-subsidize the few who will really adequately use 8k video (today and tomorrow).
Nope. It is a super camera for stills. What is wrong with it? Price? Ah. We do not know that yet and if you find a cheaper camera for still than this, you can buy!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chris.Chapterten

sanj

EOS R5
Jan 22, 2012
3,977
868
For birding you raised a very interesting point I hadn't thought of. If you are spending a very long looking through the OVF or EVF while waiting to take a picture then I would be fairly sure that a good OVF in daylight would be a far superior image to stare at than an EVF. With that said, however, I take that more as a challenge to the EVF makers to improve their displays so that they can equal (or better) the view of an OVF. But for the moment, you are right.

Regarding power consumption, I could see EVF draining more power. Or if they auto-shut off then you'd have an extra delay when you wanted to take a peek at the birds so that they would less convenient. Either way, that would be one more thing an OVF is better at.

Even with this all said, I only want an EVF. I don't want a flippin' mirror. So I'll take what I can get and be glad for the choices I have!
I have spent hours in hides - on the ground and on trees. Tell you this: It is NOT comfortable to sit with an eye glued to the viewfinder. It gets very difficult after a while. MUCH better to sit easier and view the action on LCD. Batteries can be changed easily when they go low on power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr and Pape

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
wrong. you can write all you want, 4k and 8k video does not come for free but causes significant additional cost compared to a stills camera.

And to repeat, i don't want an unrealistic camera, but [in addition to all the "hybrid" cameras] at least *one* realistic, pure stills FF camera with 35-45 MP, 6-8 fps, good DR, without any video/audio clutter (except internal low rez feed for EVF), at an affordable price - e.g. 1999
You keep skipping the law of economics....lower demand means higher price to achieve ROI. So few people would want such a niche product that all of the cost savings that you think you would gain with such a camera would be overcome by the prices needed to achieve ROI.

Also, this is 2020, I know a lot of people here might hate me for saying this but...stills are going the way of the 8 track player. The younger generation is growing up with YouTube, Netflix, HBO, etc. etc, and "influencers". They want to see, hear, and watch what is happening on their tiny cell phone screens. Stills are best enjoyed as prints or life sized displays; modern consumers don't print, they don't buy prints, and they have less than an 8sec attention span.

Camera manufacturers know all of this and they know video is more important now than ever; producing a camera without video is a sure way to fail. Most of my customers find me looking for stills, hire me because I also do video, and end up recommending me because I found a way to do both at their event or they decide their cell phones are good enough for stills and just want a "good video" to post on their social media of their birthday party, wedding, night out, graduation, ...insert activity here...

The other part you are skipping is that video is just a series of stills taken at some frame rate fast enough to not stutter...and compressed in a codec other than JPG. So yes, the architecture for video vs stills is nearly identical and as others have stated, the few additional audio components are negligible from a price perspective. I am quite sure if Canon or any manufacturer thought they could actually make money on a stills only camera they would have produced one by now.

If you want to look at what a video only camera looks like and the pricing there, then look no farther than the Cinema line to see what dedicated (read costly) video hardware actually looks like.
 

Stone

EOS 90D
Sep 8, 2010
155
14
One up you? Far from it. Some people get sidelined early. Retirement isn't always by choice. Neither are tax rules that prevent access to a lifetime of savings without huge penalties.

Then that is a tragedy that someone who has spent a lifetime working does not deserve. I respect the dignity of work, I would not wish that upon anyone, my apologies for misunderstanding the situation.
 

yeahright

EOS 90D
Aug 28, 2014
131
97
wrong. you can write all you want, 4k and 8k video does not come for free but causes significant additional cost compared to a stills camera.

And to repeat, i don't want an unrealistic camera, but [in addition to all the "hybrid" cameras] at least *one* realistic, pure stills FF camera with 35-45 MP, 6-8 fps, good DR, without any video/audio clutter (except internal low rez feed for EVF), at an affordable price - e.g. 1999
I think you completely overestimate the market of those wanting to buy a purely stills optimized camera that is essentially equal to that R5 but with video features removed. A large part of the market for a 5-series camera wants/needs video features anyway, another large part of the market has enough money to spend not to care about $1000 oder $1500 less in price. Then there are those that do not need top of the line or are happy enough with older models, they can buy an R, an RP, or soon an R6. So who's there to buy the purely stills optimized camera? Speaking for myself, I have never used video in my 5D4, and I never intend to, because I am not interested in video at all. Still, given the choice between an R5 *including* video features at 3.500,- and a - stills-wise - identical R5 without video at 2.000,-, I would almost certainly opt for the full package, fullly aware that I will never use the feature set that costs me 1.500,- extra. Rational decision? Of course not. But I believe that in the portion of the market that would be perfectly served with the stills-only package (because they truly don't need video but want top-of-the-line stills performance), still only a small minority would actually buy it.