Canon confirms addition of Canon Log 3, Cinema RAW Light, lower bit rates and more for the EOS-1D X Mark III and EOS R5

[highdesertmesa]

The R6 ... ...will be a successful slow burner.

Great way to put it. Much like the R was.

 

[mpeeps]

I wouldn't be surprised if the reports you've heard are true.

Of course, I'm only a sample of one, but in my move from APS-C to full-frame, my choice tipped to the R5, despite the price difference (and that difference representing the opportunity cost of getting a nice RF lens with the difference). Here's what did it for me:

1) Resolution -- 45MP means that I don't lose any "reach" going from APS-C to full frame. In fact, I get an increase in reach! A 32MP full-frame image, cropped down to the 20MP I'm used to would have been break-even, reach-wise. That extra 12MP beyond the theoretical break-even means I actually gain 40% more in reach going full frame (did I do my math right?)! Again, the "reach" is assuming I cropped down to the 20MP I'm used to. Had I chosen the R6, I would have lost the 1.6x crop factor's reach because they're both 20MP.*

2) Low-Light Performance -- At first, this was a tough one for me because the R6 was being reported as a bit cleaner than the R5, pixel for pixel. Most of the in-depth comparisons I've seen so far, though, show that when compressed down to 20MP, the R5 is just as clean, if not more. Compressing down to 20MP occasionally when I need a cleaner file is better than always having to shoot at 20MP, I think. I can't just scale up from 20MP to 45MP when the light is good!

3) Shoulder Display -- I've become so accustomed to using the shoulder display on my 70D, that I don't want to have to live without it.

4) It's Time -- I've been patient, living in the APS-C world with L lenses for many years, biding my time for when the right full-frame camera came along. I've never bought a car newer than 10 years. I've never been in debt (except mortgage). I rarely splurge on something for myself. I'm not a professional photographer. But. I think it's finally time, and the R5 is it. I would be happy as a clam if it lasts me the next 10+ years. I've been happy with the 70D for 7 years, but have finally gotten to the point that, while it's not holding me back, per se, there are shots I could get (or get more easily) with the R5 that I would likely miss with the 70D. That face and eye AF tracking....(whistles)...

5) Video -- Wait...what's video?

Anyway, that's a long-winded +1 to the idea that there might be more R5 buyers than R6 buyers moving up from APS-C (at least initially). Anyone else in a similar boat? Of course, R6 might eventually out-pace the R5 several years down the road, especially as street prices settle over time...

* I admit that I used to say that all I want is a full-frame version of my 70D. The 6DII was pretty much that, but...knowing there was a better sensor generation already in the wild...but the 6DII used an earlier one...felt like I'd be buying something that was old before I even opened it. Plus, those AF points seemed so crammed into the middle of the frame. The R6 blows the 6DII away, and but for the missing shoulder display, was all I wanted and a ton more. I would have done the happy dance all the way to checkout at Adorama...if it weren't for that R5 (as explained above).

IMHO, you should have gone full frame many years ago with your L lenses. No comparison, even after cropping.

 

[futzy]

just bloody fix the overheating issue Canon! The R5 is utterly unusable as a camera at this moment in time! I want my 8K cinema raw with unlimited record times as PROMISED!!!!!
/s

Find me one material where they promised “UNLIMITED 8K recording”! 8K yes, unlimited? No.

 

[cornieleous]

*whoosh* another fish took the bait ;-) ... not mine, but notice the /s at the bottom

bravo to who did it, hit too close to home to many.

It's really not all that funny of a joke to use some tiny symbol to indicate sarcasm that is easily missed. Discussing with people and deliberately trying to piss them off is an ego game and kinda petty. It is basically trolling for a laugh but with none of the style of Andy Kaufman. Sarcasm should be funny by being obvious.

That specific post is perhaps close to home because I think many of us are sick of people who are making serious statements like that like spoiled irrational children. It's all over the world in every topic and its lowering the quality of not just discourse but life.

So yea, sarcasm should be indicated clearly. Note: I have been guilty of this mistake myself, feeling my sarcasm is obvious when it was not.

 

[Famateur]

Uh, no. 1.6 crop factor must be multiplied by itself when comparing pixel counts.

Wheels...slowly...turning. Some creaking...

Ah!

Is that because we're dealing with area, not focal length? In other words, multiply both sensor length and width (in pixels) by 1.6, respectively, before multiplying those products to determine equivalent resolution (area in pixels)?

That makes sense. I think.

Well, shoot.

While it's not what I was imagining, I agree: it at least demonstrates* that the R5 is still clearly better for me!

Thanks for the correction, Steve!












*And supports the idea that I should be saving up for a something like an RF 100-500.

 

[cornieleous]

The analog dial on the R6 is one of the reasons I like it The R/R5 mode wheel is two steps to change the mode instead of one, and it interrupts my process by making me think about what I’m doing instead of just doing it intuitively.

How often are you changing modes? I think you could learn the new button press 'extra step' in a day. The 5D series or 6D and 7D series all had a button to unlock mode dials, so it seems pretty natural on R5 to me.

 

[Famateur]

It's really not all that funny of a joke to use some tiny symbol to indicate sarcasm that is easily missed.

See, this is why I think the internet world should consider my suggestion: We have italics to add emphasis to text. Italic fonts always "fall" forward in their slant. What if we used a backward slant italic for sarcasm?

I would totally dig that...

 

[derpderp]

See, this is why I think the internet world should consider my suggestion: We have italics to add emphasis to text. Italic fonts always "fall" forward in their slant. What if we used a backward slant italic for sarcasm?

I would totally dig that...

based on his 'standards', i'm afraid that wouldn't be obvious enough. He apparently requires huge indicators and warning statements to every sarcastic post.

 

[derpderp]

It's really not all that funny of a joke to use some tiny symbol to indicate sarcasm that is easily missed. Discussing with people and deliberately trying to piss them off is an ego game and kinda petty. It is basically trolling for a laugh but with none of the style of Andy Kaufman. Sarcasm should be funny by being obvious.

That specific post is perhaps close to home because I think many of us are sick of people who are making serious statements like that like spoiled irrational children. It's all over the world in every topic and its lowering the quality of not just discourse but life.

So yea, sarcasm should be indicated clearly. Note: I have been guilty of this mistake myself, feeling my sarcasm is obvious when it was not.

It's my post. I think its fairly obvious that my comment was made in jest. It hitting close to home makes it even better.

 

[Famateur]

IMHO, you should have gone full frame many years ago with your L lenses. No comparison, even after cropping.

I would totally agree (and your comment makes me all the more excited that it's finally happening!). Alas, a family of eight to provide for bumps hobby photography down the priority list a few notches for me. No regrets, though. Still managed to wring out some pretty excellent images, if I say so myself. On the brighter side, I've had all this time to save up!

 

[Famateur]

based on his 'standards', i'm afraid that wouldn't be obvious enough. He apparently requires huge indicators and warning statements to every sarcastic post.

Just gotta give it time to become mainstream, like these.

(I understand your particular point, though. Personally, I think placing the /s so far down adds effect, like a well-timed joke from a comedian...)

 

[Paul Nordin]

Please indicate silly, sarcastic, and otherwise ridiculous comments with symbols or other indicators noting your un-seriousness for those of us who are otherwise left with no idea of what you could possibly believe. Thanks.

Also, It will keep those of us who are shooting with the R5 from throwing it at the computer screen when we see such rediculousness. LOL

 

[privatebydesign]

It's my post. I think its fairly obvious that my comment was made in jest. It hitting close to home makes it even better.

I fail to see how /s relates to anything, it certainly doesn’t resemble an element close and why would you leave so many lines empty?

Very sloppy faux ‘coding‘ at best and very easily misunderstood.

 

[Paul Nordin]

looking At RAW vs CRAW from a IQ / file size angle, it seems that introduction of Lower bit-rate in video modes would not affect IQ as much. However, may result in bandwidth utilisation reduction by half approximately, resulting in substantial recording limits improvements.

It just depends on where the balance point is. More compression means the CPU is working harder on each frame and generating more heat, but also less bandwidth hitting the data bus and the CFexpress card, which will create less heat.

 

[Paul Nordin]

I'm not sure this is the right comparison...

Canon RAW uses a Lossless compression, which is very efficient. Canon cRAW uses a Lossy compression showing almost no difference when compared to RAW.

Lowering bit-rates really has nothing to do with the compression. It will reduce the processor workload while at the same time lowering the quality of the video. How much depends on the final bit-rate.

Guess it all depends on how that lower bit-rate is achieved. Line skipping = you are right, higher FF compression = you may be wrong.

 

[SecureGSM]

It just depends on where the balance point is. More compression means the CPU is working harder on each frame and generating more heat, but also less bandwidth hitting the data bus and the CFexpress card, which will create less heat.

That’s correct. I was more so referring that lowering bandwidth would not necessarily result in considerable video IQ quality Loss.
my gut feeling is though that making CPU working harder while offloading CFE data bus will result in a cooler running system in overall.

 

[derpderp]

I fail to see how /s relates to anything, it certainly doesn’t resemble an element close and why would you leave so many lines empty?

Very sloppy faux ‘coding‘ at best and very easily misunderstood.

haha i'm afraid this is a matter of a generation gap. "/s" is often used in other scenarios to indicate sarcasm. apologies if it has led to confusion.

 

[highdesertmesa]

How often are you changing modes? I think you could learn the new button press 'extra step' in a day. The 5D series or 6D and 7D series all had a button to unlock mode dials, so it seems pretty natural on R5 to me.

Yeah I learned it, I just don’t like it

Analog dial is: look at dial, move dial. Mode dial is: look at mode dial, push center, look at screen, turn dial the correct direction to new mode, half-press shutter to commit and get back to shooting.

 

[privatebydesign]

haha i'm afraid this is a matter of a generation gap. "/s" is often used in other scenarios to indicate sarcasm. apologies if it has led to confusion.

Well I am glad to keep learning. Though it seems even your generations etiquette would not have you leave spaces after the sentence.

 

[David - Sydney]

Find me one material where they promised “UNLIMITED 8K recording”! 8K yes, unlimited? No.

Not excusing Canon marketing for their exuberance but they did say that they are "achieving the impossible" without any pesky asterisks against the 8k video in their marketing.
Hyperbole = standard speak for marketers.
https://www.canon-europe.com/press-...2020/03/canon-reveals-further-eos-r5-details/