Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6 and new lens SKU and kit information

[Cryhavoc]

I heard that they gave the basic adapter with the Eos R back then? is that true?

They did but not at Release. I bought mine in Nov 2018 and it did not come with the adapter. I think they bundled it for a period of time by Summer 2019 ish.

 

[koenkooi]

I'm not a video guy but I pulled some information from the CFe datasheets.

The Prograde data sheet in the link has a handy table for 4k raw rates (bit depth and fps). It is strange that the table shows that all the Gold cards cannot handle 478MB/s (raw 4K/30fps @12 bit) although the 512GB-1T do handle 500MB/s avg

What would the raw 8K/30 10 bit data speed be and which cards would support it?
Still bursts could be more relevant for max write speeds but why aren't the card manufacturers listing avg write speed which video will be and avg read speed?

progradedigital dot com/products/cfexpress/
600MG/s Gold 120GB => Avg 145MB/s
1000MB/s Gold 256GB => 350MB/s
1000MB/s Gold 512GB-1T => 500MB/s
1400MB/s Cobalt 325GB => 1300MB/s
The avg to max speed difference is huge from 25% to 50% for gold but cobalt is pretty close to max.

Sandisk write speeds with no mention of sustained/average speed! link is:
shop dot westerndigital dot com/products/memory-cards/sandisk-extreme-pro-cfexpress-type-b#SDCFE-064G-ANCIN
64GB 800 MB/s
128/256GB 1200 MB/s
521GB 1400 MB/s

Lexar. I can't find a datasheet for them... only 64GB — 512GB Up to 1750MB/s read, up to 1000MB/s write.
If Lexar 128/256GB cards are okay for the 1DXiii (assumed) 1000MB/s then why aren't the Sandisk 128/256GB included?

I hadn't looked at the Lexar cards, which is why I assumed 1200MB/s was the cut-off. The Lexar press release talks about "Sustained write speeds of 1000MB/s", but the spec page has "up to 1000MB/s write".

My guess is that the Lexar performance gap between max and sustained is more like the Prograde Cobalt and the Sandisk gap is more like the Prograde Gold.

A naive calculation of 15.7MP * 12 bit * 60fps / (8 * 1024 * 1024) gives me about 1350MB/s, but Canon says it's only 325MB/s. Dropping that in half to 30fps doesn't have the bitrate according to Canon, but only reduces it by a third to 225MB/s. That's without audio, but I would've expected the 512GB+ Gold ones to work.
My best guess is that Canon does some housekeeping on the card while recording, e.g. buffering uncompressed RAW while having the Digic losslessy compress it and writing that as well.

 

[koenkooi]

They did but not at Release. I bought mine in Nov 2018 and it did not come with the adapter. I think they bundled it for a period of time by Summer 2019 ish.

It depends on the region, the Canon subsidiaries can create their own bundles. Canon Europe likes to bundle lenses, Canon USA likes to bundle printers.

 

[pzyber]

Which recent Canon lens has "dodgy optics"??

Also RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM has "dodgy optics". It could almost classify as fisheye at 24mm and you can't turn off the corrections for the lens in the camera nor in DPP. The corners looks really bad at 24mm since they get streched so much.

 

[koenkooi]

Also RF 24-105mm f/4-7.1 IS STM has "dodgy optics". It could almost classify as fisheye at 24mm and you can't turn off the corrections for the lens in the camera nor in DPP. The corners looks really bad at 24mm since they get streched so much.

I downloaded a sample RAW file and load it into DPP4. You can turn off all corrections, except for distortion. Dragging the distortion slider to the left makes the image slightly wider, but I don't see a difference between turning it off or on.

 

[pzyber]

I downloaded a sample RAW file and load it into DPP4. You can turn off all corrections, except for distortion. Dragging the distortion slider to the left makes the image slightly wider, but I don't see a difference between turning it off or on.

It's the distortion that's really bad on the lens at 24mm. Hence why they made it so you can't turn the distortion corrections off. If you open the same image in another RAW converter you will see.

 

[Go Wild]

Workflow is slow, tedious and not streamlined at all. It wasn't revised for maybe a decade and it shows. That's all. Time is money, and LR is lacking a fast workflow.

In years working in photography and having a huge amount of photos to edit in every works I do, could you please tell me what program is better than Lightroom as a "fast workflow"???

Workflow is a very personal thing and everyone has it´s own. But there is no program out that can even equalize Lightroom. It´s the best program if you have a big amount of photos to edit! And yes, I also agree with Privatbydesign, there are no programs that can match Adobe programs! Of course some programs are better in some ways, but in overall Adobe programs are reliable, they don´t crash, you are always updated, and they deliver everything a photographer needs! I pay 120€ by year to have photoshop and lightroom and I won´t trade those 2 for nothing! I did try DXO and it´s a no for me and i do own Luminar 4 and Aurora HDR. They are fine and i like them, but we can´t compare.....

 

[cayenne]

In years working in photography and having a huge amount of photos to edit in every works I do, could you please tell me what program is better than Lightroom as a "fast workflow"???

Workflow is a very personal thing and everyone has it´s own. But there is no program out that can even equalize Lightroom. It´s the best program if you have a big amount of photos to edit! And yes, I also agree with Privatbydesign, there are no programs that can match Adobe programs! Of course some programs are better in some ways, but in overall Adobe programs are reliable, they don´t crash, you are always updated, and they deliver everything a photographer needs! I pay 120€ by year to have photoshop and lightroom and I won´t trade those 2 for nothing! I did try DXO and it´s a no for me and i do own Luminar 4 and Aurora HDR. They are fine and i like them, but we can´t compare.....

I agree that workflow is a very personal thing....

However, Adobe is not the pure king of the hill above everyone it used to be.

I don't like the "rental" model of software and have left Adobe. I use On1 RAW as my LR replacement....and Affinity Photo as my PS replacement.

IN both of those, especially AP...the new engine there is light speed faster than PS which still has so much of an old code base it supports....

And On1 has features some great features, I believe it had luminosity masks before LR did? Also, does LR have layers and compositing you can do in LR?

But again, while I agree that whatever tool/workflow floats your boat is the best way to go, I have to disagree with you that there are NO programs out there that can equal or better LR, PS or any other Adobe product.

There are several out there now that absolutely can, and at a FAR lower price.

Heck, give them a try some time....free trials and hack the affinity suite of tools I think may still be on sale (permanent license) for like $25?

LOL...you can get the entire Affinity Suite for like $75....I've had bar tabs MUCH higher than that.....you know?


And Adobe not crashing? Hmm....that wasn't my experience...especially with Premier.

Just my $0.02,

C

 

[Go Wild]

I agree that workflow is a very personal thing....

However, Adobe is not the pure king of the hill above everyone it used to be.

I don't like the "rental" model of software and have left Adobe. I use On1 RAW as my LR replacement....and Affinity Photo as my PS replacement.

IN both of those, especially AP...the new engine there is light speed faster than PS which still has so much of an old code base it supports....

And On1 has features some great features, I believe it had luminosity masks before LR did? Also, does LR have layers and compositing you can do in LR?

But again, while I agree that whatever tool/workflow floats your boat is the best way to go, I have to disagree with you that there are NO programs out there that can equal or better LR, PS or any other Adobe product.

There are several out there now that absolutely can, and at a FAR lower price.

Heck, give them a try some time....free trials and hack the affinity suite of tools I think may still be on sale (permanent license) for like $25?

LOL...you can get the entire Affinity Suite for like $75....I've had bar tabs MUCH higher than that.....you know?


And Adobe not crashing? Hmm....that wasn't my experience...especially with Premier.

Just my $0.02,

C

No....but we are talking different things....Of course for regular photo editing any program can be good! The best is the one you like most! But I was talking about serious workflows, ones that you have to edit a huge amount of photos! For this, I find Lightroom to be the best in so many ways.....

Regarding what´s best....I like working with Adobe, but also like the Luminar 4, when I am editing landscape for example...Or the Aurora HDR....They are good. Slow as hell but good!

The best...is always a relative thing...

Ohh....another thing....At first I was sceptic about this new way adobe was working. But now I don´t care! I have the programs always updated I don´t need to wait that some program schedule a big update...And if you make the calculation...I pay 120€ per year.... Well, that´s the price of 1 program like Luminar for example...DXO is more expensive...And you can use 2 different types of Lightroom and Photoshop! You can say that "Ok, but at least I pay a program that is mine forever..." It´s true....but after 1 year you will still have to buy the upgrade if something big come! So.....Its the same thing....

I don´t use Premiere so i Can´t tell...I use FCPX for video.

 

[Quirkz]

The RF 24-240mm does not cover the FF image circle at 24mm. To compensate, the lens correction profile applies a slight crop to the image. It is a completely new approach to ILC lens design for Canon, but I would agree that calling it "dodgy" is a bit over the top.

Especially since the optics are actually fairly good for an under $1k superzoom.
They know the precise math behind the lens optics, so can correct surprisingly well.

 

[stevelee]

When we're finally moving to IBIS bodies why does every lens have in-lens IS?

I understand it may work a little better to have both rather than IBIS alone, but even before IBIS maybe half the lenses lacked IS.

In-camera IBIS already buys enough stops that subject movement starts to be a big concern. Subject movement seems to be the limiting factor on how much IS you use already. So if IBIS + lens IS buys you say 6 stops, who can really use those 6 stops?

I'd prefer lenses not to sacrifice sharpness, size and weight for an IS capability that can't be used a lot.

Supposedly IBIS works best for wide-angle lenses, and not so well with telephotos. Camera shake is more of an issue the longer the lens. So lens IS remains important if you use telephoto lenses.

 

[usern4cr]

Supposedly IBIS works best for wide-angle lenses, and not so well with telephotos. Camera shake is more of an issue the longer the lens. So lens IS remains important if you use telephoto lenses.

Yes, long telephotos drastically need lens IS more than others, since the IBIS alone only has a limited range of motion which can't come close to the amount needed for long telephotos.

But don't forget that handhold shake with wide angle lenses can't be properly fixed for the entire sensor with IBIS, since the amount of correction needed is appreciably different in the center of the sensor as in the extremities. So if IBIS fixes it in one area, it messes it up in the other areas. But lens IS would better correct all of it. So all lenses really benefit from lens IS with IBIS to help correct the lesser amount that's left.

 

[Go Wild]

You don't have to buy the upgrade. I still have CS4. Heck, I couldn't find the CS4 disk last time I bought a PC so ran Photoshop 5.5 for a few months (from 1998). And since Adobe axed the Kodak PhotoCD support, I actually HAD to use 5.5 to read some old photos.

Well of course! Upgrading is always a choice! If you don´t care about the newest developments and your use only require the old fetures then of course you will never have to upgrade. But...we all know that editing software is always in a evolution path and if you want to have the newest things you need to upgrade. I remember the time when Photoshop costs 800€! Now i can have it for 120€/year. So 800€ will give me for about 7 years of use and with the advantage that I am always updated. And with that big extra...I can also use Lightroom! So....What´s not to like in this new "renting" by Adobe?

 

[stevelee]

I was resistant to Adobe's subscription model, but then I realized that I had been paying about $600 a year for Adobe upgrades anyway. I don't use some of the programs as much as I used to, particularly In Design, but it is still handy to have access to the whole suite. I use Photoshop every day and Dreamweaver almost that often. The monthly fee just winds up buried in my credit card bill, so I don't notice it. It's all a matter of perception. If I had trouble buying groceries or making house payments, then I'd see it differently. With direct deposits and online bill payments, money just seems abstract, moving electrons around. If I didn't have regular use for some of the other programs, I'd consider the Photoshop and Lightroom plan, which seems like a real bargain. These days there are so many things to subscribe to that it becomes a matter of priorities and a question of what I really use. I dropped ESPN+, not because I couldn't afford the $5, but because there are no sports being played that I want to see. I added another disc to my Netflix subscription since I'm home watching the movies more. I'm using older versions of Quicken and Sibelius because I don't need any of the things the subscription versions will do. Fortunately, both still work in the current Mac OS version. I don't begrudge anybody whose priorities are different from mine and their consequent choices.

 

[cayenne]

<snip>

Ohh....another thing....At first I was sceptic about this new way adobe was working. But now I don´t care! I have the programs always updated I don´t need to wait that some program schedule a big update...And if you make the calculation...I pay 120€ per year.... Well, that´s the price of 1 program like Luminar for example...DXO is more expensive...And you can use 2 different types of Lightroom and Photoshop! You can say that "Ok, but at least I pay a program that is mine forever..." It´s true....but after 1 year you will still have to buy the upgrade if something big come! So.....Its the same thing....

<snip>

Well, here's the thing.

How many years has it been since Adobe moved to rental model? Quite awhile, no?

Honestly, since then I've still yet to see any feature or new item that is so groundbreaking, workflow efficient a change that I just would have to upgrade from my last version of PS CS6, nor LR5.

I'd still likely use them, but they have too much 32 bit code in them for OS X Catalina to work with.

And with Adobe doing rental....really what motivation do they have to actually innovate? Not much.

However, the alternatives out there today...ARE very much viable alternatives to Adobe products, where in the past there really were no serious professional level challengers.

And with stand alone licensing..well, you don't have blips that cut people off like Adobe CC had just within the last month I believe....

And you don't automatically get new versions pushed out that have bugs that have affected people with downtime.

However, I get it...the rental version works for some people. Larger commercial entities likely think it is ok...just like leasing other equipment they need.

But for the smaller guy....you generally do not have a compelling reason to upgrade the software every single year with ever single new version...and hence, doing the licensed permanent copy is WAY more economical.....especially if you look at the Affinity Tools: Photo, Designer, Publisher....I believe they are still on sale for $25 each.

Can Adobe rental beat that?

And I was an early adopter for Affinity Photo...I think it started about 2015.

I've had numerous FREE updates ever since then....5 years worth. So, with my one purchase for 5 years, I've gotten all the free new tools, updates, and bug fixes....with a single payment to the company.

But different strokes for different folks.....everyone should use the best tool they think is for the job.

But it is hardly fair to say that the alternatives to Adobe are not professional level, nor are they not kept up to date with software updates.

C

 

[RBSfphoto]

Fyi for those with good relationships with their local camera retailer (Being in a large city one of the largest retailers in the USA is here), my shop has told me they know they have ten cameras already on pre-order with canon and are taking deposits to be on the pre-order list. I have made my deposit

 

[Go Wild]

Well, here's the thing.

How many years has it been since Adobe moved to rental model? Quite awhile, no?

Well I believe since 2014 or close...

Honestly, since then I've still yet to see any feature or new item that is so groundbreaking, workflow efficient a change that I just would have to upgrade from my last version of PS CS6, nor LR5.


And with Adobe doing rental....really what motivation do they have to actually innovate? Not much.

That´s not true at all! The improvements have been numerous and very significant! As the matter of fact today we had a good upgrade of photoshop and camera raw!!!
So, of course they maintain motivation to improve! In fact, they usually are the first company to upgrade their programas to work with the new cameras and new extensions!

However, the alternatives out there today...ARE very much viable alternatives to Adobe products, where in the past there really were no serious professional level challengers.

And with stand alone licensing..well, you don't have blips that cut people off like Adobe CC had just within the last month I believe....

And you don't automatically get new versions pushed out that have bugs that have affected people with downtime.

Alternatives are good if they fit you! Like I said, I do use another programs like Luminar and I like! Its just a matter of personal choice!

Never had those blips you talk and only one time we did have some issues, when Apple launch Catalina. Maybe Windows experience is different, don´t know...But even with some bugs at that time, they fiz it really quick and never get my workflow affected. It only afect Photshop so I worked with Lightroom...2 programs for the price of 1!

However, I get it...the rental version works for some people. Larger commercial entities likely think it is ok...just like leasing other equipment they need.

But for the smaller guy....you generally do not have a compelling reason to upgrade the software every single year with ever single new version...and hence, doing the licensed permanent copy is WAY more economical.....especially if you look at the Affinity Tools: Photo, Designer, Publisher....I believe they are still on sale for $25 each.

Can Adobe rental beat that?

And I was an early adopter for Affinity Photo...I think it started about 2015.

I've had numerous FREE updates ever since then....5 years worth. So, with my one purchase for 5 years, I've gotten all the free new tools, updates, and bug fixes....with a single payment to the company.

But different strokes for different folks.....everyone should use the best tool they think is for the job.

But it is hardly fair to say that the alternatives to Adobe are not professional level, nor are they not kept up to date with software updates.

C

I accept your point of view, it´s your oppinion based on your needs and that is totally valid!

For me...I just prefer Adobe. I was one of the firsts to use Affinity I was one of the users of the BETA version when it was still developing. And I did like it, it was very near to Photoshop.
And if you say you prefer Affinity to Photoshop, totally understand! But thing is.....in Adobe you get for 10€ month TWO programs!!! What can beat that!!
So...The thing is...this is just a personal opinion and based on personal uses! There are no perfect programs, just programs that adapt good to what we do...Some of us use Adobe, some of us use another ones...
Adobe is not perfect.....But they deliver what I need....

 

[cayenne]

That´s not true at all! The improvements have been numerous and very significant! As the matter of fact today we had a good upgrade of photoshop and camera raw!!!
So, of course they maintain motivation to improve! In fact, they usually are the first company to upgrade their programas to work with the new cameras and new extensions!

Interesting.

Can you point to some of the earth shaking, can't do without improvements Adobe has done to say, Photoshop....that makes it so superior to CS6 that you can't live without? What amazing functionality have they added since then that blows CS6 out of the water and gives functionality you cannot do before rental model?

Just curious, maybe I missed it, I do try to keep up and listen for the updates, but I"ve yet to see anything so mind blowing for PS or LR that I couldn't still do inCS6 and LR5 for the most part...

C

 

[Go Wild]

Interesting.

Can you point to some of the earth shaking, can't do without improvements Adobe has done to say, Photoshop....that makes it so superior to CS6 that you can't live without? What amazing functionality have they added since then that blows CS6 out of the water and gives functionality you cannot do before rental model?

Just curious, maybe I missed it, I do try to keep up and listen for the updates, but I"ve yet to see anything so mind blowing for PS or LR that I couldn't still do inCS6 and LR5 for the most part...

C

Come on....Really? Just google it! I understand that for you and your use an upgrade is not required. I also understand that for you Adobe programs are not the most indicated for your work. It all depends on our needs and also on what makes you feel confident and happy with the use!

For me, I get that with Adobe. Of course I am not going to sit here and convice you of that! Just because it´s not my point or objective and also Adobe doesn´t pay me for that!!

 

[stevelee]

I’ve seen that Lightroom has added ISO-variant default settings for Raw conversions. For example, you could set low noise reduction for shots at ISO 100, more reduction for 6400 and less sharpening, and more reduction at 40,000. It just affects what you see when you open the raw file, and you can still adjust from there. Between values it interpolates.

I don’t know whether it is also added to ACR. ACR interface has been changed to be more like Lightroom, so it will take me a while to find what is hidden where, even though it hasn’t been that long since I used the develop module during a book project.