Canon EOS R5 Firmware v2.0.0 Released

[David_B]

You made totally uncalled for personal insults to me when I gave a simple reply to a question of yours as follows:
...
My repy then was "The R7 came out after the R5 and has several features that are on the R3 and haven't been implemented on the R5. It is claimed on one video from a Canon person that the R5 has an earlier version of the Digic X and it has been proposed that it doesn't have necessary features on it. However, I am sceptical about that without explicit details from Canon."

(Quoting here is a bitch...)

So why did I make the comment I did? Because you're willing to have faith in one unverifiable statement over another unverifiable statement. If you're going to be sceptical then you need to apply the scpeticism equally. You may as well have said "My god said X, so I know that's true, but someone else who also knows my god made comment supported by what my god said to me but what they said isn't true." (I don't know if that's offensive to reglious people, but it could be to some.) I won't ever be able to say that your god didn't say X, but neither would you be able to prove it, it requires an application of faith. To me the two comments, toghether, make sense and I see no reason to be sceptical about one and not the other. Not only that, the two statements (about OVF & DIGIC X) fit perfectly well together, and with reality, so I see no need to be sceptical of either.

When we can't verify a statement and have to take it on face value, we're justified in being sceptical - as you are. But we shouldn't choose who we're sceptical about just because it suits us. To choose what one person says over an other, seems a bit silly (at least to me), when neither statement is verifiable.

At least to me, choosing not to be sceptical of Canon but being sceptical of someone else (when scepticism is warranted in both cases) puts you into the Canon fanboy club. That then gave rise to further ideas about silliness (which I included in the text you pasted) and from there to what I said is a big downhill that I let go too far, apologies for that.

If on the other hand Canon does come out with an OVF mode for the R5 that works like the R3/R7, then I've been wrong and your selective scepticism was warranted. It still feels wrong to me.

It was your rudeness that instigated @neuroanatomist. So, don't complain when you are on the receiving end of insults when you started them and don't pose as a victim.

I think you're wrong about that. There are ways of dealing with things, as you have done, that are mature and befitting of an adult. Let me leave it at that.

Furthermore, you are showing scepticism about the Digic X processors.

Personally, I don't know what to believe about their capbilities because we don't know what they are capable of - and we probably won't, ever.

Maybe the best thing to do is stop worrying about what the DIGIC X chips can do, accept that Canon does what they can to get the best out of each of their cameras, and move on.

 

[Dragon]

Yes, what I said still holds. There hasn't been much traction with ML for R-series because people are mostly content (thanks EOS!) & there are technical challenges. If a casual reader is interested in how the "knowable" features of Canon's DIGIC have changed:

digic [Magic Lantern wiki]

wiki.magiclantern.fm

To go back to the crux of this, it's highly unlikely Canon are keeping this feature off the R5 due to marketing/competitive reasons and if you're sure Canon is doing that in some sort of conspiracy, you're not understanding what Canon has said. Canon have said the hardware in the cameras is different and that's probably the best reason for any features not being back ported.

We can't verify what Canon said (I've even looked for schematics of the chips from the likes of chipworks) so we have to take it on faith, just like we have to do so with the statement that OVF simulation can't be back ported. In summary, it makes sense.



My insult was rather wide brushed and not specific to any particular person, I also don't double down on it, It was the kind of thing that should be laughed at. I did however expand on its ridiculousness but people missed that as a cue to it not being serious. My mistake in reading the room.

You, mr cyber bully, made the insults personal and continued with them. Even after I laugh them off, you go out of your way to keep on slinging the insults. Every post of yours in this thread you're flinging insults. It took me a while to realise the "Why" Because that is who you are - a bully. Bullies like you find excuses to treat people without respect. Back in primary school, what did bullies do? Pick on kids for size, color, skin, etc. Not because it was warranted, but just because they were different in some way - it was never justified or needed/required. Bullies don't know when to stop - just like you don't. Bullies think that whay they're doing is justified - it never is - just like you. You seem to think that because I said something once that upset 1 or 2 people that you're entitled to start slinging insults. You're not. The mature thing to do is to pull me up for what I said if it was offensive - you didn't. This website is full of your insults of random people that you don't know. Nobody deserves to be insulted by you for anything they say on here - nobody.

You are still not reading the room correctly.

 

[Jethro]

Maybe the best thing to do is stop worrying about what the DIGIC X chips can do, accept that Canon does what they can to get the best out of each of their cameras, and move on.

My God. I think I agree with you. Perhaps I have a new variant of Covid!

 

[neuroanatomist]

My insult was rather wide brushed and not specific to any particular person

If you actually believe that, your metacognition aligns well with your credibility. Regardless, you’re not worth any more of my time.

 

[LesC]

Is anyone experiencing a focus problem after updating to 2.0? I did a shoot last night and discovered that auto focus sometimes didn't show the area that the camera focused on. I haven't had a chance to look at the RAWs but they seem to be in focus. It was weird but the focus square would not jump to the obvious focus point and would stay in one spot. It seemed as if my R5 was focusing properly but not displaying the selected focus point. Eye auto focus seemed to work properly but it was the normal auto focus seemed flaky.

This is my initial impressions and I haven't had a chance to do testing and fully understand what's going on.

Are you still having focus issues or is it resolved now?