Canon EOS R5 Firmware v2.0.0 Released

[TwoWheeler]

Best plan is to look at the info screen after removing and inserting a card and see where it is then set. It only takes about 3 seconds to switch it back with the touch screen.

….IF I remember.

Current workflow involves leaving the camera on the desk with the door open while I’m transferring the files.

 

[David_B]

I'll explain and I'll use small words so that you'll be sure to understand (insert warthog reference if you like). @AlanF stated a Canon person said the R5 has an older type of processor (that’s the ‘brain’ of the camera). Someone else (not a Canon person, some random person posting on this forum or one like it) then said the R5 hasn’t gotten some R7 features because of its older camera brain. @AlanF is questioning the statement of a random person on the internet. There is no evidence that some random person on the internet ‘should know the answer’ about why R7 features haven’t been added to the R5. Canon has said nothing about that, and until they do, skepticism is reasonable and logical. Well, to people capable of reason and logic, though apparently not to you.

Yeah, I can imagine there would be doubters because Canon silk screen 'Canon Digic X' over the CPU on the camera's motherboard. Canon must be hiding something and doesn't want people to know what they're really doing with the brains of their camera. FFS.

Lets call random person X and Canon Y. Y said the brains of the R7 are newer than the brains of the R5. X said that this is why R7 features aren't present on R5. You're saying that X can't be trusted even though X's statement perfectly aligns with what Y said. If Y were lieing then sure, X couldn't be trusted either, and there would be a conspiracy around Y. Now it might be that X's statement is incorrect but it could also be that X &Y are the same person or that both work for Canon. We don't know. You can argue sceptisim both ways until the end of time. Maybe X made up their statement, maybe they didn't, but what X said aligns with what Y said (from a certain point of view.) A different point of view would be that Digic X is Digic X and that older brains don't matter, so X is wrong but Y is right.

Imagine if X had of said that despite of Y, it was possible for newer features not on the R5 to run on the R5. You'd still be sceptical and doubt that X was being truthful because Y had said the R5 has an older brain - without any evidence. Everyone is lieing about everything unless there's proof otherwise and even when there's proof with facts, facts are replaced with "alternate facts" (that are made up) that agree with what someone wants to believe. Y'all need to either get a lobotomy or a chill pill. FFS.

Just to summarise;
* there's no proof of what Y said is true. Y could be lieing. We don't know because the evidence is not provided for us to confirm it ourselves.
* there's no proof of what X said is true, except that features from the R7 aren't in the R5, which supports various inferences being made.

I don't need a youtube channel, for my liking what X & Y have said are aligned well enuogh for me that I don't need conspiracy theories or to be distrustful. YMMV.

When Magic Lantern boots and dumps the CPU info for both R5 & R7, then the truth will be known. Unless of course you are sceptical of what ML reports because (insert random insult/conspiracy here).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yeah, I can imagine there would be doubters because Canon silk screen 'Canon Digic X' over the CPU on the camera's motherboard. Canon must be hiding something and doesn't want people to know what they're really doing with the brains of their camera. FFS.

Lets call random person X and Canon Y. Y said the brains of the R7 are newer than the brains of the R5. X said that this is why R7 features aren't present on R5. You're saying that X can't be trusted even though X's statement perfectly aligns with what Y said. If Y were lieing then sure, X couldn't be trusted either, and there would be a conspiracy around Y. Now it might be that X's statement is incorrect but it could also be that X &Y are the same person or that both work for Canon. We don't know. You can argue sceptisim both ways until the end of time. Maybe X made up their statement, maybe they didn't, but what X said aligns with what Y said (from a certain point of view.) A different point of view would be that Digic X is Digic X and that older brains don't matter, so X is wrong but Y is right.

Imagine if X had of said that despite of Y, it was possible for newer features not on the R5 to run on the R5. You'd still be sceptical and doubt that X was being truthful because Y had said the R5 has an older brain - without any evidence. Everyone is lieing about everything unless there's proof otherwise and even when there's proof with facts, facts are replaced with "alternate facts" (that are made up) that agree with what someone wants to believe. Y'all need to either get a lobotomy or a chill pill. FFS.

I don't need a youtube channel, for my liking what X & Y have said are aligned well enuogh for me that I don't need conspiracy theories or to be distrustful. YMMV.

When Magic Lantern boots and dumps the CPU info for both R5 & R7, then the truth will be known. Unless of course you are sceptical of what ML reports because (insert random insult/conspiracy here).

I should have used smaller words.

Y said the R3 has a newer, far more powerful processor than the M6II. How would X explain a feature present on the M6II but not on the R3?

Funny…those wearing red hats think that reality aligns with their beliefs, too, and see no need to distrust that. Scientists are trained to be skeptical. Sheep aren’t.

You also seem to be equating skepticism with disbelief. Might want to look those words up, they’re not synonymous. Maybe all those chill pills you’ve taken have affected your intellect.

‘When’ ML is available for the R5 and R7? Lol. There hasn’t been a new ML build for almost 6 years. The truth about this may be out there, Agent Mulder…but aliens may be are probably a more viable source for it than Magic Lantern. Your suggestion that we can wait for an answer from ML is good evidence that you’re clueless. Or maybe that lobotomy you had resulted in a decade of lost memory.

There are multiple reasons for Canon to not include a feature in a camera that have nothing to do with hardware. My 1D X didn’t have in-camera HDR. DSLRs released before and after it, even PowerShot cameras released before and after it, had that feature. Canon likely simply felt it wasn’t a feature 1-series users at the time wanted.

The key point you’re missing (or willfully ignoring) is that there is a perfectly logical reason for Canon to not add newer features to older models, particularly when a replacement model is in mid-to-late development.

Obviously, insufficient hardware resources are also a viable reason. Just not the only one. You can choose to ascribe this decision to a lack of hardware capabilities, and see no need to entertain other, logical alternatives even in the complete the absence of definitive information. That’s your ASSumption to make.

 

[David_B]

I should have used smaller words.

No. you should have used Google.

‘When’ ML is available for the R5 and R7? Lol. There hasn’t been a new ML build for almost 6 years.

Use Google and find what ML has been doing with the R5 and other cameras. ML is a arguably the best source of information on DIGIC capabilties.

There are multiple reasons for Canon to not include a feature in a camera that have nothing to do with hardware.

But Canon hasn't provided a reason why. Canon tells us what Canon wants us to know. All anyone else can do is speculate - and that includes you. Canon could be lieing out their ASS for all we know.

The key point you’re missing (or willfully ignoring) is that there is a perfectly logical reason for Canon to not add newer features to older models, particularly when a replacement model is in mid-to-late development.

And that logical reason would be? Remember to use small words - for my benefit.

Obviously, insufficient hardware resources are also a viable reason. Just not the only one. You can choose to ascribe this decision to a lack of hardware capabilities, and see no need to entertain other, logical alternatives even in the complete the absence of definitive information. That’s your ASSumption to make.

Never mind that you're making ASSumptions yourself but lets not get facts get in the way of a good insult, hey? Unless you're hiding something, you don't know anything that I don't and you're just making different speculations based on your own ASSumptions. Which set of speculations is better is anyone's guess. Maybe we should just take some selfies of our ASSes to see who has the better ASS.

p.s. The R3 has a DIGIC X just the same as the R5 & R7 but maybe some versions of DIGIC X are more equal than others.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Just to summarise;
* there's no proof of what Y said is true. Y could be lieing. We don't know because the evidence is not provided for us to confirm it ourselves.
* there's no proof of what X said is true, except that features from the R7 aren't in the R5, which supports various inferences being made.

Your edited-in summary is as cogent as the rest of your post, i.e., not very.

In your parlance, Y is Canon. No one has suggested a rep from Canon is lying. Well, no one except you because apparently you are desperate enough to fall back on a weak straw man argument.

The end of your summary…that various inferences can be supported…is the only thing that actually makes sense. Based on the available evidence, there are several possible reasons that features from the R7 aren't in the R5.

Yet for some reason, you have chosen to believe just one of them, and decided anyone who suggests that reason might not be correct (that’s what skepticism means, if you bothered to look it up) is a MAGA-supporting conspiracy theorist. There are various inferences that can be made from that, the most likely being that you’re an ass.

 

[EricN]

Actually, those with red hats understand business far better than he does .

I believe in many cases you are correct, but not all and there are some very business savvy people on the other side, too.

 

[danfaz]

You should have used Google.
Canon could be lieing out their ASS for all we know.

You should have used Google to learn how to spell "lying." I mean, if you're going to try and make people feel stupid...

 

[David_B]

You should have used Google to learn how to spell "lying." I mean, if you're going to try and make people feel stupid...

Thatnks, that one always trips me up.

Your edited-in summary is as cogent as the rest of your post, i.e., not very.

Actually it is very pertinent. It is impossible for us to independently verify the statements of either X or Y. You do realise that, don't you? (Yes or no will suffice.)

In your parlance, Y is Canon. No one has suggested a rep from Canon is lying. Well, no one except you because apparently you are desperate enough to fall back on a weak straw man argument.

You're implicating that feature Z isn't in the R5 but is in the R7 for unknown reasons. X has made a statement that is supported by Y about why Z isn't in the R5 and is in the R7. You're dismissing X's statement because it can't be proved - but neither can Y's - yet you choose not to dismiss Y;s statement. Choosing to believe one and not the other is just being selective about what you choose to believe vs not believe based on a roll of the die. Or perhaps in your case, it is a matter of religion, because it is well established from your posts here that you go at great lengths to praise Canon as if you were their disciple. That said, you've provided no logic, no decision tree, just rebutted a statement.

The end of your summary…that various inferences can be supported…is the only thing that actually makes sense. Based on the available evidence, there are several possible reasons that features from the R7 aren't in the R5.

One theory being that the DIGIC X in the R5 isn't as capable as the DIGIC X in the R7. Does that theory make sense to you? (Yes or no answer please, no need for essays on that.)

There are various inferences that can be made from that, the most likely being that you’re an ass.

If I was an ass I'd be in a field eating grass and similarly not able to type, so it is provable that I'm not an ass.

 

[Dragon]

I believe in many cases you are correct, but not all and there are some very business savvy people on the other side, too.

If you follow the thread back, you will see that I was not needling Neuro, but rather the one to whom he was referring who made a blanket statement that was a generalization suggesting that red hats are equivalent to tinfoil hats and that is pure and simple BS propaganda. But, yes, there are both smart and dumb folks on both sides of the fence and I won't go further since this is not and should not be a political commentary site.

 

[David_B]

If you follow the thread back, you will see that I was not needling Neuro, but rather the one to whom he was referring who made a blanket statement that was a generalization suggesting that red hats are equivalent to tinfoil hats and that is pure and simple BS propaganda. But, yes, there are both smart and dumb folks on both sides of the fence and I won't go further since this is not and should not be a political commentary site.

Someone ought to make said red hats out of tin foil and paint them - or line said red hats with tin foil - for the best of both worlds

 

[wuxiaoan]

After updating to 2.0, has anyone experienced issues with the camera having issues recognizing the SD card slot? After updating, my camera kept showing card read error for any SD card I insert in the SD slot. Is this just me?

 

[HeavyPiper]

After updating to 2.0, has anyone experienced issues with the camera having issues recognizing the SD card slot? After updating, my camera kept showing card read error for any SD card I insert in the SD slot. Is this just me?

Up dated yesterday, inserted SD card, no issue.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Use Google and find what ML has been doing with the R5 and other cameras. ML is a arguably the best source of information on DIGIC capabilties.

Doubling down? Nice. Maybe I’m not very good at using Google. Perhaps you can link to some actual source material about ML running on the R5 and other recent cameras.

The closest I can find is a year-old forum post by a developer in the R5/R6 thread on the ML forums listing problems with Digic X and stating, “I personally gave up on this for now…” (He goes on to say that there's no way to even run code on bodies newer than the R5/R6). As best I can tell, all that ML has been accomplishing on the R5 is making wish-lists. Given the knowledge base on this forum and the complete lack of mention of ML running on the R5 or other R-series bodies by anyone but you, and the fact that nothing obvious comes up on Google and certainly there are no builds for the R5 (or any other R camera) available to download from ML, I'm not just skeptical...I flat out don't believe you. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong on this, but I'm not going to hold my breath and in the meantime your credibility will remain in the toilet.

Actually it is very pertinent. It is impossible for us to independently verify the statements of either X or Y. You do realise that, don't you?

The original statement to which you responded was, “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.”

Something stated on video/podcast by a Canon rep is verifiable. You do realize that, don't you? I haven’t done so, and see no need to because I trust the person making the statement that referenced the source. Worth noting that Bryan Carnathan, a trusted source who frequently communicates directly with Canon, puts a ‘higher performing Digic X processor’ at the top of his list of R6II advantages over the R5. So there does appear to be independent verification of later cameras with a shared feature set having an improved Digic X relative to the R5.

However, the second part of that statement, the proposal that features in the R7 were not implemented in the R5 because of comparatively less processor power, is not independently verifiable (unless and until Canon provides granular details, something else I won't hold my breath waiting for). Why do you persist in insisting that must be the reason? It seems reasonable that a difference in Digic X capability is the reason for some features not being transferred, e.g., the computationally-heavy AF features, especially since they'd need to be run on far more data (45 MP) than other cameras. In fact, that might be reason enough even without a bump in Digic X performance.

But this discussion didn't start out with a bunch of different features...as a reminder, this discussion started when you asked why one specific feature, OVF simulation, is in the R7 and not the R5. @AlanF brought up the Digic X difference and indicated he was skeptical about that as the reason. That's when you went off the rails and started throwing out accusations of MAGA conspiracy theories.

It seems your position is that the R5 does not have OVF simulation because its version of Digic X can't handle it. You then provided a link that concludes the main difference with OVF simulation is the application of a different gamma curve. There's already a gamma curve applied in the EVF of the R5, and that gamma curve can be easily changed by setting a different Picture Style. It seems very unlikely that a lack of Digic X capability is the reason OVF Sim has not been retroactively added to the R5. In fact, people were using custom-edited picture styles on the R5, with curves that attempted to simulate the greater DR of an OVF, before Canon even brought OVF simulation to the R3.

Regardless, this discussion has gone the way most of them go when I end up in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Had a quick look back at your previous posts, which reminded me that I've been engaging with someone who can't do simple math and said that Canon leads the market because of purchases by communists and terrorists. When I said above that your credibility was in the toilet, I was wrong. Your credibility needs a serious sewage back flow to make it as high as the toilet.

 

[EricN]

If you follow the thread back, you will see that I was not needling Neuro, but rather the one to whom he was referring who made a blanket statement that was a generalization suggesting that red hats are equivalent to tinfoil hats and that is pure and simple BS propaganda. But, yes, there are both smart and dumb folks on both sides of the fence and I won't go further since this is not and should not be a political commentary site.

I understood and my comment was not regarding them. Only about the higher likelihood of what we call business sense on one side of the political spectrum.
I agree we should avoid politics here as much as possible and I probably shouldn't have posted (as well as something about photo of the year)

As far as the discussion, it's always entertaining to read these things... I know who is almost always correct in these discussions and don't know why people bother...

 

[Dragon]

Someone ought to make said red hats out of tin foil and paint them - or line said red hats with tin foil - for the best of both worlds

Someone who ALWAYS has to double down on stupid. I will just leave you out there on your limb (and maybe persuade Neuro to shake the tree).

 

[EricN]

Doubling down? Nice. Maybe I’m not very good at using Google. Perhaps you can link to some actual source material about ML running on the R5 and other recent cameras.

The closest I can find is a year-old forum post by a developer in the R5/R6 thread on the ML forums listing problems with Digic X and stating, “I personally gave up on this for now…” (He goes on to say that there's no way to even run code on bodies newer than the R5/R6). As best I can tell, all that ML has been accomplishing on the R5 is making wish-lists. Given the knowledge base on this forum and the complete lack of mention of ML running on the R5 or other R-series bodies by anyone but you, and the fact that nothing obvious comes up on Google and certainly there are no builds for the R5 (or any other R camera) available to download from ML, I'm not just skeptical...I flat out don't believe you. I'd be happy to be shown to be wrong on this, but I'm not going to hold my breath and in the meantime your credibility will remain in the toilet.



The original statement to which you responded was, “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.”

Something stated on video/podcast by a Canon rep is verifiable. You do realize that, don't you? I haven’t done so, and see no need to because I trust the person making the statement that referenced the source. Worth noting that Bryan Carnathan, a trusted source who frequently communicates directly with Canon, puts a ‘higher performing Digic X processor’ at the top of his list of R6II advantages over the R5. So there does appear to be independent verification of later cameras with a shared feature set having an improved Digic X relative to the R5.

However, the second part of that statement, the proposal that features in the R7 were not implemented in the R5 because of comparatively less processor power, is not independently verifiable (unless and until Canon provides granular details, something else I won't hold my breath waiting for). Why do you persist in insisting that must be the reason? It seems reasonable that a difference in Digic X capability is the reason for some features not being transferred, e.g., the computationally-heavy AF features, especially since they'd need to be run on far more data (45 MP) than other cameras. In fact, that might be reason enough even without a bump in Digic X performance.

But this discussion didn't start out with a bunch of different features...as a reminder, this discussion started when you asked why one specific feature, OVF simulation, is in the R7 and not the R5. @AlanF brought up the Digic X difference and indicated he was skeptical about that as the reason. That's when you went off the rails and started throwing out accusations of MAGA conspiracy theories.

It seems your position is that the R5 does not have OVF simulation because its version of Digic X can't handle it. You then provided a link that concludes the main difference with OVF simulation is the application of a different gamma curve. There's already a gamma curve applied in the EVF of the R5, and that gamma curve can be easily changed by setting a different Picture Style. It seems very unlikely that a lack of Digic X capability is the reason OVF Sim has not been retroactively added to the R5. In fact, people were using custom-edited picture styles on the R5, with curves that attempted to simulate the greater DR of an OVF, before Canon even brought OVF simulation to the R3.

Regardless, this discussion has gone the way most of them go when I end up in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. Had a quick look back at your previous posts, which reminded me that I've been engaging with someone who can't do simple math and said that Canon leads the market because of purchases by communists and terrorists. When I said above that your credibility was in the toilet, I was wrong. Your credibility needs a serious sewage back flow to make it as high as the toilet.

All in all, the reason isn't that important.
Canon doesn't offer OVF Simulation for the R5 and I have not seen anything regarding a working Magic Lantern for R5, let alone one that offers OVF Simulation.
I always enjoy these tragicomedies though...

 

[neuroanatomist]

All in all, the reason isn't that important.
Canon doesn't offer OVF Simulation for the R5 and I have not seen anything regarding a working Magic Lantern for R5, let alone one that offers OVF Simulation.

It's actually pretty surprising how many features of newer cameras are back-ported to older models via firmware updates. Canon highlights some of them, along with brand new features added via firmware (e.g. the R5's IBIS high res mode and the R3's priority face recognition):

Firmware update features

Firmware updates for Canon cameras add new features and enhance performance in EOS R3, EOS R5, EOS R6, EOS R7, EOS R10 and more – including 400MP resolution in EOS R5.

www.canon-europe.com

However, these are generally the exception rather than the rule. The other trend is that the closer a model gets to replacement, the fewer new features it receives.

 

[EricN]

It's actually pretty surprising how many features of newer cameras are back-ported to older models via firmware updates. Canon highlights some of them, along with brand new features added via firmware (e.g. the R5's IBIS high res mode and the R3's priority face recognition):

Firmware update features

Firmware updates for Canon cameras add new features and enhance performance in EOS R3, EOS R5, EOS R6, EOS R7, EOS R10 and more – including 400MP resolution in EOS R5.

www.canon-europe.com

However, these are generally the exception rather than the rule. The other trend is that the closer a model gets to replacement, the fewer new features it receives.

Having started photography in the 1980s without autofocus, I feel extremely lucky to get what is available with the installed firmware at launch. The updates are really a gift that some companies either wouldn't provide or would charge us for. I'm fuzzy on this, but if I recall there was one downloadable Canon charged for around eight years ago. One thing! Even if I'm wrong and there was a second paid update, it's quite amazing for me.

Becoming less often regardless of hardware / staff limitations or financial motives all make sense. I challenge anyone to say honestly say they would prefer to get everything they want in a body via free updates knowing it will come with fewer sales of the next body resulting increased financial stress resulting in lower quality across the board, fewer new products, and the potential for the company to completely go under. Those people who were too angry about EOS-M or the ones who hate the trend of higher F numbers should be first to admit they couldn't accept the result...

 

[AlanF]

Having started photography in the 1980s without autofocus, I feel extremely lucky to get what is available with the installed firmware at launch. The updates are really a gift that some companies either wouldn't provide or would charge us for. I'm fuzzy on this, but if I recall there was one downloadable Canon charged for around eight years ago. One thing! Even if I'm wrong and there was a second paid update, it's quite amazing for me.

Becoming less often regardless of hardware / staff limitations or financial motives all make sense. I challenge anyone to say honestly say they would prefer to get everything they want in a body via free updates knowing it will come with fewer sales of the next body resulting increased financial stress resulting in lower quality across the board, fewer new products, and the potential for the company to completely go under. Those people who were too angry about EOS-M or the ones who hate the trend of higher F numbers should be first to admit they couldn't accept the result...

Canon is so financially strong I doubt if will be doomed by free updates or they would seriously impact its product roll out. They have their eyes firmly on the bottom line.

 

[mpeeps]

They can do all these new things but still can't fix the camera randomly going in and out of auto ISO after FIVE YEARS of people complaining. Or fix latching one-shot/AI focus switching. Or enable dialling in AUTO ISO below ISO 50.
Version 1 still isn't even finished and they're claiming v2.

I have not seen people complain about this but am happy to see that it's not just me regarding the auto ISO going in and out. It has bedeviled me many times. Still not sure of the cure. Do you have any suggestions??