I doubt it, too. I think I should have worded a little different to express it's an unlikely but vaguely possible outcome of my hypothetical scenario. Should I edit it?
Upvote
0
Canon EOS R5 Firmware v2.0.0 Released
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Upvote
0
The only thing different is the file extension, .zip or .dmg. You can download and extract the upgrade file from a zip file a on a Mac and use it just the same.
Upvote
0
No, I don't remember when Canon updated every 10 to 15 years. I do remember new bodies and lenses being introduced steadily since the 1980's, but before that things are rather foggy. (Sorry, but my memory is not restricted to 35mm.)
Does it bother you that the "current batch" of users enjoys new gear and has the resources to pay for it?
As for "craft," in my opinion, there are more astounding photos being taken by more people than ever in the history of photography. Perhaps I'm just easily impressed.
Thank you, Canon, for continuing to improve function of one of the best cameras on the planet, several years after the product's initial release.
Upvote
0
This is a service issue. Canon can fix it if they can recreate the issue. Mine is also a a "low serial number," and I live in and use it in a very hot region.
Upvote
0
With ILC digital cameras, what most internet posters want isn't better software but better hardware. That's because they're not using new enough cell phones. I can do stunning mirror image photos from my iPhone, without doing anything special on the phone, that none of my digital cameras can do without a trip into 3rd party software. The JPEG mode for Canon R cameras is so far behind what phones can do now for the ordinary photographer. This is a space that Canon could deliver a long train of updates to. If my phone can do scene-detection of some kind and produce the goods, why can't a big camera? There's room for some "AI" that doesn't need to be delivered today but via updates, absolutely. Updates and AI. Room for lots of innivation there.
Upvote
0
A good start would be making the companion apps in the phone work well and resemble something modern, a phone (or tablet!) is much easier to use for image manipulation than your camera.
Canon has been showing the DPRAW-to-3d-model demo at recent tradeshows, there's nothing stopping them from making that a phone app. Or thinking further along, DPRAW to UnrealEngine MetaHuman would be a great feature to woo developers on the AR/VR space.
I also like Canon to work on very basic things, like being able to connect your camera to an existing wifi network, so it doesn't matter that your phone is more than 3 meters away. And instigate that from the phone side, the bluetooth range is strangely enough a lot larger than the wifi one, approximately 10m vs 2m (depending on the body).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Go back and read what I said which is that ML is the best chance we've got of finding out what the capabilities are of the DIGIC X in different cameas because Canon obscure or don't provide the details. If ML can't run on DIGIC X then we're all mushrooms with respect to the capabilities of cameras with DIGIC X SOC.
How?How do you verify that DIGIC X on the R5 is different to DIGIC X on the R7? How does anyone verify some arm waving by Canon? We have to assume they're being honest for no other reason than it benefits them from doing so.
Why do I insist that that be the reason? Because it is the only lead we've got from Canon that aligns with what's transpired.
Yes, there are other reasons such as:
- no budget to backport the feature
- not enough resources
- not enough desire from photographers
....
Note that I haven't included anything related to marketing or product advantages - that's because I would consider such arguments to be conspiracy based and it doesn't reflect well on Canon from a PR perspective.
Most likely some features in each camera are tied to the development and release of hardware. Some new features will be candidaes for being backported to earlier camera models but it stands to reason that if newer features make use of newer hardware features (be it speed or otherwise) then that stops it being a candidate for such activity.
The hardware not being compatible is what I'd call the best fit for Occam's Razor.
Yes, I thought that might be of educational value to the discussion about why EVFs are considered to be a problem by some.
Custom picture styles have been a thing since the beginning as a means to get a better representation of what the sensor sees. There's nothing new here. Is there more to OVF simulation than just a different gamma curve? We don't know because we don't know how it is implemented. We don't even know how the gamma curve for the EVF is implemented. All of this lack of knowledge stems from DIGIC X being a black box.
If you want to insist my credibility is in the sewer then I'm going to insist that you're a cyber/Internet bully. There's absolutely no reason to make (and keep making) personal attacks but you do, time and time again. Other people can comment on (or highlight) my mistakes without making insulting comments, why can't you? That's a rhetorical question, if you can't tell.
Upvote
0
I'm not convinced that the R7 has a newer Digic than the R5, the podcast implied that the features introduced on the R6II/R8 features needed it. I don't agree with the very broad strokes they painted with, but I do see a substantial difference in efficiency between the R8 and R5. For example oversampled 4k60 video (R5 in crop mode, so 'only' 17-ish MP) drains the battery pretty quickly, but the R8 runs out of battery at the same time as the R5 when recording side by side. The LP-E17 is roughly half the capacity of the LP-E6NH, which means that the R8 is a lot more efficient than the R5.
For things like 'auto subject detect' instead of manually picking humans/cars/animals, I can believe that that needs a faster and/or more efficient processor, but 'resizable AF zones with tracking' is a feature that would take fewer resources on a given processor since the number of rows that need processing decreases. And Canon kinda already offers that when using crop mode on the R5.
You're right that we have no way of being certain that different variants are being used nor can we be certain that some features really require a different variant. But the increased battery life in the R6II/R8 does show that Canon has improved things, be it through software, hardware or both.
Upvote
0
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." To which you replied:
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. Furthermore, you are showing scepticism about the Digic X processors.
Upvote
0
Here's what you said about what ML and the R5:
...the answer is nothing, which is what I said in the first place. Not that I expected you to acknowledge that you were wrong, no surprise there. Thanks for confirming that I am correct about your credibility being lower than sh!t in the sewer. The rest of your babbling is just a rehash of what you've already said, not worth responding to, but this:
As @AlanF points about above, you were the one who began the insults. Once you demonstrated what an ass you are with that earlier response, I saw no need to treat you with any sort of respect or civility.
Upvote
0
Camera makers do need to adapt to the expectations of cell phone users.
At the same time, they need to differentiate themselves.
People need cell phones anyway.
Upvote
0
The later.
I have worked on Magic Lantern code and Digic X is no more obscure than any previous version.
There are very few active Magic Lantern developers and people are happy enough with the features of modern cameras that it is not really worth the trouble.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
