Canon EOS R5 Mark II in the hands of the lucky? [CR1]

[GMCPhotographics]

Well, I find this thread quite amusing. Shaking the R5ii rumours tree and absolutely nothing fell out or hit the ground.
It looks like Canon are owning the narrative and pace of this camera’s news.

 

[sanj]

'shadow recovery' is something bound to photo editing software, Canon won't even try to improve on something that 3rd party software does.
What you actually want is a higher dynamic range - it would generally give you a better 'shadow recovery'.

However there's little room for dynamic range improvement anyway, unless Canon uses a drastically different sensor tech in the R5II.

If you struggle with 'shadow recovery' on the R5's images, you may want to reconsider your shooting technique, as the camera copes very well with high dynamic range scenes, better than any of the previous-gen Canon cameras.

I do not understand this. The same third party software is able to extract better shadow details from different cameras. I feel it starts with what the sensor can do.

 

[Rofocale]

Oh my Lord. I honestly thought Sony fanboi shills had become non existent.

Haha, I’m not even a Sony shooter, but the R5 and other hybrid R’s DR for video is lagging behind the rest of the pack. Take a look at the Cined ranking if you can take a minute from scoffing at anyone daring to shed shade on Canon. I have zero brand loyalty, only ecosystems I get locked into and the performance of my cameras directly impacts my income.

I have zero patience for ‘fanbois’ and it doesn’t sound like I’m the one who’s got waaaaay to much personally invested in this brand. Take it on the chin, yeah?

I’m also fortunate enough to have Japan’s biggest electronics megastore on my doorstep and access to pretty much any camera body I want to test. The CineD rankings pretty align with what I’ve seen coming out of the cameras I’ve had in my hands.

 

[Czardoom]

Haha, I’m not even a Sony shooter, but the R5 and other hybrid R’s DR for video is lagging behind the rest of the pack. Take a look at the Cined ranking if you can take a minute from scoffing at anyone daring to shed shade on Canon. I have zero brand loyalty, only ecosystems I get locked into and the performance of my cameras directly impacts my income.

I have zero patience for ‘fanbois’ and it doesn’t sound like I’m the one who’s got waaaaay to much personally invested in this brand. Take it on the chin, yeah?

I’m also fortunate enough to have Japan’s biggest electronics megastore on my doorstep and access to pretty much any camera body I want to test. The CineD rankings pretty align with what I’ve seen coming out of the cameras I’ve had in my hands.

It might have helped if you had specifically mentioned VIDEO in your original post. For stills, the Canon and Sony cameras are essentially identical when it comes to dynamic range according to the photons to photos website charts.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

It's time for a stacked sensor. I read that Sony is doing 3 layer now. Thats a way to reduce noise. The R5 still had more noise than I'd have liked once I got to over ISO 3200.

 

[kaihp]

Good God. What a silly thing to argue about.

If you think this is silly, you haven't seen truly silly arguments on the Internet
But amendment accepted.

Leaving Scotsmen out of it ...

I have no idea of how or why Scotsmen got involved into the "moving the goalposts" argument fallacy. Probably the same way that Vikings got horn on their helmets - through Hollywood movies.

 

[AlanF]

If you think this is silly, you haven't seen truly silly arguments on the Internet
But amendment accepted.


I have no idea of how or why Scotsmen got involved into the "moving the goalposts" argument fallacy. Probably the same way that Vikings got horn on their helmets - through Hollywood movies.

You introduced it.

Ah yes, the No True Scotsman argument where you move the goalpost after you've been proven wrong.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I do not understand this. The same third party software is able to extract better shadow details from different cameras. I feel it starts with what the sensor can do.

'What sensor can do' is the dynamic range of the camera system as I explained above. It's basically constant at any given fixed ISO setting. You may define it in different ways but it will be well defined and measurable.

The amount of 'shadow recovery' and 'highlight recovery' isn't constant, it depends on several variable factors.

Shoot a scene with sky and clouds with some fixed ISO and exposure settings. You get some amount of highlight recovery. Now shoot the same scene with exposure compensation -1 EV. You'll get +1 EV more of highlight recovery and -1 EV of shadow recovery. Now point the camera to the ground so that there's no sky in the frame, the contrast of the scene will be lower and you'll get some more of the highlight recovery. Change the metering mode from evaluative to spot metering and you get yet another amount of highlight recovery in the resulting image.
Now change the software and you may get a slightly different amount of highlight recovery. These are the sliders in raw processors that apply certain (somewhat obscure) transformations to the raw data in your image, they're not a property of your camera system.

You don't measure the camera performance by the amount of so called shadow and highlight recovery, despite of what you can see in some youtube videos/reviews.

 

[fr34k]

why have an R5 if you're going to shoot 100% of the time in M? Go get a digital medium format camera at that point; the R5 is a portable computer with a lens mount.

I'm seldomly using a tripod or have static images. I often shoot wildlife and other moving subjects. What the R5 does not do well, is AF-locked spot measuring, which is why I learned split second exposure changes. I often find that the AE does not capture the mood as it either tries to make the scene to bright or to dark. Medium format cameras are just too slow, large and heavy for my use case. Try lugging around a super tele for medium formats...

I find Av/Tv/Fv are also acceptable for me in some situations, as I definitely know what I'm looking for and thus lock some things into place as I've found the camera to be unable to match the style I'm going for (how should it?). But I'm usually faster myself setting the exposure the way I like for the scene than using the exposure correction tool. But I'd never leave all things for the camera to figure out itself, as dialling in as much as possible is my only way of telling the camera what I want. Thus I use M. The main reason I don't use Fv is that I set my WB myself (in Kelvin) which is why I need the additional wheel.

 

[kaihp]

You introduced it.

In this thread, yes. But the "moving the goalposts after argument is being refuted by counter-example" is generally called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in argumentation. The origins why it's called that, I do not know.

 

[koenkooi]

I'm seldomly using a tripod or have static images. I often shoot wildlife and other moving subjects. What the R5 does not do well, is AF-locked spot measuring,[...]

it doesn't do that at all, it's a feature Canon reserves for the 1 series only. Even the R3 lacks it.

 

[AlanF]

In this thread, yes. But the "moving the goalposts after argument is being refuted by counter-example" is generally called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in argumentation. The origins why it's called that, I do not know.

The origins are described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
It's nicely summed up as "The no true Scotsman fallacy is the attempt to defend a generalisation by denying the validity of any counterexamples given. By changing the definition of who or what belongs to a group or category, the speaker can conveniently dismiss any example that proves the generalisation doesn't hold." https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/no-true-scotsman/ It is quite frequently used in CR.

 

[dolina]

Here: I'll amend my statement. Including the comment I was responding to because my response (which really non-controversial) has been taken wildly out of context.

For anyone who has issue with what he originally wrote It is a given that any pro photographer assigned any prototype Canon hardware would sign an NDA to prevent unplanned leaks.

Bickering over that minute detail is silly.

For those planning to buy the 1st 1-Series mirrorless body at what price point would be a hard "no" for you?

I mentioned previously I expect it to hit US$10k assuming the R3 does not change price point

 

[Rofocale]

It might have helped if you had specifically mentioned VIDEO in your original post. For stills, the Canon and Sony cameras are essentially identical when it comes to dynamic range according to the photons to photos website charts.

It’s a hybrid camera. Maybe ask for clarification before knee jerk reactions and butthurt commentary, but that is the hallmark of fanboidom, ain’t it? I’m not the antagonist here.

 

[Sporgon]

You're talking about big misconceptions. There's no such thing as shadow or highlight recovery in the context of camera…..

He may be confusing this with, or meaning, highlight headroom - the ability of the sensor to see difference in the tones at highest levels, and then the ubiquitous “dynamic range” of heavy shadow lifting. But even so, I’d be surprised if there was that difference between the brands.
We’ll only really get improved dynamic range when digital sensors can record brighter levels and not suffer from over saturating the pixels with photons. Then that would have quite an impact on how we can shoot really high dynamic range screens. As it stands now, with under exposing to record more highlights, you still suffer from increase shot noise / lower tonality in the shadows on all the sensors.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Haha, I’m not even a Sony shooter, but the R5 and other hybrid R’s DR for video is lagging behind the rest of the pack. Take a look at the Cined ranking if you can take a minute from scoffing at anyone daring to shed shade on Canon. I have zero brand loyalty, only ecosystems I get locked into and the performance of my cameras directly impacts my income.

I have zero patience for ‘fanbois’ and it doesn’t sound like I’m the one who’s got waaaaay to much personally invested in this brand. Take it on the chin, yeah?

I’m also fortunate enough to have Japan’s biggest electronics megastore on my doorstep and access to pretty much any camera body I want to test. The CineD rankings pretty align with what I’ve seen coming out of the cameras I’ve had in my hands.

I don't shoot video and you didn't mention it. I have shot most brands at so e point and for my part the DR of newer canon cameras is equal to anything on the market. So I suggest perhaps that you be specific in your whinging because if you are not then you may be wrong

 

[Quarkcharmed]

He may be confusing this with, or meaning, highlight headroom - the ability of the sensor to see difference in the tones at highest levels

'Highlight recovery' is typically explained as the ability to recover blown out (clipped) highlight after exporting a raw image into Lightroom or other raw processor. I.e. the highlights will look clipped with the default rendering but pulling the 'highlights' slider back will recover them.

'Highlight headroom' is simply how many stops of exposure you can add (when shooting) without clipping the highlights in raw.

and then the ubiquitous “dynamic range” of heavy shadow lifting

I'm not sure what 'dynamic range of heavy shadow lifting' means. Shadow lifting doesn't have a dynamic range as a property.

We’ll only really get improved dynamic range when digital sensors can record brighter levels and not suffer from over saturating the pixels with photons.

We get improved dynamic range when sensor manufacturers improve/reduce so called read noise. What you're talking about is so called well capacity of the pixels. I don't know if it can be increased drastically, but it will require higher bitness of the sensor ADC (e.g. 14->16 bit) which increases readout time.
There also are quanta image sensors which will give us almost arbitrary big dynamic range but they're in development.

 

[Pastrami]

I think it's about time.
Is there a major update for R5 yet?

 

[bradbirder]

Are you using eye-focus? I use it for birds in foliage and I can't recall it ever missing. Ever. The R7 misses constantly, which is why I rarely use it now.

Yes, of course. Maybe my birds are smaller or my foliage more attractive, I dunno. I've had two R5 bodies; same issue. Eye-based AF usually works, but not always.

 

[birdman916]

Do you think for wildlife photography (birds for me) the r1 or r5 mark ii will have the edge ?