Canon EOS R5 Mark II Specification make the rounds

The biggest advantage of the small compact setups is their macro feature on top of wider angle. I started that way (various IXUS and S90/S100 models) but it has been very much a GAS issue for me. What the new TG7 can do is pretty remarkable for the price!

Didn't know what TG7 was, I went looking; I honestly don't find appealing as a diver. Its max depth is 15m, which is not enough for a tank dive (and I wouldn't bring it more then 8/10m deep just to err on the safe side), so it needs a proper housing.
Then, if I have to buy the 40m housing, I'm pretty sure (it's years I don't keep informed on compacts) there are better "normal/non-tough" cameras for much less money then that, it looks very expensive and partially low res (it has the same 12mpx my A650IS had in 2008). But I appreciated it seems to have many accessories.

Not my cup of tea, but I admit I didn't went too deep, just hanged on the Oly website for less then 5mins.

(but I've to partially contradict myself; I remembered I actually have a GoPro8 with the UW housing, so I actually DO have a dive camera; but of course the quality it's pretty awful per se - I tested it in the field - and the lack of a built-in flash doesn't help. But of course a GoPro is meant to do different things then scuba dive macros).
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,406
22,770
Didn't know what TG7 was, I went looking; I honestly don't find appealing as a diver. Its max depth is 15m, which is not enough for a tank dive (and I wouldn't bring it more then 8/10m deep just to err on the safe side), so it needs a proper housing.
Then, if I have to buy the 40m housing, I'm pretty sure (it's years I don't keep informed on compacts) there are better "normal/non-tough" cameras for much less money then that, it looks very expensive and partially low res (it has the same 12mpx my A650IS had in 2008). But I appreciated it seems to have many accessories.

Not my cup of tea, but I admit I didn't went too deep, just hanged on the Oly website for less then 5mins.

(but I've to partially contradict myself; I remembered I actually have a GoPro8 with the UW housing, so I actually DO have a dive camera; but of course the quality it's pretty awful per se - I tested it in the field - and the lack of a built-in flash doesn't help. But of course a GoPro is meant to do different things than scuba dive macros).
The TG series are by far the best of the small rugged waterproof cameras. They produce very high quality images for that range. It’s also very sensible to have just 12 Mpx - these cameras have tiny 2/3” sensors and putting more Mpx is a waste of time. That aren’t aimed at divers like you but for people to have a small high quality point and shoot that withstands a lot of physical abuse and they can take for a bit of fun when snorkelling etc. You can drop them or tread on them and they will take the punishment.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,166
13,000
That aren’t aimed at divers like you but for people to have a small high quality point and shoot that withstands a lot of physical abuse and they can take for a bit of fun when snorkelling etc. You can drop them or tread on them and they will take the punishment.
I got a pair of the Panasonic equivalent for my two younger kids several years ago (IIRC, the TG4 was the current Oly model).

For diving, I recently got the SeaLife smartphone housing. It’s very good with a newer iPhone, and costs $200 less than the TG7. Of for better quality images, pay $200 more than the TG7 and get the kit with the flood light.
 
Upvote 0
Didn't know what TG7 was, I went looking; I honestly don't find appealing as a diver. Its max depth is 15m, which is not enough for a tank dive (and I wouldn't bring it more then 8/10m deep just to err on the safe side), so it needs a proper housing.
Then, if I have to buy the 40m housing, I'm pretty sure (it's years I don't keep informed on compacts) there are better "normal/non-tough" cameras for much less money then that, it looks very expensive and partially low res (it has the same 12mpx my A650IS had in 2008). But I appreciated it seems to have many accessories.

Not my cup of tea, but I admit I didn't went too deep, just hanged on the Oly website for less then 5mins.

(but I've to partially contradict myself; I remembered I actually have a GoPro8 with the UW housing, so I actually DO have a dive camera; but of course the quality it's pretty awful per se - I tested it in the field - and the lack of a built-in flash doesn't help. But of course a GoPro is meant to do different things then scuba dive macros).
To get a camera that can go to 30+m means either a gopro+housing or a pretty big jump to compact+housing. The TG7+housing is about AUD1500 (and I believe that the same housing fits both TG6 and 7).
The current gopro plus housing is AUD650 which is what I recommend to all beginner underwater shooters. Both the gopro and TG7 are fine for snorkeling.
The other alternative (as @neuroanatomist has done) is to get a bluetooth scuba housing for their phone.
I have a gopro 9 which I am somewhat tempted to upgrade but probably won't until the next version. I keep it running @4k/30 on top of my stills housing ie I shoot stills and then edit the 2 hours of video for a final <1 minute summary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
The current gopro plus housing is AUD650 which is what I recommend to all beginner underwater shooters. Both the gopro and TG7 are fine for snorkeling.

Surely the TGx's and any recent GoPro are perfect beach/snorkeling cameras, I was basing my opinion as a scuba diver; GoPro is not up to the task (except if you buy some external lights, but I still think picture quality sucks even on land in bright sunlight, at least on my GoPro8), and the TGx series is too expensive for what it is if you need to buy the housing, and I would personally look somewhere else. But again, it's just IMHO.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,166
13,000
I hope the electronic shutter won't be limited to 1/2 second!!! I could use 30 seconds.
I'm sure that will be the case. My R3 and R8 can both shoot up a 30 s exposure in electronic shutter mode. I wasn't even aware that was a limitation on the R5. I knew it was not on my R3 since I've only ever used full electronic shutter, but I might not have noticed on my R8 since I use that in EFCS so I get the full 14 bit RAW...but I just checked and a 30 s electronic shutter exposure on the R8 works just fine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
I am a little late to this discussion so sorry it this had been said. Concerning the button layout I wish they would put a dimple on the info button. It and the zoom button are hard to tell apart with bare hands but with gloves it becomes very difficult. I shoot in cold weather a lot and a dimple would be much appreciated.
Also, are there any technical reasons why they have not implemented the Pre Shoot buffer option for the R5? I could really use it.
 
Upvote 0
Surely the TGx's and any recent GoPro are perfect beach/snorkeling cameras, I was basing my opinion as a scuba diver; GoPro is not up to the task (except if you buy some external lights, but I still think picture quality sucks even on land in bright sunlight, at least on my GoPro8), and the TGx series is too expensive for what it is if you need to buy the housing, and I would personally look somewhere else. But again, it's just IMHO.
gorpo changed sensors from v9 and I believe it is still the same sensor (although faster readout) in v12 so I haven't upgraded.
Besides a phone housing eg Kraken, what else would you look at for scuba depths?
 
Upvote 0
I'm sure that will be the case. My R3 and R8 can both shoot up a 30 s exposure in electronic shutter mode. I wasn't even aware that was a limitation on the R5. I knew it was not on my R3 since I've only ever used full electronic shutter, but I might not have noticed on my R8 since I use that in EFCS so I get the full 14 bit RAW...but I just checked and a 30 s electronic shutter exposure on the R8 works just fine.
Thanks very much for your reply and information. I'll be buying one as soon as it's available.
 
Upvote 0

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
723
978
USA
That has been the dilemma for all the wish-list creators: an improved R5 and a new R1 are just about the same camera. Personally, I suspect an R1 will have anemic resolution - as is tradition - and the bigger form factor. They'll also nerf a few things. Odds that the R5 has roving spot metering are about nil.



Don't get too worked up about a new battery. Every time they add a letter to the LP-E6 battery, they call it a new battery. Just like the old days when every new 18 megapixel sensor was "all new" for a few years.



They fixed that problem by pricing the R3 at $6k. Could definitely see the R5 II at $4.5k. $5k wouldn't shock me as an initial price.



Depends how you want and what you want to shoot. If you're settling on a model number now, before you know resolution, FPS, etc., then you're letting your model envy get to you. I've owned a bunch of 1D cameras, and they're great for what they are, but for my own purposes they are most times not the right tool. Usually because of resolution.
I don't think we'll see an R1 with less than 30-something MP. Not sure if you consider that 'anemic'. I don't, but this coming from a guy getting along very happily with an R6.

As for the body - I admit fully to having 1 series 'body envy'. Always wanted one. If its going to happen for me in my life around now may be the time, financially speaking. Before college happens for my kid, and before I'm too old to be employable. I would like to dip my toe in to big MP world - which I define as 45mp or greater. But more of a want than a need. The closest thing to a need I have is wanting to get rid of rolling shutter in ES mode for shooting soccer games. Before the R6 I had the 5d3, and before that the 5d. Don't really notice a 'downgrade' going to the 6 series body. But as a 5 series user primarily, at the 4k and up price point it would need to have a feature set new to the line to convince me. I don't know if just a stacked sensor is enough. But we'll see.

-Brian
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,166
13,000
The closest thing to a need I have is wanting to get rid of rolling shutter in ES mode for shooting soccer games.
I suppose stacked sensors will make their way down the lines over time. The R3 was recently down to $5K new, and once the R1 comes out there may be a fair number of EX or better used R3's on the market (one of them might be mine, depending on what the R1 offers).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2021
1,795
1,597
I suppose stacked sensors will make their way down the lines over time. The R3 was recently down to $5K new, and once the R1 comes out there may be a fair number of EX or better used R3's on the market (one of them might be mine, depending on what the R1 offers).
Do you like the R3's eye control enough to keep it if the R1 does not have it, but is superior enough in every other way?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,166
13,000
Do you like the R3's eye control enough to keep it if the R1 does not have it, but is superior enough in every other way?
It's ok, but to be honest I don't use it that often (and I am one of those for whom it works well after calibration). If not for the Smart Controller I might use eye control AF more often, but the Smart Controller is quick and effortless and my thumb is always resting on the AF-ON button anyway. I do use eye control occasionally, but not enough that I'd miss it if omitted from the R1. Conversely, if the R1 comes with eye control but no Smart Controller, I doubt I would buy it unless it had something better for AF point selection (not sure what that would be, short of implanted electrodes for thought-controlled AF).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Aug 10, 2021
1,795
1,597
It's ok, but to be honest I don't use it that often (and I am one of those for whom it works well after calibration). If not for the Smart Controller I might use eye control AF more often, but the Smart Controller is quick and effortless and my thumb is always resting on the AF-ON button anyway. I do use eye control occasionally, but not enough that I'd miss it if omitted from the R1. Conversely, if the R1 comes with eye control but no Smart Controller, I doubt I would buy it unless it had something better for AF point selection (not sure what that would be, short of implanted electrodes for thought-controlled AF).
I'm thinking they wouldn't remove the smart controller because it's worked well since 1D X Mark III.

Joke: we won't need implanted electrodes, because Canon will license the nano machines we got with the Covid vaccines.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

john1970

EOS R3
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2015
984
1,228
Northeastern US
Do you like the R3's eye control enough to keep it if the R1 does not have it, but is superior enough in every other way?
I will chime in on this one as well. I wear glasses and never use the eye control AF. If the R1 does not have eye control AF I will not complain.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

bbasiaga

Canon Shooter
Nov 15, 2011
723
978
USA
I am very curious if the R1 body will be closer to the R3 or the Z 9.
People seem to prefer the R3 body but Canon has stated that a 1 series body would be more rugged than the R3.
I held an R3 and its pretty darned comfortable. Hopefully the R1 is more R3 like and less huge-brick like. :)

Brian
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Aug 26, 2015
1,380
1,042
I am very curious if the R1 body will be closer to the R3 or the Z 9.
People seem to prefer the R3 body but Canon has stated that a 1 series body would be more rugged than the R3.
Way more likely to have the layout of the R3 made out of different materials, therefore even better sealed and heavier.
Maybe just a hair bigger to accommodate more connections, full-size HDMI and whatnot, but I don't think they need an even bigger battery or screen, etc.

While I don't think this is what will happen, but the R1 might as well be a far less limited R5 Mark II with a similar stacked sensor but all of the fps in full-sized RAW, other features, codecs, oversampling modes, best battery life, etc. utilised without heat limits, better connections, best weather-sealing and whatnot. (That would make them a bit similar to Z8 and Z9.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,166
13,000
Way more likely to have the layout of the R3 made out of different materials, therefore even better sealed and heavier.
Maybe just a hair bigger to accommodate more connections, full-size HDMI and whatnot, but I don't think they need an even bigger battery or screen, etc.
I suspect it will have better weather sealing. Not that the R3 isn't well-sealed, but there is a tiny bit of green in Canon's sealing diagram (meaning precision joins instead of actual sealing material), whereas the 1D X III is all red (sealing material, though that can mean anything from foam to O-rings). I do like the lighter weight of the R3 compared to my 1D X, it's big enough and still heavy enough to counterbalance lenses like the RF 28-70/2. I wonder if they'll include the secondary LCD on the back – that would mean a taller body.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0