Canon EOS R5 Mark II Specification make the rounds

[AlanF]

I'm quite happy with my two 5DIV's, I bought them a month before the release of the R and have no regrets.

I am far more limited by my skills and my access to the subjects I want than I am by my gear.

 

[Far]

I hope they’ll change more than the buttons layout. The overall grip and size could be improved and made bigger.

Actually this one got me worried. The button layout, handling and form factor of R5 was great for me, in fact that was the reason I did my transition to mirrorless with Canon (and not Sony and Nikon that I tried a couple of times).

 

[Maximilian]

Specs look too good for me.
And if true, what do you have to put on the table for it? Phew!

 

[Far]

Agreed - don't change a good button layout that im used too.

Exactly. Hopefully the change is limited to the new idea about on/off and still/video arrangement.

 

[schmidtfilme]

Will it have GPS? I will not buy another camera without GPS build in.

 

[Walrus]

New battery sucks. We just bought new batteries with the last generation. And that also means a new grip probably.

"New battery, but same form as the LP-E6"

Battery won't change, they may just improve the duration and/or the peak power, but the "family" will still be the LP-E6, so you can use all your current batteries on the new body. I still use, with much success, a pair of old "original" LP-E6 I bought in 2010 along with the 5DII, and they still works perfectly today, they give me around 2500 shots per charge each on my R6 (so over 4000 shots with the BG, I can basically shoot 3 weddings in a row on a single charge of the two batteries in the BG).

 

[JohnC]

Nothing wrong with having a 2nd camera.....I have the Fuji GFX100....and LOVE it.
It has its purposes....but I'm definitely planning at this time to pull the trigger on the R5 II.

The larger sensor of the Digital MF GFX system is nice and definitely different than trying to squeeze too many pixels into the smaller FF sensor.

But if you're like me...save your pennies and over time, you can afford to get both...hell I have Leica Monochrome (M10M) and one of their 35mm film cameras in the mix too....and I'm FAR from wealthy....
I just don't by piddly crap throughout the year, I save and save and save and 1-2 times a year I drop some serious coin on something I really want, with no buyers remorse.....

Anyway, if you can....get both...really fun experiences and different.

HTH,
cayenne

I have a lot of equipment...because I wanted it. I don't get to use any of it as much as I would like to or should to justify owning it. I certainly don't have to justify it to have it, but in the other hand the pragmatic part of me has a hard time adding to a collection I don't use enough as it is . I haven't had medium format film out in several years, 35mm film longer than that. My 5d4 sits unused since getting the R5, which along with the R3 I don't use enough.

I shoot primarily landscape, which screams gfx100, unless you are hiking 7 miles in the mountains to get there, where less weight and bull is appreciated. That's where the RF f4 lenses shine as well (long hikes), but it's very difficult to leave the ef 11-24 at home.

I could probably make a strong case for getting rid of some 2.8 zooms, and especially some 1.2 primes but...I don't really want to do that either.

I guess I'll see what finally hits the market and decide then

 

[AccipiterQ]

For you camera studs: Does the reduced resolution options result in a loss of IQ, or any difference in noise? I'm not familiar how pixel-binning impacts things...

 

[Kit.]

Dual CFexpress Type-B? in a 5D-series camera? Why would Canon do that?

 

[bbasiaga]

For you camera studs: Does the reduced resolution options result in a loss of IQ, or any difference in noise? I'm not familiar how pixel-binning impacts things...

A lot depends on how they implement it. But if they pixel bin (which will likely be software binning, not hardware binning, is my guess), they just add two pixels next to each other across the row, and then add rows going down. It ends up like having a pixel with twice the pixel pitch. All the data is still there, it just has less resolution - as if the pixels were bigger to begin with.

THey could also software down-res some other way.

So my thought is there is a low likelihood the data is inferior in anyway other than resolution. SHouldn't get blurrier or anything just on account of binning. Just lower resolution, as if the same size sensor had larger pixels. The only other wild card is how they manage ISO Gain in binned mode, which may affect noise or DR. But again I would not think you'll see a major loss there. Astrocameras use the same DSLR/MILC sensors, and binning is common there for signal starved targets. So the know-how is developed already on the software/manufacturer side.

 

[neuroanatomist]

A lot depends on how they implement it. But if they pixel bin (which will likely be software binning, not hardware binning, is my guess), they just add two pixels next to each other across the row, and then add rows going down. It ends up like having a pixel with twice the pixel pitch. All the data is still there, it just has less resolution - as if the pixels were bigger to begin with.

THey could also software down-res some other way.

With a 62 MP sensor, a 2x2 pixel bin would yield a 15.5 MP image. The intermediate resolution of 31 MP isn't binning, it's downsampling. (Technically, it could be binned but then the aspect ratio would change from 3:2 to 3:1 or 2:3...unless they treated the dual subpixels separately and binned in the opposite orientation...that would actually yield a 31 MP 2x2 binned image, though there would be other consequences e.g. more noise because the half-pixels would get half the light).

So my thought is there is a low likelihood the data is inferior in anyway other than resolution. SHouldn't get blurrier or anything just on account of binning. Just lower resolution, as if the same size sensor had larger pixels.

If it's downsampling as seems more likely for the intermediate resolution (which is how Leica's 'triple resolution' must work, though they're intentionally vague about it and call them 'RAW' which they can't be), then you have to decide if you think the only consequence of downsampling is lower resolution. Personally, I always apply some sharpening to downsampled images because in reality downsampling is resampling and it reduces edge contrast, i.e. the downsampled image is blurrier.

 

[Terry Danks]

Eye Control AF?
Total fail for me in the EOS3 and I have no doubt will be equally gimmicky and useless (for me!) in any camera body likely to appear in my lifetime. Terrible idea to put it into an R5II! It just doesn't work for too many people.
Also don't be messing with button layout unless there is a darned compelling reason.
Nothing in this rumour to see me upgrading from my pair of R5 bodies.
Guess I'll start waiting for a MkIII. (LOL!)

 

[mccasi]

For you camera studs: Does the reduced resolution options result in a loss of IQ, or any difference in noise? I'm not familiar how pixel-binning impacts things...

both perceived and actual noise will go down.
if it was an arbitrary resolution downsample, you could imagine it like photoshop downsampling an image - this will be based on a compression algorithm though which could affect IQ by an imperceptible amount.

But it's not an arbitrary downsample, its by factor of two or four:
Four is easy: you just take your RGGB array of 4 subpixels and you take 2x2 instead per pixel, i.e. you average red 4, green 8, blue 4 sub pixels each and your noise will go down as you're using the entire pix.
divide by 2 you just overlap before binning - has been done in the Leica Q2 already, so should be lossless average.
i.e. new pixel N1 is the average of 2x2 pixels, N2 is offset by 1 pixel and will include half of the first pixel.
11 21 | 21 31 |
12 22 | 22 32 |

it should btw. be advantagous over any image sensor of the smaller size in terms of noise performance for photos (check Tony northups video comparing R5 and R6).

Cheers

 

[bbasiaga]

With a 62 MP sensor, a 2x2 pixel bin would yield a 15.5 MP image. The intermediate resolution of 31 MP isn't binning, it's downsampling. (Technically, it could be binned but then the aspect ratio would change from 3:2 to 3:1 or 2:3...unless they treated the dual subpixels separately and binned in the opposite orientation...that would actually yield a 31 MP 2x2 binned image, though there would be other consequences e.g. more noise because the half-pixels would get half the light).


If it's downsampling as seems more likely for the intermediate resolution (which is how Leica's 'triple resolution' must work, though they're intentionally vague about it and call them 'RAW' which they can't be), then you have to decide if you think the only consequence of downsampling is lower resolution. Personally, I always apply some sharpening to downsampled images because in reality downsampling is resampling and it reduces edge contrast, i.e. the downsampled image is blurrier.

Yes the rumor includes a 15mp mode, which would be 2x2 binning. Downsampling, or non-integer 'binning' - is the likely solution for the 31 mp intermediate. Though really all of this is just software - I don't think CMOS sensors have the same architecture like the old CCDs where true hardware binning was done. OF course, new sensor for this cam could have hardware binning. I guess we'll have to see how it all comes out.

RAW has not been RAW for quite a few generations of camera, Canon and otherwise. So having to apply some more sharpening or other processing differences to a downsampled image vs full RAW doesn't seem to be too onerous a task. And they may apply this to the RAW at some level for you. We'll see. A comparison of this cam at 30mp vs the old R sensor or 5d4 will certainly make its way to the internet eventually. And my early bet would be it won't look worse.

-Brian

 

[FabFR]

Quite an awaited speclist. If it's true it's a real step from the orginal R5, but nothing is mandatoy to shoot photo in this R5II vs the R5.
As the others, I'm a bit afraid of a new button layout. We saw with the R that it was a pain to use a too much different interface. Fortunatly Canon corrected it on the R5 and R6 !
As far as processor is concerned, could not it be a typo with this monikor "Digic X2s" ? Could not it be 2 Digic X processors, written as "X2" ? the small "s" could also be an error for the plural...

For the two CFe cards, I hope they know how to dissipate heat now, because with only one CFe in the R5, it's a huge source of heat ! (and one major reason implied in the R5 overheating problems I guess!)


I have an R5 and a 5D4, maybe I could be interested in an R5II to replace the 5D4, but it's too early for now...
I stay tuned !!

 

[neuroanatomist]

A comparison of this cam at 30mp vs the old R sensor or 5d4 will certainly make its way to the internet eventually. And my early bet would be it won't look worse.

Since the 24 MP sensors in my R3 and R8 already outresolve the older 30 MP sensor in the 5DIV/R, that’s a given.

 

[AccipiterQ]

Eye Control AF?
Total fail for me in the EOS3 and I have no doubt will be equally gimmicky and useless (for me!) in any camera body likely to appear in my lifetime. Terrible idea to put it into an R5II! It just doesn't work for too many people.
Also don't be messing with button layout unless there is a darned compelling reason.
Nothing in this rumour to see me upgrading from my pair of R5 bodies.
Guess I'll start waiting for a MkIII. (LOL!)

Are you 119?

 

[bbasiaga]

Eye Control AF?
Total fail for me in the EOS3 and I have no doubt will be equally gimmicky and useless (for me!) in any camera body likely to appear in my lifetime. Terrible idea to put it into an R5II! It just doesn't work for too many people.
Also don't be messing with button layout unless there is a darned compelling reason.
Nothing in this rumour to see me upgrading from my pair of R5 bodies.
Guess I'll start waiting for a MkIII. (LOL!)

Those who love Eye controlled AF love it. Those who don't, don't.

I didnt upgrade to the R6II from my R6. Notable improvements, but just wasn't enough there IMO. Same reason I didn't upgrade my 5d3 to a 4. In the history of Canon's digital offerings, the skip a version upgrade plan is pretty common.

-Brian

 

[roby17269]

I agree with some that this list looks more like a wish list rather than an actual specs list.
Having said so, a few points from my own perspective:

• 62mp is great but not very material compared to 45pm - if stacked that would be more interesting
• Would the AF be brought on par with Canon's latest offerings or be better? I'd hope better if there will indeed be a new Digic or 2 of them. Any chances of quad AF?
• I'm on the fence about Eye Control AF: I haven't tried so I don't know how it'd work (or fail to) for me. It wouldn't be a deal breaker or a deal maker for me
• Like the possibility of 2 CF Express cards, but would they be the new standard that has been recently announced? I would assume not given timeframes, but annoying if that'd be the case
• I hope they keep the same button / dials configuration!
• I would love for an EVF with 9mp

Q: what would be the resolution of the APS-C crop?

 

[bbasiaga]

I agree with some that this list looks more like a wish list rather than an actual specs list.
Having said so, a few points from my own perspective:

• 62mp is great but not very material compared to 45pm - if stacked that would be more interesting
• Would the AF be brought on par with Canon's latest offerings or be better? I'd hope better if there will indeed be a new Digic or 2 of them. Any chances of quad AF?
• I'm on the fence about Eye Control AF: I haven't tried so I don't know how it'd work (or fail to) for me. It wouldn't be a deal breaker or a deal maker for me
• Like the possibility of 2 CF Express cards, but would they be the new standard that has been recently announced? I would assume not given timeframes, but annoying if that'd be the case
• I hope they keep the same button / dials configuration!
• I would love for an EVF with 9mp

Q: what would be the resolution of the APS-C crop?

Round about 24 mp for APSc mode.

-Brian