Canon EOS R5 Mark II to arrive before EOS R1? [CR2]

[Kit.]

Yes, the processor deliberately downgrades the bit depth to 13-bit when either mechanical or EFC shutter are running at 12 fps, and further downgrades it to 12-bit in full electronic shutter at 20 fps. The logic seems obvious – at 12 fps, the processor can’t keep up with the full 14-bits of RAW data so it eliminates one bit, and at 20 fps it would fall even further behind so two bits must be dropped (with successive decreases in DR for each bit lost).

Nearly twofold increase in pixel rate with one-bit decrease in pixel bit depth points at the ramp-compare ADC as the most likely limitation.

 

[Michael Clark]

I know this is going off topic but what RF L lenses are missing?

I did a cursory look over what EF L lenses that do not have a direct RF L lens equivalent from year 1993-today. These were all in stock in 2018 when RF mount was announced.

Zoom	Prime	Tilt Shift
EF 8-15mm f/4 L USM fisheye	EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM	TS-E 17mm f4/L
EF 11-24mm f/4L USM	EF 24mm f/1.4L II USM	TS-E 24mm f3.5L II
EF 17-40mm f/4L USM	EF 35mm f/1.4L II USM	TS-E 50mm f2.8L Macro
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM	EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS USM	TS-E 90mm f2.8L Macro
EF 24-70mm f/4L IS USM	EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM	TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro
EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM	EF 200mm f/2L IS USM
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM	EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM
EF 70-200mm f/4L USM	EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM
EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6L IS USM	EF 300mm f/4L IS USM
EF 200-400mm f/4L IS USM 1.4x	EF 400mm f/5.6L USM	DO
	EF 500mm F/4L IS II USM	EF 400mm f/4 DO IS II USM

The 17-40L was effectively replaced by the EF 16-35L IS way back in around 2014. Canon may have just continued selling copies of the 17-40mm that were already made in 2014! Now there's an RF 14-35mm f/4 L IS. You'll likely never see another newly introduced Canon L lens for less than $1,200-1,400, so a non-IS 14/16/17-35/40 L will probably never be in the RF lineup.

There is an RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS, just not a non-IS version.
There is an RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS.
There is an RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, just no non-IS version
There is an RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS, just no non-IS version
There are two RF 85mm f/1.2 L lenses instead of F/1.4.

 

[Michael Clark]

For the R5 specifically, people have already shown that back-to-back recording isn't an issue, so the refusal to change the limit is most likely a political issue and not a technical issue.

And FWIW, the R8 has the limit set to 120 minutes, for reasons unknown.

In both cases it might be for marketing reasons. Removing the 30 minute limit in the R5 now would likely reduce a few sales of an R5 Mark II without such a limit.

 

[Michael Clark]

Link to the non-IS version of the lens you mentioned?.

Having no non-IS f/2.8 & f/4 L zooms are indicators that Canon is prioritizing highest-end SKUs before the lowest end.

I doubt we'll ever see non-IS versions of 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 lenses in the RF mount.

 

[Michael Clark]

It’s true for all hobbies.
If you play tennis or badminton, you might invest in a racket machine to string up your own rackets.
If you shoot for sport, you might invest in a speed loader so you don’t have to load your magazines one round at a time.
If you like race cars, you might invest in a computer program to play with the tune yourself.
If you like bird photography, you might invest in a 15k telephoto to get shots at lower ISO’s.
Again, it’s all relative to the hobbyist and what he is willing to spend into his hobby.
Some might say it’s not with the 15k and a $1000 800 f11 will do just fine. Some will not settle for that return on their investment.

It never ceases amaze me how many folks with that kind of money who can't tell the difference between an investment (a business expenditure that anticipates a financial return greater than the initial expenditure) and a hobby expense.

 

[Michael Clark]

50 mm gets 7 stops of shake reduction with IBIS alone and 85 mm gets 8 stops.
The RF 35 f/1.8 IS gets 5.5 stops correction with In-lens Optical Image Stabilization (6.5 stops correction with EOS R3/R5 in-body coordinated Image stabilization).
I could see a 35 f/1.2 getting IS due do that.

Canon has always resisted putting IS in their "premium" widest aperture primes below 100mm. Since IS works by slightly misaligning the IS lens element/group, it degrades optical performance proportionally to how far the IS unit is deflected from its optimal position. The EF 85mm f/1.4 got IS, but the EF 85mm f/1.2 never did. The last EF 35mm f/2 got IS in 2012, but the premium EF 35mm f/1.4 L II that came out in 2015 did not. I'd be VERY surprised if an RF 35mm f/1.4 or f/1.2 included IS.

 

[Michael Clark]

Stupid question: I keep shoot with my R5 using my RF lenses using the stabilization on all the time (unless I use a tripod). Is the stabilization affecting for example the dynamic range? Is the stabilization, physically or technically speaking reducing the quality? I think no and should just avoid vibration during long time exposure., I am correct?
TIA.

If IBIS causes the sensor to shift, the lens' optical center is no longer in the center of the image. You get closer to the edge of the image circle on one side and further from the edge of the image circle on the other. So you gain a little bit on one side of the image and lose a little bit on the other side. Which might slightly outweigh the other (gain on one side or loss on the other) depends on the individual lens design and performance.

With lens based IS, it works by slightly deflecting the IS element/group, so you have in effect a lens that is now less than optimally aligned. How much less depends on how far from the neutral position the IS unit is deflected.

As Uncle Roger likes to say, "There ain't no such thing as free lunch."

 

[Michael Clark]

Stabilization should not negatively alter dynamic range.
It can increase it by allowing you to keep your ISO low.
It should also make it easier to get sharp images.

Stabilization only results in sharper images if the blur that would otherwise be caused by the motion that is neutralized is more severe than the negative effect of the lens or sensor shift used to neutralize that motion.

 

[Michael Clark]

Good point. Canon seem to upgrade processors every 2 - 3 years, and the Digic X has been around since Feb 2020 (in the 1DX III). So it's very likely the next generation R5, and the GreatWhiteWhale R1, would get the Digic XI, with whatever efficiencies that brings.

DigicX is not a processor, it is an architecture that uses multiple processors that can vary from one model to the next. That's one reason they broke from using Arabic numerals (i.e DiG!C 6, DiG!C 7, DiG!C 8) and named it Digic X (it is not a Roman Numeral 10).

 

[Michael Clark]

The 1DX and 90D went out with a bang.
It is a shame that Canon made the 5D IV and 6D II so underwhelming compared to the impact that the 5D III and 6D had.
The R5 and R6 have been worthy successors.

For me the 5D Mark IV was not underwhelming at all. It's not always just about the comparative spec sheets. The Mark IV is an easier to use and more consistent performing camera than the 5D Mark III. Metering is noticeably better, especially in difficult light such as limited spectrum artificial light sources (RGB+IR vs. dual-layer meter), flicker reduction is revolutionary for anyone that shoots under flickering stadium/gym lighting, AF is noticeably faster and slightly more accurate and consistent from frame to frame.
I still shoot with both of them regularly.

 

[David - Sydney]

Do you know when the firmware 1.0 branch had its feature freeze and the firmware 1.1 started to be developed? Could as well be before the R5 was even publicly announced.

The presence of the temperature sensors alone tells us that this functionality was planned since the beginning, just wasn't ready for the 1.0 release.

I don't know when 1.0 was fixed. The major features were set when the announcements were made and they dribbled out over time especially for 8k video/AF etc/not time lapse etc. The finer details were not released until later but would have been earlier than the formal announcement as documentation etc needed to be in place by then.

Having a fixed timer for overheating would have been a simple way to implement component safe working temperatures and I am sure that the marketing department would have thought that the record times for those 3 modes would have been acceptable. You are right that having temperature sensors indicate that future firmware would have used those inputs. The implementation of raw lite modes negated any concerns for record times.

The weird thing is that the Sony A1 can't record raw video and has low bandwidth codecs from the beginning but there was no outcry about it. That the USH-ii SD cards can handle all videos modes indicate that the CFe card slots don't generate as much heat either.

 

[David - Sydney]

The 30 minute limit might be harder to change if the hardware has been designed with it in mind. Suppose you designed the camera to have just enough capacity to not overheat within 45 minutes, since it will at most record 30 minutes at a time. Raising the limit in software would be as easy as you say, but the consequences might be a lot further reaching.

For the R5 specifically, people have already shown that back-to-back recording isn't an issue, so the refusal to change the limit is most likely a political issue and not a technical issue.

And FWIW, the R8 has the limit set to 120 minutes, for reasons unknown. It is more than you can get on a single battery, but with USB PD you are only limited by the size of your SD card.

Let's remember that external recording of video has no limit but the HDMI port (2.0) can't handle 8k raw or 4K120 so raw lite is needed for those modes.

A R5ii with full sized HDMI port and 2.1 specification would address a lot of the concerns from the video community.

 

[Michael Clark]

It would be speculation then as we don't have a base line eg mark 1 vs mark 2.
In terms of power savings options, IBIS will draw power of course so with/without would make a difference.
The sensor and refresh rate / type of EVF/rear screen would also be options but I am guessing that the processor is the big power consumer. More efficient SW would be great but the one big advantage would be line width for the processor. Of course, a combination all adds up.

It is clear that Sony's net power usage is more efficient than Canon overall based on the CIPA shot count vs battery capacity. The only major difference is the use of SD cards vs SD/CFe type B. That said, I don't know whether the CIPA standard allows for only one card to be used during the test ie the SD card in both Sony and Canon. In that case, the only big variable is the processor.
Sony would have some leverage for processors based on the PS5 which uses a custom SoC designed in tandem by AMD and Sony, integrating a custom 7 nm AMD Zen 2 CPU with eight cores running at a variable frequency capped at 3.5 GHz.

CIPA numbers are submitted by the manufacturers based on their own internal testing. Canon has always rated their battery life about half of what most users actually get out in the field. Comparing one camera model's CIPA numbers to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

CIPA numbers are submitted by the manufacturers based on their own internal testing.

They still need to follow CIPA guidelines when testing.

 

[Loswr]

Comparing one camera model's CIPA numbers to another is only valid when both models are from the same manufacturer.

No.

 

[koenkooi]

Let's remember that external recording of video has no limit but the HDMI port (2.0) can't handle 8k raw or 4K120 so raw lite is needed for those modes.

A R5ii with full sized HDMI port and 2.1 specification would address a lot of the concerns from the video community.

Depending on your definition of RAW, you can do external 8k ProRES RAW with select Atomos devices: https://www.atomos.com/compatible-cameras/eos-r5

No 4k120, though.

 

[padam]

The R5C allows shooting in CLOG2, which has a gamma curve that captures more dynamic range than CLOG3 (or regular non-log). The regular R5 doesn't allow CLOG2, only CLOG3.

This is completely false.

 

[koenkooi]

This is completely false.

There were 4 parts in my post, after checking the R5C manual, the first part was wrong, but the other 3 parts are correct. I fail to see how that is ‘completely false’.

 

[Michael Clark]

The bit depth changes based on the difference between mechanical shutter, EFCS and electronic shutter. There is always an electronic shutter if I understand correctly but it is open longer than the mechanical shutter when it is used.
I expect (but cannot be sure) that the difference is due to the mechanical shutter and the sensor read rate.
Where would you think that coding comes into the equation?
I guess that it is always possible that the processor deliberately downgrades the bit depth depending on the mechanical shutter setting but logically I can't see why Canon would do so.

It might be possible that the ADC requires a slower readout to get the higher bit depth? After all, bit depth is a function of the ADC that is taking analog voltages from the sensor and converting them to digital data. If the ADC is not fast enough to convert to 14-bit at the faster readout speeds required of electronic shutter to combat rolling shutter effect, then slowing down the readout frequency would give the ADC more time to do each computation.

 

[Michael Clark]

Several scientific studies have associated active engagement in a hobby with a longer lifespan. Economists estimate the value of a statistical year of human life at between $50,000 and $150,000.

Viewed through that lens, investment in photography gear to support a hobby delivers a damn good ROI.

That assumes one does not get eaten by a tiger after "investing" in that safari in Kenya...
Or one does not freeze to death or die from high-altitude pulmonary edema after "investing" in a trip to the top of Mt. Everest...

How did that "Crikey" crocodile hunter dude Steve Irwin's "investment" in chasing dangerous animals pay off in terms of his life expectancy? (He did seem to make a pretty good living doing it, until it prevented him from living any longer.)