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

[Michael Clark]

For the R1 and the win....maybe "global shutter"?
C

If so, they'll charge at least $7,999 for it. Maybe more.

 

[Michael Clark]

Global shutter would be a technical win for Canon, but most current opinion that I've read says that readout speeds with electronic shutter on the latest generation of sensors is sufficient to make rolling shutter a non-issue. What practical benefits (other than eliminating rolling shutter) would global shutter provide? Would it e.g. enable flash sync at all shutter speeds? I'm unclear as to the pros and cons versus a high performance stacked sensor and conventional electronic shutter.

Just imagine the Sony fanboy's reaction if the R1 comes out in 2024 with a global shutter!

That alone would be worth any expense Canon incurs to do it.

 

[Michael Clark]

What's the relationship between processor architecture and firmware size ? Suppose the processor grows from 10 cores to 20. Do you expect the firmware size to double ?

You might be putting the cart before the horse here.

Maybe it's the bloated firmware size that requires the larger number of processor cores, and not the other way around?

 

[Michael Clark]

I was under the impression that the R5 and R5 C were identical in photo mode.

We're talking about the file size of the firmware that runs each camera, not the file size of still images produced by each camera.

 

[entoman]

Just imagine the Sony fanboy's reaction if the R1 comes out in 2024 with a global shutter!

That alone would be worth any expense Canon incurs to do it.

I've owned 3 Sony cameras, but although they performed well enough, I never felt "at home" with them. Nevertheless, I give Sony full credit for reinvigorating the camera market. They certainly gave Canon, Nikon etc a much deserved kick up the butt, without which we'd probably still all be using DSLRs. I'm sure Canon would love to be first with global shutter, but they tend to hold back and watch what other companies do, so I'd expect Sony to be first. Tribalistic brand fans can be a pain, I prefer to just avoid them.

 

[Michael Clark]

So, there has been >10 years of precedence for dual processors in 1 series bodies and that Canon has experience in managing parallel processing in SW and could theoretically do the same for any future body depending on thermal issues.

Looking into it, dual processors actually began with the 1Ds Mark III and the 1D Mark III in 2007. Only the first five models of the digital 1-Series had single image processors and the last six have had dual image processors. So I was, ahem, less correct than I originally thought.

Having said that, though, dual processors can only do so much to spread the heat over a larger volume of the limited space inside a camera body. Heat dissipation was not the main purpose for beginning the practice, getting increased processing power at reasonable pricing was. One can usually buy two upper midlevel processors that, combined, have more total processing power than a single processor that is the cutting edge king of the hill. On the consumer market, compare the price of a single 24-core 13th generation Intel Core i9-13900KS ($730) to the price of two 14-core 13th generation Intel Core i5-13600KF ($310 + $310 = $620) processors or two 14-core 13th generation Intel Core i5-13500 ($260 +$260 = $520).

In the current situation it seems that the most concentrated source of heat, at least with the R5 bodies, are not the processors at all, but rather the CFexpress memory cards. Perhaps they'll put one CFexpress card slot on each side of the R1 instead of stacking them right next to one another?

 

[Michael Clark]

I've owned 3 Sony cameras, but although they performed well enough, I never felt "at home" with them. Nevertheless, I give Sony full credit for reinvigorating the camera market. They certainly gave Canon, Nikon etc a much deserved kick up the butt, without which we'd probably still all be using DSLRs. I'm sure Canon would love to be first with global shutter, but they tend to hold back and watch what other companies do, so I'd expect Sony to be first. Tribalistic brand fans can be a pain, I prefer to just avoid them.

It was a feeble attempt at humor.

But after what the Sony Fanboy YouTube Network (officially sponsored by Sony via free gear and free swag) put Canon through when the R5 was released, Canon does owe them a certain amount of payback. As the late Howard Cosell used to declare: "Just telling it like it is."



Full disclosure: I've never owned a digital ILC that wasn't a Canon. That's mostly due to my lens inventory each time I needed a new camera. I would have been more tempted by the Nikon D500 if the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR had not been almost $3K at the time.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Not enough experienced people working on it. There has been some progress on R series cameras, but not much. The intersection of people with enough experience/skill that have access to the camera and are motivated enough is quite small.

There was a lot of interest in the beginning before a workaround for the overheating limit was found which was removing the battery and resetting the clock.
After that, development interest fell off.
Now that there is an R5 C there is pretty much no development interest at all.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

That alone would be worth any expense Canon incurs to do it.

Not to Canon.
They have not shown to care about things like that.

 

[Michael Clark]

There was a lot of interest in the beginning before a workaround for the overheating limit was found which was removing the battery and resetting the clock.
After that, development interest fell off.
Now that there is an R5 C there is pretty much no development interest at all.

That and the fact that with no CFexpress card in the camera while recording to an external drive the problem pretty much goes away as well.

 

[Michael Clark]

Not to Canon.
They have not shown to care about things like that.

Which is why it would be so great. Revenge is a dish best served cold.

Canon wouldn't release a global shutter that they would not otherwise have released just to one-up Sony.

However, if Canon does release a global shutter before Sony in a consumer ILC (as opposed to a scientific instrument or machine vision camera), you can bet they'll get great satisfaction out of telling their own customers how great it is and that it's the first ever available from anyone for this kind of camera.

 

[Juppeck]

In all things in life, very different factors always decide why you buy something or why you don't. Why a camera or a good lens is suddenly outdated after the market launch of a new system and apparently no longer seems good enough for taking pictures simply doesn't want to open up to me.
I use some Canon System and EF lenses from Canon and Sigma. The solution with the mount adapter to use an EF lens on an RF connection is absolutely problem-free.
Yes, the EOS-R is the first mirrorless to have some untapped features - compared to my R5, the differences in handling are visible. But, you have to know when to use the R or when to hit the drum with the R5.
I get the impression that the cameras want to make it the same as the smartphones. Always new systems with no real added value.
How you want to judge the usefulness of an IBIS or the elimination of the mirror box, everyone has to judge for themselves.
I shoot with DSLR (EOS80D, EOS5DM4, EOS5Ds) just as often as with the R or R5. I have not yet purchased an RF lens because I am very satisfied with my image quality.
In terms of sustainability, I would wish if the manufacturers would try a little more with the firmware in order to give the systems a slightly longer lifespan on the market. The systems are always expensive enough. These cameras can also contribute to the conservation of raw materials and the environment. We're not the last generation and the "rare earth metals" aren't multiplying any more.

 

[entoman]

In terms of sustainability, I would wish if the manufacturers would try a little more with the firmware in order to give the systems a slightly longer lifespan on the market. The systems are always expensive enough. These cameras can also contribute to the conservation of raw materials and the environment. We're not the last generation and the "rare earth metals" aren't multiplying any more.

I think most camera manufacturers, including Canon *do* try pretty hard to keep existing models up to date with firmware. They obviously realise that they have to do so, in order to keep sales moving until such time as a successor model is launched. especially, because in the intervening period, other manufacturers will have introduced new models that make the older ones less appealing.

But bear in mind that manufacturers need to make money for their employees and shareholders, and they can make a great deal more money by launching new products, than by plodding on with old models that have new firmware.

Bear in mind also that many of the new innovations require new hardware e.g. hi-res EVFs, better sensors, faster processors to name a few.

I do agree wholeheartedly that it's entirely unnecessary for any of us to upgrade as often as we do. 5-10 year old DSLRs will in most cases produce results that are virtually indistinguishable from those in the latest cameras. It can also be argued that less competent cameras force us to work harder and think more about each photograph, resulting in better photography.

But we live in a strange world where we convince ourselves, with a bit of a push from the manufacturers, that we *must* have the latest gear if we are to improve our photography. I'm as guilty as anyone - I've tended to buy a new body every 2-3 years and a new lens every 18 months or so. Boys like new toys.

 

[entoman]

There was a lot of interest in the beginning before a workaround for the overheating limit was found which was removing the battery and resetting the clock.

My opinion:

Canon was "playing safe" when the R5 was first released, deliberately limiting the time that video could run, in order to reduce the potentially harmful effects of overheating. They changed the firmware purely because the unexpected outcry from video users was likely to harm sales.

The issue still remains that the camera gets hotter than is desirable. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the firmware changes to the R5 merely allow the camera to be subjected to the heat for longer, before an overheating warning eventually appears.

Hot sensors produce more noise than those at normal operating temperatures. Not a good idea to let them get hot.

More importantly, it remains to be seen whether or not repeated operation at high temperatures affects the longevity of the sensor and/or other components. It may well do so.

If I was buying a used R5, I'd prefer to buy from a stills-only photographer, than from a video shooter, for precisely that reason.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon was "playing safe" when the R5 was first released, deliberately limiting the time that video could run,

When the 1D X came out, it did not support f/8 AF. That was added in an early firmware update. I’ve always felt they wanted to incorporate the feature, but hadn’t fully tested it at launch so it was safer to not include it at that point.

 

[puffo25]

Good morning all. I need a reccomandation. I own a Canon R5 and several RF lenses (15-35 f2,8, 24-70 f2,8, 70-200 f2,8, 85 f1,2, 100-500 f7,1). As I do documentary, travel and street photography, I have come to the conclusion that rather than buy a RF 24-105 f/4 medium quality lens to be use as single lens in my trips, I should get a second camera body and use my "trinity" premium f/2,8 lenses. I think and hope that most of you agree with this approach?
Now, for the second camera body I could get an identical R5 (which is quite perfect to me) or wait for the next generation R5 Mark II near to be released camera. Big dilemma! The advantage of going for the R5 is to use for both bodies the identical menu, settings and so on, and at this stage buy it at a reasonable price. If I opt for the newest R5 Mark II, I will get some new features (why not? lol). BUT (!) price will be higher and on certain occasions where I will have to switch camera on the fly (ie because a chaotic event for example) I might get stuck (maybe) btw the 2 camera settings and so on...
What is your personal opinion? Do you think the Mark II will add for example in terms of image quality, dynamic range and AF precision better results than the current R5?

 

[Maximilian]

Good morning all. I need a reccomandation. ...

To make it short, I would ask myself two questions:
1. How long am I willing to wait?/ When do I need that second body?
==> We have no announcement date yet, and release/availability is a few weeks to months further on from that.
2. Am I willing to pay premium for the latest tech?
==> Supposedly higher or at least equal to the MRSP of the R5 at release (was it 4,499 € in Italy, too?)

I hope that helps you.

 

[Kit.]

My opinion:

Canon was "playing safe" when the R5 was first released, deliberately limiting the time that video could run, in order to reduce the potentially harmful effects of overheating. They changed the firmware purely because the unexpected outcry from video users was likely to harm sales.

In the initial release, the limiting logic was only based on timers, and did not depend on the temperature sensors at all.

Which is more consistent with the idea that the logic based on the sensors was just not yet ready at the time of the release.

 

[puffo25]

To make it short, I would ask myself two questions:
1. How long am I willing to wait?/ When do I need that second body?
==> We have no announcement date yet, and release/availability is a few weeks to months further on from that.
2. Am I willing to pay premium for the latest tech?
==> Supposedly higher or at least equal to the MRSP of the R5 at release (was it 4,499 € in Italy, too?)

I hope that helps you.

Thanks Max.
I could wait up to 6 months IF (!) it is worth it to wait. Do you think, beside the high price tag (compared to the actual R5), that the Mark II will add indeed enough and new bells to justify the purchase? Or better to stay to the actual R5?

 

[entoman]

Good morning all. I need a reccomandation. I own a Canon R5 and several RF lenses (15-35 f2,8, 24-70 f2,8, 70-200 f2,8, 85 f1,2, 100-500 f7,1). As I do documentary, travel and street photography, I have come to the conclusion that rather than buy a RF 24-105 f/4 medium quality lens to be use as single lens in my trips, I should get a second camera body and use my "trinity" premium f/2,8 lenses. I think and hope that most of you agree with this approach?
Now, for the second camera body I could get an identical R5 (which is quite perfect to me) or wait for the next generation R5 Mark II near to be released camera. Big dilemma! The advantage of going for the R5 is to use for both bodies the identical menu, settings and so on, and at this stage buy it at a reasonable price. If I opt for the newest R5 Mark II, I will get some new features (why not? lol). BUT (!) price will be higher and on certain occasions where I will have to switch camera on the fly (ie because a chaotic event for example) I might get stuck (maybe) btw the 2 camera settings and so on...
What is your personal opinion? Do you think the Mark II will add for example in terms of image quality, dynamic range and AF precision better results than the current R5?

I think the MKii will probably have more resolution, perhaps 61 or even 90MP, and that *could* indicate that DR and noise are slightly worse. My guess is that DR and noise levels will be roughly the same as with the R5. It will definitely have improved AF, faster fps and at least a couple of extra marketing "features". I think there will be minor ergonomic changes.

So the questions you need to ask (and my personal responses) are:

Do you need (or even want) those improvements, for the types of photography that you do?
Better AF for BIF would be useful to me, but it's not a major aspect of my photography and I'm happy with the AF of the R5 for almost anything else. Better DR would definitely be useful to me, a reduction in DR would be a no no. I don't need faster fps. I don't want different ergonomics.

Are those improvements and features worth the difference in price?
The short and simple answer for me, is NO.

Would the money saved by getting another R5 be better spent elsewhere?
Definitely. I'd much rather spend the savings on another lens, or better still on travelling.