Canon EOS R5 Mark II to arrive before EOS R1? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Canon won't make non-IS versions.
Everything is IS now, except for:
16mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.2
85mm f/1.2
28-70mm f/2
Upvote
0
This is my personal interpretation based on observations of the past 2 decades.
Never say never... I think a non-IS version may appear a decade after the IS version came out. If there is a significant demand to run a production for it. Best indicator for Canon to see is volume of those equivalents with Nikon and Sony.
Then again based on the number of full frame vs mirrorless body SKUs the market for mirrorless may be leaning more towards ~70% high-end & ~30% low-end
Faster than f/2.8 L lenses may not get the IS treatment.
Even though Canon is the largest camera maker in the world they need to schedule production line time for better margin SKUs that photo agencies and high-end independents and enthusiasts want.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Nathan Phillips
Nathan Phillips Photo
I’m sure they do, but even a side by side test with the same shot, you can clearly see that the R5 isn’t as good with recovering highlights and maintaining shadow details. The 8K Raw is the only contender, when all modes for the R3 are right around 12 stops, and then the R5c is ranged from 12-13.5 stops depending upon what codec and noise reduction applied.
All you have to do is look at a side by side clip and you will see a huge difference. Mostly in the sky or challenging scenes involving heavy shadow and highlight differences. Like indoors and maintaining the info from a window.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
ROI to me is utilization. The more you use it the faster the ROI.
Like buying a new $1k AC that promises 68% power savings. After 6 months of ~12hr/day daily use I got my ROI in terms of power savings. A decade later I avoided the extra 68% charges.
That's why I bring up utilization of buying any new gear.
I got my ROI from my birding gear because I used it 3x week every week of the year for more than 6 years.
To me the $1k RF 800/11 is worth it if the person carrying has mobility issues. It is less than 1.3kg vs a Z 800mm VR that weigh's 2x that at 6.5x the price.
Now, if you buy a luxury car and make it a garage queen that only gets driven during key special ocassions that occurs 1x/month in the good side of town then for me it's a bad ROI.
Upvote
0
And like I said, as a hobbyist, what matters to you does not matter to someone else.
I don’t care how much I spend on AC, I want it cold and my ROI is how comfortable my home is. In your opinion, you state you would rather have more energy savings.
That’s your opinion.
The cost of a lens is also subjective. I wouldn’t look at the size and weight as that is not important to me. The quality of what I can achieve is hence why I would be more inclined to invest in a 400 if I shot birds in flight in order to get a faster shutter and lower iso.
Doesn’t mean everyone else can blow 10+k in a lens because they like it.
Also if you want to get nitty gritty in ROI, that same car you just stored in a garage can be a very valuable asset.
Purchasing a rare collectable can appreciate in value because you have not driven it and got a great deal on purchasing it.
Let’s apply these principals to the telephoto prime lens. If I got a used RF 400 or 600 prime, how much do you think I will lose on my ROI if I were to sell it in the future? Even a new one, how much would I lose on it? 10% if it’s value?
Let’s take the 800 f11 that was mentioned. If you buy one new and sell in a few years later where the market is saturated with used 800’s, how much of its value did you lose in order to sell it? 30%
How many used RF 400’s and 600’s are there? Hence why ROI is subjective to each persons perspective and need.
I would rather have the equity in a lens I know I can sell back for what I paid for it (if I can find a used one).
I can use it, enjoy it, and if I sell it, still retain most (if not all) my initial investment.
Upvote
0
You haven't given a link to what you are citing or the time spot where it is discussed so I can't comment without spending time googling and watching a whole youtube. DR is a number that is measured, and Photonstophotos is the gold standard for measuring DR and shadow recovery. Here are their results: https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R3,Canon EOS R5 https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR_Shadow.htm#Canon EOS R3,Canon EOS R5
Upvote
0
Tony, I'm not your wife/spouse so no need to justify the cost to me. I am just providing a unique data point for anyone thinking of GAS.
Because all the shop talk gets people to go bananas over it.
I speaking from 2 decades of EF dSLR system ownership experience.
Over 1-2 decades use the money saved could be used to buy a new 1-series body.
The reason why Canon's 1st RF 800mm & 600mm were f/11 and why Nikon's Z 800mm is f/6.3 is because of weight and cost. They are $1k at <1.3kg and $6.5k at <2.4kg respectively.
Why? Because >70% of enthusiasts who go into wildlife/bird photography are baby boomers. They want a light and hopefully cheap lens. This was indicated in a CIPA report I read about a decade ago where in market survey shows that the growing segment of a stagnant photo market are retirees, pensioners and seniors.
When I was evaulating the EF 600mm @ 5.9kg vs EF 800mm 4.5kg we put more weight on weight. Many fellow photogs kept saying the EF 600mm is a better lens as you can get a 840mm & 1200mm with the TC. The thing is the nearly 1.4kg extra weight could mean us leaving the lens at home and not go birding.
Fastest lens matter back a dozen years ago but it does not impact to the same degree as of today. Improved IS & image sensor performance compensates sufficiently.
Any mirrorless body released in the half decade will outperform most dSLR that was released up to year 2020.
When giving an example kindly provide one that is within $30 million net worth? A lot of us have no more than $5 million to our name.
Where I live there are half a dozen EF 800mm owners. When the EF 600mm Series II that weighs <4kg came out in 2012 the owner wanted to sell his 1-2yo $13k EF 800mm for the weight savings. No takers so he had to take a >50% hit for ~500g weight savings.
If I want to get a good return for my EF system I'd have to liquidate it in Hong Kong where there's more people with money.
I figured that way of thinking from car show Fifth Gear when comparing what car to buy that gives the best liquidation value.
If I were to buy a 800mm today I'd probably switch systems. Because at 1/3rd slower (just like the EF 200/2 IS vs EF 200/1.8 without IS) the Z 800mm is ~1/2 price and ~1/2 weight.
1/3rd less speed? It gets compensated by a Z9 ISO performance.
A Z9 body + Z 800mm lens = RF 800mm f/5.6k in $ with the bonus of weighing less.
Although I'd stick to Canon if after sales servicing is key to me or I do not want to learn how to use a Nikon.
I bought into the 1st world's first back-illuminated full frame image sensor that came in a Sony a7R II and quickly sold it because the software and ergonomics sucked for non-baby hands.
Going back... I'd only buy based on utility.
I use a computer for 1/2 the day at least every day for the past 3 decades. So I buy a nice Herman Miller and a iMac 27". When M2 Pro model comes out I'm emailing my dealer the hour it was announced to be 1st in line. Is it overpriced? Sure, to a PC gamer that spends half their life playing triple A titles. But my use case is different.
But if i use it 1x/year then I'd probably look MSI gaming laptop that parents give to their kids attending public Uni or at a super zoom point & shoot that sells for less than a RF 800m f/11. So when I liquidate it's a small sum as I only used it once or twice.
When I went on a trip before to a far off waterfall I bought myself a motorcycle helmet to ride behind the tour guide. I didn't borrow the one he had on hand because of fear of lice and knowing it would not save my life.
At the end of the trip I gave it to my guide as a "tip". Fella was so happy as the brand I bought was the dream helpmet of motorcycle riders. I have no use for it because that's the last time I'd risk my neck on any bike.
Because all the shop talk gets people to go bananas over it.
I speaking from 2 decades of EF dSLR system ownership experience.
The AC before that was bought 2 decades prior. Time to upgrade. So why not look for a model that has the least indoor operating noise and give you energy savings?
Over 1-2 decades use the money saved could be used to buy a new 1-series body.
Believe it or not but all these big companies have a performance / use case group that crunches the numbers and user/customer surveys that helps points to where new bodies and lenses should address a workflow requirement for the next decade or so.
The reason why Canon's 1st RF 800mm & 600mm were f/11 and why Nikon's Z 800mm is f/6.3 is because of weight and cost. They are $1k at <1.3kg and $6.5k at <2.4kg respectively.
Why? Because >70% of enthusiasts who go into wildlife/bird photography are baby boomers. They want a light and hopefully cheap lens. This was indicated in a CIPA report I read about a decade ago where in market survey shows that the growing segment of a stagnant photo market are retirees, pensioners and seniors.
When I was evaulating the EF 600mm @ 5.9kg vs EF 800mm 4.5kg we put more weight on weight. Many fellow photogs kept saying the EF 600mm is a better lens as you can get a 840mm & 1200mm with the TC. The thing is the nearly 1.4kg extra weight could mean us leaving the lens at home and not go birding.
Fastest lens matter back a dozen years ago but it does not impact to the same degree as of today. Improved IS & image sensor performance compensates sufficiently.
Any mirrorless body released in the half decade will outperform most dSLR that was released up to year 2020.
I think you're talking about such a niche use case that it only applies to 1 out of 100 million persons.
When giving an example kindly provide one that is within $30 million net worth? A lot of us have no more than $5 million to our name.
The value of any item is predicated to its demand.
Where I live there are half a dozen EF 800mm owners. When the EF 600mm Series II that weighs <4kg came out in 2012 the owner wanted to sell his 1-2yo $13k EF 800mm for the weight savings. No takers so he had to take a >50% hit for ~500g weight savings.
If I want to get a good return for my EF system I'd have to liquidate it in Hong Kong where there's more people with money.
30% of $1k is $300? What's 10% of a RF 400/2.8 IS? $1,200? I'd use the percentage-wise to the wife. It easily distracts them if they aren't numbers oriented. ;-)
I figured that way of thinking from car show Fifth Gear when comparing what car to buy that gives the best liquidation value.
RF 800mm f/5.6 is roughly the price of the EF 800mm predecessor at introduction.
If I were to buy a 800mm today I'd probably switch systems. Because at 1/3rd slower (just like the EF 200/2 IS vs EF 200/1.8 without IS) the Z 800mm is ~1/2 price and ~1/2 weight.
1/3rd less speed? It gets compensated by a Z9 ISO performance.
A Z9 body + Z 800mm lens = RF 800mm f/5.6k in $ with the bonus of weighing less.
Although I'd stick to Canon if after sales servicing is key to me or I do not want to learn how to use a Nikon.
I bought into the 1st world's first back-illuminated full frame image sensor that came in a Sony a7R II and quickly sold it because the software and ergonomics sucked for non-baby hands.
Going back... I'd only buy based on utility.
I use a computer for 1/2 the day at least every day for the past 3 decades. So I buy a nice Herman Miller and a iMac 27". When M2 Pro model comes out I'm emailing my dealer the hour it was announced to be 1st in line. Is it overpriced? Sure, to a PC gamer that spends half their life playing triple A titles. But my use case is different.
But if i use it 1x/year then I'd probably look MSI gaming laptop that parents give to their kids attending public Uni or at a super zoom point & shoot that sells for less than a RF 800m f/11. So when I liquidate it's a small sum as I only used it once or twice.
When I went on a trip before to a far off waterfall I bought myself a motorcycle helmet to ride behind the tour guide. I didn't borrow the one he had on hand because of fear of lice and knowing it would not save my life.
At the end of the trip I gave it to my guide as a "tip". Fella was so happy as the brand I bought was the dream helpmet of motorcycle riders. I have no use for it because that's the last time I'd risk my neck on any bike.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I´ve been checking this website on a regular basis. I work with a 13 inch Macbook (2018) and it runs fine, but recently it starts to show its age. The next computer will be an iMac because 13inch is just too small for editing images imo. Plus, I stopped working on a whilst watching TV or something similar because I do focus better on my work and I actually remember things about the movies I watched
Therefore I always work in my office now and not in the living room. So my need for a laptop has greatly diminished and I'm eagerly waiting for an updated iMac to arrive.
Upvote
0
Congratulations! Consider paid lessons on how to use it if we or YouTube cannot help you.
Upvote
0
If this relates to the non-IS 70-200mm, I agree.
I guess the rumored RF 35mm F1.2 won't have IS as well since the 50mm & 85mm don't have it. Also, I could imagine a 70-135mm F2 won´t come with IS.
Upvote
0
YMMV of course... for me a 16" MBP M1 was the perfect upgrade from a 2013 MBP. The old one worked perfectly except the speed suffered badly due to the R5's file sizes and especially video. I skipped all the interim models with dodgy keyboard/ lack of ports and touch bar. It will be interesting to see how long the M1 version will last me but I expect it to be a long time.I´ve been checking this website on a regular basis. I work with a 13 inch Macbook (2018) and it runs fine, but recently it starts to show its age. The next computer will be an iMac because 13inch is just too small for editing images imo. Plus, I stopped working on a whilst watching TV or something similar because I do focus better on my work and I actually remember things about the movies I watched
I need a laptop when I travel and multitasking in front of the TV is ideal for me.
The larger 16" screen is great for editing and trackpad has acceptable accuracy. The 14" screen on my work laptop is poor in comparison!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
