Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[dtaylor]

I don't want similar, nor slightly better. Why to buy new camera at all then? We are ok with 30mpx. I think no wedding photogs would ask for more,

Everyone's different but I can tell you that the first wedding I shot at 50mp I looked at the files and thought 'I never want to go back.' Same thing with the first volleyball game I shot. Looking at the files any concerns over fps just went out the window. So I'm very happy to see the R5 at 45mp which, for all practical purposes, is an inconsequential difference from the 5Ds/sR. Well...as long as Canon doesn't cover it with a super strong AA filter.

I would prefer staying with 30mpx and e.g. 1 stop better DR, than having 45 and something like equal or 1/3 of the stop range of an improvement ....

Over the past decade pixel size has not mattered (or mattered much) in terms of DR even though in theory it should. I would lay my bets right now that the R5 will have similar high ISO to a 5D4 (within 0.5ev, which is to be expected even from theory) and similar DR as well.

 

[tron]

Everyone's different but I can tell you that the first wedding I shot at 50mp I looked at the files and thought 'I never want to go back.' Same thing with the first volleyball game I shot. Looking at the files any concerns over fps just went out the window. So I'm very happy to see the R5 at 45mp which, for all practical purposes, is an inconsequential difference from the 5Ds/sR. Well...as long as Canon doesn't cover it with a super strong AA filter.



Over the past decade pixel size has not mattered (or mattered much) in terms of DR even though in theory it should. I would lay my bets right now that the R5 will have similar high ISO to a 5D4 (within 0.5ev, which is to be expected even from theory) and similar DR as well.

I hope it will have significant higher rates than EOS R for Servo mode AF

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I suppose they to have a way of normalizing the data from various sensors. In my opinion however, this doesn't actually tell you the dynamic range potential of the sensor itself.

I roughly understand their method, but it measures some 'photographic' DR and an image from the very same sensor but cropped will have a lower DR, which is counter-intuitive.
However I use this site for relative comparison of same size sensors.
Absolute values are kinda arbitrary and useless there. Relative values do have some meaning imho.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

In theory larger pixels should result in greater DR due to full well capacity. In practice that has not happened in 8 years.

Sorry I'm in a rush and will try to answer later on.
But as to the pixel size, you need to compare the sensors of the same design and manufacturer.
A7RIV has a poorer performance than A7RIII, presumably it has the same design but smaller pixels.
In Canon, I don't even know what to take for comparison.

 

[Lee Jay]

Well, maybe not for everyone, but for me:

1) ability to shoot high res photos at a reasonable fps to capture sports/dance/theater;
2) hopefully, an EVF experience that doesn't black out or freeze at 12 fps;
3) a silent EVF mirrorless with controls that match up with my 1DXii
4) hopefully, a mirrorless camera that can be used for real sports in lowish light, but still allow signficant cropping if needed.

Three of those four (2-4) are wishful thinking.

 

[reefroamer]

Hang on D60 was announced in 2002 and was replaced by 10D in 2003.
I couldn't find D6 but there was D6000 in 1998, but it was well before 10D.

You are correct. It was D60 ... back when Canon put the letter D before the number. Like Nikon. Canon switched is naming convention for DSLRs with the 10D intro. All that was more recently than I had recalled. Lots of progress in a short time.

 

[ahsanford]

M6 mk II already better than a 90D ......... and who would have thought Canon would have come out with a M series that we are legit going to want a sequel to?

I kinda would like to see a new version of the removable EVF at some point.

1) When the 90D is not replaced in its normal timeframe, it will be 2 years from now.

2) SLR devotees begrudgingly accepting the end of times for the mirror at their price point will not buy an aging camera. They'll buy something new and jazzy so that they can feel good about why they made the move.

Hence: They will buy M6 Mk III, not II. Or an R7 if it happens.

- A

 

[Gazwas]

Sorry I'm in a rush and will try to answer later on.
But as to the pixel size, you need to compare the sensors of the same design and manufacturer.
A7RIV has a poorer performance than A7RIII, presumably it has the same design but smaller pixels.
In Canon, I don't even know what to take for comparison.

In what way is the Sony A7RIV worse than the A7RIII in the real world other than for file size?

More resolution so more detail, practically the same DR (according to DXOMARK), and very similar grain structure at low ISO (IV ever so slighly worst than the RIII). Looks like win win to me?

Look, I know some people will now show me a load of maths to prove thier point however, this doesn't alter the fact I just don't see any negatives in real photos given the extra 20MP.

 

[reefroamer]

I appreciate the clarification. I respectfully disagree.

I still think the 1-series and to a lesser degree the 5-series will see a few more mirrored updates.

A new 5DS? Maybe one more before the mirror dies.

A new 7D? Pray for R7.

A new 90D? Enjoy your EOS M6 Mk III.

- A

I imagine the quality and performance of the EVF will have a lot to do with how long Canon needs to keep DSLRs in the lineup. But even if, at this point, OVF has some advantage, how big is the market for another 5D iteration and EF glass ... knowing that you’re buying the end of the line. Canon wouldcarefully examine a lot of data on this tofigure out the trade offs.

 

[Lee Jay]

I imagine the quality and performance of the EVF will have a lot to do with how long Canon needs to keep DSLRs in the lineup.

True. Right now they're all so bad I consider them unusable. If this camera has the same EVF quality, I wouldn't pay $1 for it.

 

[ahsanford]

I also thought so until recently, but apparently there were initial incorrect measurements of 90D, current state looks like this

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

Canon made the on-chip ADC move and every camera that got this got a nice 1.5 - 2 stop boost in the base ISO neighborhood when they did (see links below).

70D --> 80D
5D3 --> 5D4
1DX1 --> 1DX2

As Bill from PTP says, the plot loses the hockey stick shape and becomes more or less a straight line.

But this notion that we'll get this sort of bump each gen of sensor is nuts. This was a one time really big boost -- think of it a market parity chiropractic re-alignment. It will not happen again* in big chunks unless Canon makes yet another once-every-10-years sort of sensor architecture change. I don't see it happening soon.

Unless you are in the 6D / RP market segment -- because you've never gotten an on-chip sensor before.

- A

 

[SecureGSM]

True. Right now they're all so bad I consider them unusable. If this camera has the same EVF quality, I wouldn't pay $1 for it.

Hang on there... not even a $1? Okaaaay

 

[BillB]

Three of those four (2-4) are wishful thinking.

if you have a thousand posts in a thread, there is bound to be a lot of wishful thinking.

 

[Lee Jay]

Hang on there... not even a $1? Okaaaay

Well, not if I had to use it. What's the point in paying anything for something you can't use?

 

[blackcoffee17]

Does that make more economic sense than discontinuing the most (arguably) successful line of cameras and lenses ever created while people still want to buy them?

Totally agree. It's funny how on the web and forums people would just discontinue any EF development from one day to another.
Canon probably is smarter than that because it would be bad for reputation and still brings tons on money.

 

[PureClassA]

Canon made the on-chip ADC move and every camera that got this got a nice 1.5 - 2 stop boost in the base ISO neighborhood when they did (see links below).

70D --> 80D
5D3 --> 5D4
1DX1 --> 1DX2

As Bill from PTP says, the plot loses the hockey stick shape and becomes more or less a straight line.

But this notion that we'll get this sort of bump each gen of sensor is nuts. This was a one time really big boost -- think of it a market parity chiropractic re-alignment. It will not happen again* in big chunks unless Canon makes yet another once-every-10-years sort of sensor architecture change. I don't see it happening soon.

Unless you are in the 6D / RP market segment -- because you've never gotten an on-chip sensor before.

- A

Exactly. Eliminating all that noise induced along what used to be the signal path between sensor and ADC on the older cameras is what largely jumped the DR. I think most of these upper level cameras now are all about in the same range within a stop or so at least at base ISOs. I think this DR issue needs to be retired for the most part.

 

[tron]

M6 mk II already better than a 90D ......... and who would have thought Canon would have come out with a M series that we are legit going to want a sequel to?

I kinda would like to see a new version of the removable EVF at some point.

This is your interpretation:

Should I Get the Canon EOS 90D or the Canon EOS M6 Mark II

Should I Get the Canon EOS 90D or the Canon EOS M6 Mark II — The-Digital-Picture.com

www.the-digital-picture.com

Canon 90D vs Canon M6 MII Detailed Comparison

Read our detailed comparison of the Canon EOS 90D vs Canon EOS M6 Mark II to find out their strengths and weaknesses, and decide which one to choose.

cameradecision.com

And anyway better for what kind of shooting?

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon made the on-chip ADC move and every camera that got this got a nice 1.5 - 2 stop boost in the base ISO neighborhood when they did (see links below).

70D --> 80D
5D3 --> 5D4
1DX1 --> 1DX2

I have a 7D mark II and an 80D. Though the 80D does have less read noise than the 7D mark II, it also has more banding, making any extra DR it supposedly has useless. I can actually pull more out of the shadows before noise becomes distracting from the 7D mark II because banding is so distracting.

 

[Go Wild]

In what way is the Sony A7RIV worse than the A7RIII in the real world other than for file size?

More resolution so more detail, practically the same DR (according to DXOMARK), and very similar grain structure at low ISO (IV ever so slighly worst than the RIII). Looks like win win to me?

Look, I know some people will now show me a load of maths to prove thier point however, this doesn't alter the fact I just don't see any negatives in real photos given the extra 20MP.

You are correct, Sony A7r4 it has more definition due to the extra 20mp. Is it notorious? Well...it´s not very notorious but it´s there.

Negative points of having extra MP? There are not! If you don´t need them, you don´t buy it. If you need them you buy extra space in external discs. No one that need extra MP will complain about harddrive space.

There are 2 things though that you need to be aware, when you photograph with high MP sensors you need to bem extra carefull with shutterspeed and imperfections because everything will become more notorious. It´s common people that are use to lower mp sensors to have problems with no so crisp images and that most of the times is due to incorrect shutter speed. Other thing is ISO performance. It´s not very different from 42mp sensor, but the 60mp sensor of the A7r4 doesn´t have so good iso performance than a7r3.

So, if the question is, "should you get a higher MP camera"? Well in most of the cases, yes! In some cases like sports or photojournalism, you may not need so much because it will slow down your workflow, but...even sports photographers may benefict with higher MP. In other photo types, better resolution means better photos, evenif you dont need to print big. so the extra MP will be very well received.

I believe the 45 mp from this EOS R5 camera is a very sweet spot! It´s not too much and delivers you what you need in resolution! If you need more than this...you mustgo for the medium format cameras or wait for the 75mp camera from Canon (if ever will come).

 

[tron]

I have a 7D mark II and an 80D. Though the 80D does have less read noise than the 7D mark II, it also has more banding, making any extra DR it supposedly has useless. I can actually pull more out of the shadows before noise becomes distracting from the 7D mark II because banding is so distracting.

Ooops interesting info. I wonder if the same applies for 90D. I guess this happens in rather extreme lighting and in normal medium iso shooting (birds) this is not an issue anyway.