Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[ahsanford]

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.

For the most part = unless you own a 6D2 or RP.

Here's a 7-8 year old entry level FF sensor vs. the architecture in the RP. These cavernous differences (that folks endlessly used to whinge about here) are supposed to be a thing of the past, but Canon has this nutty habit of being Canon.



- A

 

[tron]

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).

I agree R5 seems like a consolidation camera (R/5D4+5DsR) assuming it has ... 2 slots (OK I am sure it will)

 

[AEWest]

DSLR's are still 50% or so of the market. Should they just abandon that? I have nothing to back it up, but I would bet most working pros are still using DSLR's. What I mean by that, more than 50%. Should they just throw in the towel of that also? They can handle both cameras with mirrors and cameras without.

But Canon already has thrown in the towel on the EF mount - they are only working on R glass and have said so. So if I'm a photographer looking for a new camera, why would I buy into obsolecense?

I expect a few more R lenses this year including smaller F4 variants. So say there are a total of 15 R lenses by end of year. Yet if I buy a DSLR, I have no access to any of them. No chance of ever buying the compact 70-200 2.8.

Yet if I have an extensive EF lens collection, I can still use them seamlessly with a very compact adapter on an R mount camera.

This is obviously what Canon's game plan is. That is why to me it makes no sense to make a new 5D when they are about to announce the R5. I predict that the R5 is the new 5D.

 

[ahsanford]

I agree R5 seems like a consolidation camera (R/5D4+5DsR) assuming if has ... 2 slots (OK I am sure it will)

Consolidation is a downgrade for 5DS users in the #1 metric they care about.

Resolution remains (behind a 1-series build) the #1 driver of asking price for all three major FF manufacturers.

I think a higher yet res rig is surely coming, and the R5 (if real) will at some point have a 5D5 spec'd very similarly to it.

- A

 

[Michael Clark]

At least. Will current 1-series sports sideline folks even try messing around with adaptors? Won't they wait for native RF superteles?

Photojournos, on the other hand, I could see living with the holy trinity 2.8 zooms already out there. I still think they are first marines on the beach when it comes to high speed 1-series build mirrorless adoption.

- A

They mess around with extenders all the time. They'll wait until they're happy with the state of Canon's EVF and tracking performance in burst mode at a frame rate they consider usable.

Most PJs only update every other body or so. I know one that is still shooting major college football (in the town with the most successful program in the country for the last decade) with an old EF 400mm f/2.8 IS ("Mark I"). They don't replace big glass until it can't be fixed.

 

[Lee Jay]

I believe that it is hubris to think that we can define such an abstract and subjective human drive with objective evidence and logic.

This argument, to me, is the same as throwing up your hands and giving up.

Language is about precision. If you can't define the term, the term has no meaning.

Yet, at the same time I understand the human desire to define complex systems.

Oh good.

 

[ahsanford]

But Canon already has thrown in the towel on the EF mount - they are only working on R glass and have said so. So if I'm a photographer looking for a new camera, why would I buy into obsolecense?

EF glass is still in full production, dwarfs RF's ability to serve all your needs today, and -- by the way -- works seamlessly on RF.

And any body you buy is on some 3,5,7 year arc of usefulness no matter what design it is. Any new camera you buy today will be replaced long before EF ends production.

So I see the decision to buy an SLR vs. mirrorless as one of personal preference with little to no downside in choosing either. SLRs excel in some areas mirrorless never will, and vice versa. Get the tool you need.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

I dare you to stand face to face with Kubrick's ghost and say that. Have you ever seen "2001?"

As I've said above, if the photographer creates the scene,, and not just a picture of a scene, then it's more reasonable to categorize it as art. This is rare because most photographers don't have the money of a feature film production to create their own scenes.

 

[Lee Jay]

EF glass is still in full production, dwarfs RF's ability to serve all your needs today, and -- by the way -- works seamlessly on RF.

Kind of. I have four crop-only lenses and one EF lens I'd only use in crop-mode. Even this supposed 45MP camera wouldn't produce the resolution I get from my 7D Mark II, at likely twice the price.

I did a little checking. Replacing my lens-kit with reasonable selections from the R-line would cost me $8,200 at retail prices - in addition to the price of the camera. Yeah, it would have a bit more capability (excluding the lack of a decent viewfinder), but there's no way I'm paying as much as a good used car to get back what I already have.

 

[tron]

Consolidation is a downgrade for 5DS users in the #1 metric they care about.

Resolution remains (behind a 1-series build) the #1 driver of asking price for all three major FF manufacturers.

I think a higher yet res rig is surely coming, and the R5 (if real) will at some point have a 5D5 spec'd very similarly to it.

- A

The same happened with 1 series. I use 5DsR but since I use it for birding I will continue using it. But 10% less megapixels which mean about 5% less resolution is not something to cry about if someone gets better DR and better high iso performance not to mention more than double the fps (assuming they remain the same for AI Servo). Yes a higher res camera most probably is coming but its resolution will be an upgrade of the resolution of 5DsR (I do not say direct upgrade because for me who shoots birds upgrade means 5DsRII and nothing else). Still to me the R5 consolidates the two I mentioned. I agree about 5D5 which by the way will probably make me upgrade my 5D4 (this will be an upgrade ).

 

[reefroamer]

But Canon already has thrown in the towel on the EF mount - they are only working on R glass and have said so. So if I'm a photographer looking for a new camera, why would I buy into obsolecense?

I expect a few more R lenses this year including smaller F4 variants. So say there are a total of 15 R lenses by end of year. Yet if I buy a DSLR, I have no access to any of them. No chance of ever buying the compact 70-200 2.8.

Yet if I have an extensive EF lens collection, I can still use them seamlessly with a very compact adapter on an R mount camera.

This is obviously what Canon's game plan is. That is why to me it makes no sense to make a new 5D when they are about to announce the R5. I predict that the R5 is the new 5D.

An exception would be if Canon updated the 5D with an RF mount. All the EF glass could still be used and the new 5D would keep the OVF and DSLR handling and ergonomics that many seem to desire. Then Canon let’s the buyers decide, but still moves to exclusive RF Mount. That lets 5D users begin investing in RF glass moving forward.

 

[Rule556]

This argument, to me, is the same as throwing up your hands and giving up.

Language is about precision. If you can't define the term, the term has no meaning.

We‘ll just have to agree to disagree about that. What’s meaningless to one is not meaningless to another. I know what art means to me, and it’s okay that you don‘t share my view.

Not everything in this life can be described by a mathematical model.

 

[ahsanford]

An exception would be if Canon updated the 5D with an RF mount. All the EF glass could still be used and the new 5D would keep the OVF and DSLR handling and ergonomics that many seem to desire. Then Canon let’s the buyers decide, but still moves to exclusive RF Mount. That lets 5D users begin investing in RF glass moving forward.

RF mount and mirrorbox (and by extension an OVF) cannot co-exist.

Unless you are proposing putting an RF mount further in front of hte sensor than it is today (to leave room for the mirror), in which case neither EF nor RF would work properly -- they'd be the wrong distance from the sensor, wouldn't they?

Big chunky 5D body/grip/controls with an RF mount? Doable. Many would love it. But the mirror and OVF must die to do that.

RF mount at EF flange distance? Not doable unless you want to use all RF and EF glass as if it were on an extension tubes.

- A

 

[Lee Jay]

We‘ll just have to agree to disagree about that. What’s meaningless to one is not meaningless to another. I know what art means to me, and it’s okay that you don‘t share my view.

Not everything in this life can be described by a mathematical model.

We're not talking about math, we're talking about language.

 

[amorse]

RF mount and mirrorbox (and by extension an OVF) cannot co-exist.

Unless you are proposing putting an RF mount further in front of hte sensor than it is today (to leave room for the mirror), in which case neither EF nor RF would work properly -- they'd be the wrong distance from the sensor, wouldn't they?

Big chunky 5D body/grip/controls with an RF mount? Doable. Many would love it. But the mirror and OVF must die to do that.

RF mount at EF flange distance? Not doable unless you want to use all RF and EF glass as if it were on an extension tubes.

- A

Well, you could do both in one body using a hybrid mount/hybrid viewfinder and different modes for RF and EF: i.e. if the sensor was on rails and could advance or retreat to match the appropriate flange distance, and an EVF was behind the pentaprism in the eyepiece. Obviously RF mode would need the mirror to get out of the way for the sensor to move forward. Is it possible? Probably. Is it likely? nah, probably not.

 

[bluediablo]

We're not talking about math, we're talking about language.

Art is language.

 

[ahsanford]

Well, you could do both in one body using a hybrid mount/hybrid viewfinder and different modes for RF and EF: i.e. if the sensor was on rails and could advance or retreat to match the appropriate flange distance, and an EVF was behind the pentaprism in the eyepiece. Obviously RF mode would need the mirror to get out of the way for the sensor to move forward. Is it possible? Probably. Is it likely? nah, probably not.

Oh sure, if:

• We're going to have a front-to-back sliding sensor
• RF lenses will all be redesigned to resolve at the EF flange distance,
• RF lenses mount next to the EF mount with a second sensor

Then, sure, it's doable. But I thought pulling a Q and changing the gravitational constant of the universe was not an option.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

thank you. I have got about 100 portraits out of nearly 800 taken during my Balinese project posted on my Facebook with public access. I will message you the address.


View attachment 188463

Simply wonderful!

 

[amorse]

For the most part = unless you own a 6D2 or RP.

Here's a 7-8 year old entry level FF sensor vs. the architecture in the RP. These cavernous differences (that folks endlessly used to whinge about here) are supposed to be a thing of the past, but Canon has this nutty habit of being Canon.

View attachment 188468

- A

I moved from a 6D to a 5D IV and noticed an improvement in DR, at least superficially. I had wanted to shoot a few demanding scenes side by side to see what a difference like this actually means in practice for my style of shooting, but unfortunately I sold the 6D when I bought the 5DIV, so I'd consider my experience anecdotal. I'd say with the 5D I have been very satisfied, but again despite all the charts in the world, I would still love to compare side by sides to get an honest feel for where DR or recovery capacity does and does not matter. Further to that, I've found a lot of users that really pushing the edges of exposure in other manufacturers' bodies are retaining quite a lot on the highlight end, but I find the outcome from that to be really unappealing - I don't know how to describe it, but it seems... yucky. Maybe it's just a processing decision others make, but for now I have the impression that even using a body with greater capacity for recovery, I'd still prefer to use two exposures and blend them than stretch the exposure too far on either side of the histogram anyway.

 

[SecureGSM]

Simply wonderful!

many thanks. your opinion is important to me.