Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[Quarkcharmed]

You might want to actually read that article. The entire article. Including the sections on Photographic Situations and Photographic Stops of DR.

And what exactly did you gather from there and how it contradicts what I said? What do you think a 'photographic stop' means there? It's simply what we call a stop when changing exposure, instead of decibels (dB). Or what else did you find there?

Yeah...this topic is simply above your level of understanding.

My primary speciality is software and I've worked with sound and imaging. Thanks but I understand digital conversions, bitness, information loss etc. pretty well.

You're never going to be happy unless Canon matches some arbitrary number on a graph, whether you actually need or use that number or not.

You've probably been arguing with your own ghosts. I never said I wasn't happy, moreover, most of this particular sub-thread wasn't about Canon specifically, it was about DxO and PTP measurements.

 

[mppix]

Depending on the tools, Lightroom converts everything into 16 bit DNG/TIFF based format internally, as far as I know. PS can do even 32 IIRC, but you can also set it to 8-bit RGB. When you work with raw files from cameras, you normally work at 16 bits and compress to 8 bit sRGB only when exporting the final image.

Well, Lightroom (and newer PS) do non-destructive editing in the sense that there is *no* conversion whatsoever until exported (sure, both will run large enough bit numbers when computing the final image). The displayed image has more to do what your monitor is capable of (unless you have a $30k reference monitor), i.e. the motor ICC/calibrated profile at best and not calibrated at worst. As far as I know most general purpose monitors (even those for photography) top out somewhere at or slightly better than AdobeRGB color space (~11stops) but all current cameras work with 14-bit/pixel in RAW, which tops out at 14-15 stops DR.
This gives about 3-4 stops of latitude for editing since most folks export to jpeg.
Yes, Lightroom/PS can do 16-bit and 32-bit TIFF, where the latter is only useful for HDR stacking. For HDR, 32bit TIFF is great since such files can encode massive color spaces. Unfortunately, we cannot see nor print them.
In a future, I would love to see a proper sunset on my screen (that is with THE sun in the picture)

 

[mppix]

Because people buy them.

.. and would keep buying them. How would Canon justify and recover the RF R&D costs if they port everything to EF?
By now they are heavily invested and its highly doubtful that they are selling anywhere close to enough RF equipment, yet.
Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate but its also a genuine question.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

So you're saying that you can't see noise here at 1:1?

(1), (3) - barely distinguishable
(2) - pure noise, the roofs don't have any detail at all
(4) - shows how detail gradually turns into noise as the wall becomes darker near the bottom.

5DIV would obviously do better if shot at equivalent focal length to produce the same crop when viewed 1:1. In other words, its per-pixel performance is much better. 80D or 90D would also do much better.

I have to zoom in 400% to see "noise" except I can't tell what's noise and what's pixelation. And since they were <2% gray (i.e. black) in the original it's an open question if the noise is read noise or photon shot noise. Either way it would not be visible in an 8x12 which is about what a 6mp sensor is good for.



A 30mp FF sensor would have rendered better fine detail than a 6mp APS-C one? Shocker.

 

[privatebydesign]

Well, Lightroom (and newer PS) do non-destructive editing in the sense that there is *no* conversion whatsoever until exported (sure, both will run large enough bit numbers when computing the final image). The displayed image has more to do what your monitor is capable of (unless you have a $30k reference monitor), i.e. the motor ICC/calibrated profile at best and not calibrated at worst. As far as I know most general purpose monitors (even those for photography) top out somewhere at or slightly better than AdobeRGB color space (~11stops) but all current cameras work with 14-bit/pixel in RAW, which tops out at 14-15 stops DR.
This gives about 3-4 stops of latitude for editing since most folks export to jpeg.
Yes, Lightroom/PS can do 16-bit and 32-bit TIFF, where the latter is only useful for HDR stacking. For HDR, 32bit TIFF is great since such files can encode massive color spaces. Unfortunately, we cannot see nor print them.
In a future, I would love to see a proper sunset on my screen (that is with THE sun in the picture)

That all shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the application of color spaces.

The whole point of larger spaces for use in smaller spaces is so you can move the tonality to where it is needed within the smaller space to prevent posterization and more accurately represent the desired output. LR uses different color spaces in the different modules, in the Develop module it uses a custom version of the ProPhoto color space called Melissa (after one of the chief developers).

Whilst few printers can print the full sRGB and even fewer Adobe RGB 1998, most can print some colors outside both color spaces, in some instances the printer ink sets far outstretch the smaller 'standard' spaces.

Here is a gamut comparison, the shaded area is sRGB, the bold areas are my printer/paper profile, see all the saturated blues, greens, reds and oranges? They are outside sRGB and inside my home printer.

Big spaces and bit depths are very important in a workflow if you understand what they are for how to use them and what they do. it is not as simple as 'that is so much bigger than it needs to be so has no practical application' that just displays a lack of understanding of what they are for.

 

[unfocused]

.. and would keep buying them. How would Canon justify and recover the RF R&D costs if they port everything to EF?
By now they are heavily invested and its highly doubtful that they are selling anywhere close to enough RF equipment, yet.
Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate but its also a genuine question.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Canon is agnostic about mirrorless vs. DSLR. They only care about selling cameras and lenses. If that means selling RF and R models or EF and DSLRs or M lenses and bodies or EF-S lenses and bodies, it doesn't matter. What they do care about is convincing people to buy Canon rather than Nikon, Sony, Fuji etc.

If Canon could have maintained profits without investing a penny into RF lenses and R bodies, they would have. But, the market dictated that they compete, so they are going to compete in a big way. But, as long as customers want DSLRs and EF lenses, they will be happy to make and sell them.

I don't understand why this is difficult concept for people to wrap their heads around.

 

[AEWest]

.. and would keep buying them. How would Canon justify and recover the RF R&D costs if they port everything to EF?
By now they are heavily invested and its highly doubtful that they are selling anywhere close to enough RF equipment, yet.
Yes, I'm playing devil's advocate but its also a genuine question.

I totally agree - one more FF DSLR means a minimum of one less RF lens sale, which means one less lens to amortize the huge develop costs of the RF line. Not the best long term business strategy.

I also doubt there will ever be RF-S cropped line - too expensive, not another lens line! Better to keep RP line (i.e. no IBIS to help keep costs down) with a couple of slower consumer grade zooms as a gateway to the RF ecosystem (I hate that word!).

 

[ahsanford]

If this rumor stands without an infinite list of asterisks (and that is a big if), I would not hold my breath for much innovation in the EF system, in particular for a 5DV.

That's the point. They don't need much innovation with the 5D5 -- just jam the R5 internals into a 5D SLR. Done. People will absolutely buy that SLR.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

I also doubt there will ever be RF-S cropped line - too expensive, not another lens line! Better to keep RP line (i.e. no IBIS to help keep costs down) with a couple of slower consumer grade zooms as a gateway to the RF ecosystem (I hate that word!).

Nikon: One mount to rule them all. Crop mirrorless lenses work seamlessly on FF mirrorless bodies.

Sony: One mount to rule them all. Crop mirrorless lenses work seamlessly on FF mirrorless bodies.

Canon: We could totally you make an small and light RF body and offer inexpensive crop image circle RF lenses, but nah. Two mirrorless mounts: CHOOSE NOW. And, oh, by the way, you must sell everything you own in EF-M if you want to move up to RF. Thx byeeee.

I'm not in love with crop-image circle lenses, but EF-S works on RF with the adaptor and EF-M doesn't. That's a big deal. RF-S lenses would solve that problem.

- A

 

[Quarkcharmed]

The whole point of larger spaces for use in smaller spaces is so you can move the tonality to where it is needed within the smaller space to prevent posterization and more accurately represent the desired output. LR uses different color spaces in the different modules, in the Develop module it uses a custom version of the ProPhoto color space called Melissa (after one of the chief developers).

It should be noted that colour space doesn't define the bitness of its RGB or CMY components. A 'smaller' sRGB space may still be represented by 16 bit components.

 

[AEWest]

That's the point. They don't need much innovation with the 5D5 -- just jam the R5 internals into a 5D SLR. Done. People will absolutely buy that SLR.

- A

Nikon: One mount to rule them all. Crop mirrorless lenses work seamlessly on FF mirrorless bodies.

Sony: One mount to rule them all. Crop mirrorless lenses work seamlessly on FF mirrorless bodies.

Canon: We could totally you make an small and light RF body and offer inexpensive crop image circle RF lenses, but nah. Two mirrorless mounts: CHOOSE NOW. And, oh, by the way, you must sell everything you own in EF-M if you want to move up to RF. Thx byeeee.

I'm not in love with crop-image circle lenses, but EF-S works on RF with the adaptor and EF-M doesn't. That's a big deal. RF-S lenses would solve that problem.

- A

Canon 2020: one mount to rule them all - RF.

Do you remember when the EF mount was introduced? Did Canon say let's keep making non EOS bodies and lenses for our their faithful FD users? Nope. You either get on the train or you get run over.

As you know, a camera system revolves around the lenses, not the camera bodies which change frequently. Canon will not go with two mounts for much longer. It is not economical.

 

[mppix]

That all shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the application of color spaces.

The whole point of larger spaces for use in smaller spaces is so you can move the tonality to where it is needed within the smaller space to prevent posterization and more accurately represent the desired output. LR uses different color spaces in the different modules, in the Develop module it uses a custom version of the ProPhoto color space called Melissa (after one of the chief developers).

Whilst few printers can print the full sRGB and even fewer Adobe RGB 1998, most can print some colors outside both color spaces, in some instances the printer ink sets far outstretch the smaller 'standard' spaces.

Here is a gamut comparison, the shaded area is sRGB, the bold areas are my printer/paper profile, see all the saturated blues, greens, reds and oranges? They are outside sRGB and inside my home printer.

Big spaces and bit depths are very important in a workflow if you understand what they are for how to use them and what they do. it is not as simple as 'that is so much bigger than it needs to be so has no practical application' that just displays a lack of understanding of what they are for.


View attachment 188537View attachment 188538

Uh, I am probably missing something.
Are you saying exactly repeating what I said, with illustration?
- monitors and printers top out at or slightly above 8-bit sRGB (monitors refer to as 24bit true color)
- you need a well dialed in workflow to get outside of sRGB
- extra RAW latitude is for editing

The statement on "Melissa RGB" is not falsifiable (at least as far I know), in the sense that (i) Lightroom uses Melissa RGB to show information about the picture during editing but (ii) Lightroom does not use Melissa RGB to compute the final picture. Either way, the picture that appears on the screen is an overlay of Melissa RGB and the operating system's interpretation of the monitors capabilities (ICC or not).

"So the histogram and any colour values you see in Lightroom are based on Melissa RGB. Also the previews in the Develop module also use Melissa RGB, not Adobe RGB."

colourspace.xyz

This domain may be for sale!

www.colourspace.xyz

I tend to only say what I know, not saying what I don't know, and clearly state uncertainties and sources. Still, I have been wrong let me know if needed .. if you don't know, now you know (sorry couldn't resist the last bit =D ).

 

[Michael Clark]

It's more charitable to be sympathetic to those who have suffered by being overtaken by events. There but for the grace of god goes AlanF.

It's not that I'm unsympathetic. It's just that it's hard to feel sorry for anyone who thinks lenses are for "investment" instead of for using to take pictures and refuses to listen when warned that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." That's like saying I should sympathize with the gambler who loses a pile on a bet they thought was a "lock." If it was a "lock" it wouldn't be called "gambling."

They should have known when they speculated on lens values that it could eventually bite them, just as any kind of speculative "investment" can. If you can't afford to lose it, don't risk it. Simple as that.

 

[Michael Clark]

Technically, buying something in order to be able to use it later as a tool is investment. Not every investment is "value investment". Buying a tool now lets you not spend on renting it later.

That's what accountants call an "expense", not an "investment."

What you are describing is a "capital expense", not a "capital investment."

Investments are things that one can reasonably expect to increase in value apart from their utility during the time they are owned/used.

If I buy a house for $200,000, live in it for ten years, and sell it for $180,000 I've lost money on the "investment", even though the $20,000 I lost on the transaction (plus what I had to spend on upkeep/maintenance) is less than I would have needed to spend on rent to live somewhere else for those ten years.

 

[koenkooi]

True- but when your the only one providing such an option it's going to cost. Also it would be cheaper for anyone interested in the EF-RF filter adapter to just purchase the standard EF-RF adaptor and just swap between the two. The standard EF-RF adaptor at $99 bucks is cheaper then the 'clear plug'. Also whether this filter system is ideal or not would also depend on what type of lens you're applying a filter to. If filtering a EF 16-35 I'd be more than happy just using standard front mount filters. But if I was a big Tamron 15-30 f/2.8 user than this option would have much more appeal.

For me the cost was worth it, I get a CPL that doesn't interfere with macro flashes and the dust magnet that is the RP sensor stays clean a lot longer. And with most of my macro pictures being f/10, dust spots are really, really noticeable.

 

[Michael Clark]

You were wondering how a 14-bit sensor could give more than 14 stops of DR.

B&W film was a "1-bit sensor". What DR do you think it would be limited to?

Ironically, what we call analog (film) is more digital than the analog thing we call digital (CMOS sensors that measure analog charge values up to hundreds of thousands of electrons).

 

[AlanF]

It's not that I'm unsympathetic. It's just that it's hard to feel sorry for anyone who thinks lenses are for "investment" instead of for using to take pictures and refuses to listen when warned that "past performance is no guarantee of future results." That's like saying I should sympathize with the gambler who loses a pile on a bet they thought was a "lock." If it was a "lock" it wouldn't be called "gambling."

They should have known when they speculated on lens values that it could eventually bite them, just as any kind of speculative "investment" can. If you can't afford to lose it, don't risk it. Simple as that.

This is going on a bit and the discussion should end. They didn’t buy to speculate or make a profit but to spend their money in a way that would be relatively frugal in the long run.

 

[mppix]

I'm not sure what you are saying.

Canon is agnostic about mirrorless vs. DSLR. They only care about selling cameras and lenses. If that means selling RF and R models or EF and DSLRs or M lenses and bodies or EF-S lenses and bodies, it doesn't matter. What they do care about is convincing people to buy Canon rather than Nikon, Sony, Fuji etc.

If Canon could have maintained profits without investing a penny into RF lenses and R bodies, they would have. But, the market dictated that they compete, so they are going to compete in a big way. But, as long as customers want DSLRs and EF lenses, they will be happy to make and sell them.

I don't understand why this is difficult concept for people to wrap their heads around.

In my experience that is not how tech companies operate but it will be fun to see it play out.
Do you really think they'd put a 12fps in a 5DV?
That's 1DX territory for mirrorbox and AF/IR sensor..

 

[AlanF]

Ironically, what we call analog (film) is more digital than the analog thing we call digital (CMOS sensors that measure analog charge values up to hundreds of thousands of electrons).

It’s all ultimately digital, even “analog” - quantum theory.

 

[Michael Clark]

Best to Clarify whether we mean Canon will cease to make NEW EF glass vs. Canon will cease all existing production. Both will happen. But two phases.

Canon has already signaled clearly that few if any NEW EF glass in development. Maybe a few tweaks on some of the Great Whites as EF bodies will long be in use for a big pro segment. How do we know? Brand new 50L came out after many many years of people waiting for an upgrade. It came out for RF. Hope no one is holding their breath for an EF counterpart. What about a 24-70f2.8 L IS for EF? Nope. Not gonna happen.

Canon will finish cranking out their current EF production schedule and let the stock slowly dwindle down to nothing and move full tilt into RF. And yes this will take several years.

Your argument seems to assume both EF and RF are equally mature systems. They are not. Canon has sold over 100 million EF EOS cameras and 130 million EF/EF-S/TS-E/MP-E lenses. Many of those cameras and their users are still out there taking photos.

As long as there is sufficient demand for EF lenses, Canon will continue to crank out more of those fully mature current designs to meet that demand. If stock drops enough while specific models are still selling well, they'll continue to make more of them.

And as soon as the RF Crop bodies start emerging, the EFM line will be killed off in the same fashion. As keeping the M line makes no sense with RF out there. Notice how few M lenses Canon has bothered to develop? Once the FF RF lens family gets fleshed out, the RF-S (like EF-S crop) will start up.

The reason Canon hasn't made more EF-M lenses has nothing to do with the introduction of RF. It has to do with what lenses will sell in sufficient numbers to those who purchase EF-M cameras. As long as the EF-M system is the best selling mirrorless camera system on the planet, it's not going anywhere. They don't need any more EF-M lenses. They're selling plenty of EF-M cameras just fine, thank you, with the lenses they already have. Those lenses are all that 95% of EF-M camera users want.

It should be fairly obvious that Canon is not aiming for the same market segment with the EF-M line that they are going for with the RF line. Otherwise they would not have made it impossible to use RF glass on EF-M bodies.