Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[Michael Clark]

And my point was that photography sticks out as the one on that is captured instead of created.

Your concept of what photography, at its best, can be seems severely limited to what one might call "taking a photo." There are those who understand the concept of "making a photo."

 

[Michael Clark]

Perhaps. For me, that set of skills ("Networking, self-promoting, finding and working with patrons") is so excruciating that I actively try to avoid doing it.

Who'd have ever thunk it if you had not told us that?

 

[PureClassA]

Obviously this is only my opinion, no inside info. I believe Canon engineered the flawless R to EF adapter so that the existing EF lenses would not be orphaned in the way FD lenses were back in the day ( I still have an AE-1!).
But make no mistake, DSLRs are living on borrowed time. So I would advise most photographers to move to mirrorless if they are in the market for a new camera.

Think of it this way. The average product life cycle of (particularly) L glass is 3-4 times that of a camera body. ANY camera body. Look at all the new EF L glass they have churned out in the last 3 years. They are going to have to stretch out that life with a limited line of D series bodies, like the new 1dx3 and most likely a 5D5. Canon maps this stuff out years in advance. (and I still have my Dad's A1 )

 

[Michael Clark]

I know that feeling!

Well the RF 15-35L IS is superior to the Ef 16-35L III in virtually every regard so I wouldn't feel bad about that.

The Ef 24-70L was one of those freak lenses I think, nobody since has made a 24-70 quite as sharp. A bit like Nikon did with their 14-24, sometimes someone gets it just right. And the Ef 24-70 was one such lens. If Canon does start shipping cameras with IBIS it will really give a new lease of life to that lens as you can usually buy it at very good price now.

Surely you mean the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II? Rather than the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L?

 

[Michael Clark]

They cannot.

As Carl Sagan said, “If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe.”


It depends on who produces them, and for what.


There is very little "creative imagination" involved in most paintings, musical compositions, fictional plays, or sculptures. Especially paintings and sculptures.

Precisely. If the measure of an artist is how well they can "create from nothing except what is in their mind", why did Michelangelo need human models posing for him to produce the David, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, etc?

I guess he was just a technician like our audio engineer, since he didn't really create that, he just recorded/reproduced it!

 

[Michael Clark]

Canon was the first to introduce 4k Recording on a DSLR, 8 years ago in 2012, on the 1Dc.

Yeah, and they charged $15,000 for the privilege of owning the only 4K camera available at the time.

 

[Michael Clark]

Well I am still finding it too good to be true. Is this the clue that this is a joke? I mean mirror-less camera shooting in mechanical mode?

Mechanical shutter.

Electronic shutter.

It's really not that hard.

 

[Michael Clark]

Then the word has no meaning.

Words have no meaning whatsoever apart from those that use them. The same is true of art.

 

[AEWest]

Think of it this way. The average product life cycle of (particularly) L glass is 3-4 times that of a camera body. ANY camera body. Look at all the new EF L glass they have churned out in the last 3 years. They are going to have to stretch out that life with a limited line of D series bodies, like the new 1dx3 and most likely a 5D5. Canon maps this stuff out years in advance. (and I still have my Dad's A1 )

Another reason why i believe DSLR development is now dead is how much development money Canon has spent on the 10 new R lenses. Probably millions. They have already amortized all the development costs of the EF lenses over the millions of lenses sold.

But they have sold few R lenses.

Why would they develop a DSLR that they could never sell a R lens with? The 1dx3 is a small volume product so it is an exception, mainly due to the needs of the sports pro and lack of long R glass. But this is coming too.

When you look at R glass available, it is pro grade glass that covers the vast majority of range needed for non sports pro photographers (wedding, event, studio, landscape etc.)

So I can't imagine they would develop any more full frame cameras that can't use these lenses. It makes no economic sense.

 

[Michael Clark]

Either way, the outcome of this is gonna be funny:

a. CR guy just got trolled hard, in a way that's gonna hurt if the camera way under-delivers.

b. Even funnier, the company whose last mirrorless release included crop 4k, no 1080p24, and no DPAF in 4k; and who offers no 4k mode without crop or 4k60 mode on anything but a 1D line, is suddenly jumping right to 4k120 an possibly an 8k mode. Which would be a WILD turn in expectations

Hopefully we only have to wait a week or so to find out

You do realize all of those "no 24 fps video" cameras have either already gotten firmware updates to enable 24 fps video capture or are scheduled to get in the near future?

 

[PureClassA]

Another reason why i believe DSLR development is now dead is how much development money Canon has spent on the 10 new R lenses. Probably millions. They have already amortized all the development costs of the EF lenses over the millions of lenses sold.

But they have sold few R lenses.

Why would they develop a DSLR that they could never sell a R lens with? The 1dx3 is a small volume product so it is an exception, mainly due to the needs of the sports pro and lack of long R glass. But this is coming too.

When you look at R glass available, it is pro grade glass that covers the vast majority of range needed for non sports pro photographers (wedding, event, studio, landscape etc.)

So I can't imagine they would develop any more full frame cameras that can't use these lenses. It makes no economic sense.

There will still be plenty migration to rf regardless. And these new RF lenses could have a product life even greater than current EF glass. In other words, it almost doesn't matter. Those new RF lenses will be viable for at minimum a decade, whereas if they completely kill the D bodies tomorrow apart from the 1DX3, then they just killed their new EF glass potential. Why buy a brand new 85L f1.4 IS when you have one in an RF mount now too? Things like that tell me they will have one more 5D body before they Hall of Fame them. It's also the reason they knew they had to get the video people on board early to help drive sales while the 5D stills pros migrate over a much longer period of time by comparison

 

[Michael Clark]

"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects "

Key words, "creative" and "imagination". Also note the "and".

"Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative, conceptual ideas, or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. "

If you can't see the difference that skill and creative imagination makes between this


and this,




there's no hope for you. For your sake, I truly am sorry.

 

[Rule556]

One is created in the mind of the artist, one is captured from the universe by the tool in the hands of the technician.

Here's the thing. A photograph is only a representation of reality. The art in photography (or any medium for that matter) comes from a human using a camera to interpret reality through the lens of their own world view. Therein lies the creativity. The tools or mediums used are irrelevant.

In my opinion, art is the product of the artist's interpretation and presentation of their vision of the world. Regardless of medium, perceived quality, or how other people react to the art. If it's art to the artist, then it is art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, just as art is in the eye of the artist.

I would suggest that your definition of art may be too narrow.

I do appreciate your perspective however. It made me think of how I look at photography and the art I create using it.

 

[telemaque]

Dear all,
Please have a look of the extracts from Canon's financial presentation.
I put all the extracts in another thread in the Forum:
Canon General/Canon Financial Report Year 2019

Interesting to see what Canon is communicating to their investors...
Confirming some rumors recently announced here.

a new sensor in the pipe...and a new image processing engine.

 

[brad-man]

Another reason why i believe DSLR development is now dead is how much development money Canon has spent on the 10 new R lenses. Probably millions. They have already amortized all the development costs of the EF lenses over the millions of lenses sold.

But they have sold few R lenses.

Why would they develop a DSLR that they could never sell a R lens with? The 1dx3 is a small volume product so it is an exception, mainly due to the needs of the sports pro and lack of long R glass. But this is coming too.

When you look at R glass available, it is pro grade glass that covers the vast majority of range needed for non sports pro photographers (wedding, event, studio, landscape etc.)

So I can't imagine they would develop any more full frame cameras that can't use these lenses. It makes no economic sense.

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?

 

[Michael Clark]

The camera is targeting an exact reproduction. In fact, we all argue about the accuracy of this reproduction at length - noise, DR and color from sensors, geometric distortion, spherical aberration, chromatic aberration and field flatness (etc.) from lenses.

Not all. Some smear vaseline on the front of the lens to insure the result is a less accurate reproduction of reality. Others do similar things, or use intentionally misaligned lenses to get the interpretation they want.

Some choose lenses, like the EF 50mm f/1.2 L, for example, that others pan offhand as "bad" and "outdated" because it does not perfectly reproduce a flat test chart at moderate distances, precisely because of the "inaccurate" qualities it gives a photograph.

The scene is not imagined. It exists. The way it's reproduced (NOT created) by the camera and photographer doesn't change that.

That "imagined result" doesn't really exists, for the most part. You don't imagine a scene, and then go out and find that exact scene and photograph it. You start with a scene and imagine how you're going to record it. But it's already there.

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

 

[Rule556]

I'm in the later group, and I don't consider what I do "art" because I didn't create what I'm shooting, only how I'm shooting it, just like the audio technician at a recording session isn't creating the music, only capturing it. Why isn't that occupation (which requires no less skill than that of a great photographer) accepted as "art"?

Maybe it's art when I'm shooting a model airplane I built, because I did create that scene.

I would counter that good audio engineers, mastering engineers, and producers are absolutely seen as artists by the musicians that they work with. All the skill in the world can't help an engineer with a tin ear, or one who lacks creativity. A concert pianist doesn't just reproduce the notes on the page, they interpret those notes. Their presentation of that music is the art, just as the notes were the artistic product of the composer.

 

[slclick]

Count me down as one who thinks we will not see a 5D5. I just don't see it. Canon is clearly moving in the RF direction and you put an EF-RF adapter on the R5 and leave it on there and you can use all the EF glass you want--with IBIS. Just my guess.

I understand why they are making the 1DXiii with a mirror, but not so sure we will see a 5D5 as the advantages over an R5 are less dramatic.

See earlier post

 

[slclick]

Think of it this way. The average product life cycle of (particularly) L glass is 3-4 times that of a camera body. ANY camera body. Look at all the new EF L glass they have churned out in the last 3 years. They are going to have to stretch out that life with a limited line of D series bodies, like the new 1dx3 and most likely a 5D5. Canon maps this stuff out years in advance. (and I still have my Dad's A1 )

Glass is eternal, bodies have a short life. Take the 135L, I'd buy it today if I didn't already have it.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Guys please push harder. It's almost 50 pages and 1000 comments. Break the record!

'Canon is doomed' isn't really working anymore, 'Why I will/won't buy this camera' comments don't help much as they don't produce a lot of responses (who cares why you won't buy it), but Dynamic Range, Photography as Art question and the Need for IBIS can help tremendously. "You don't need this feature" also produces a lot of traffic. Go go go!