Canon EOS R5 Specifications

[amorse]

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

Honestly, I do think a front to back sliding sensor is possible - but all that extra movement would make me a bit nervous on life of the sensor moving system, or introducing more opportunity for vibration in the body. But if I were to imagine a camera that could use both EF and RF without an adapter, that's how it'd look.

 

[$winter]

Honestly, I do think a front to back sliding sensor is possible - but all that extra movement would make me a bit nervous on life of the sensor moving system, or introducing more opportunity for vibration in the body. But if I were to imagine a camera that could use both EF and RF without an adapter, that's how it'd look.

Theoretically Canon produce that easy, but they like more that we buy 2 cameras

 

[Lee Jay]

Art is language.

Really? My post confused you THAT much?

 

[PureClassA]

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.

That physically cant happen. Not with a mirror box in there. Its not about the mount itself. It’s the depth of the sensor in relation to the mount. Thats flange distance. For RF lenses to work the rear elements have to be closer to the sensor than EF glass, which cant happen with a mirror in the way. That’s why you CAN adapt EF to RF but NOT RF glass to EF mounts. And you can't use a rail to slide it if you have an OVF in the way. We have disccused the possibility of the rail before but using an EVF, not OVF. Because the Mirror and pentaprism would still have to be gone to make it work. in reality I htink they closest thing to that is precisely what we have now. An R body that comes with an EF adapter mount

 

[AEWest]

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.

That is not possible. RF has a very close flange to sensor distance for focusing - EF has much longer distance. So that is why you can have an R to EF adapter (or spacer) but not vice versa. You can't have a negative spacer.

 

[amorse]

That physically cant happen. Not with a mirror box in there. Its not about the mount itself. It’s the depth of the sensor in relation to the mount. Thats flange distance. For RF lenses to work the rear elements have to be closer to the sensor than EF glass, which cant happen with a mirror in the way. That’s why you CAN adapt EF to RF but NOT RF glass to EF mounts. And you can't use a rail to slide it if you have an OVF in the way. We have disccused the possibility of the rail before but using an EVF, not OVF. Because the Mirror and pentaprism would still have to be gone to make it work. in reality I htink they closest thing to that is precisely what we have now. An R body that comes with an EF adapter mount

Canon did have a patent application for a hybrid viewfinder in 2017 where an EVF moves up with the mirror to show through the pentaprism still - https://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-application-for-a-hybrid-viewfinder/

Who knows what that sort of system could deliver in terms of reliability though or whether or not it could be commercially viable.

 

[peters]

These Specs are just PERFECT. It reads like a wishlist...
But I personaly have trouble to belive it. Especialy the 4k 120 and 8k part. The 1DX III is not even able to do this (4k120) and this camera is pretty much highend, with a big body and a highend processor. Its hard to imagine that they made such an incredible jump in performance between the EOS R and the R5. But one can hope

 

[ahsanford]

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.

My principal method of shooting is run and gun; I just capture my life, family and travels. I love tripod landscape but that's less than 3% of what and how I shoot.

So when I am out running around handheld, DR is really nice to have to capture some scenes under very difficult lighting. So I'm always shooting RAW+JPG and the odd difficultly lit shot gets the 'One shot HDR' horrible RAW file war crimes done to it (-80 or -90 highlights, +30 shadows in ACR). It's a pain to do, it's not always easy on the eyes, etc. but some shots simply require it. I rarely can wait for better light or setup on a tripod and composite these scenes.

Below was a handheld hiking shot at Zion. This is a classic example of 'What I had to do is not good, but it is better than if I didn't do it.' In hindsight, I wouldn't have pushed the shadows so much -- it looks flat as a result.



So as much as relying on more base ISO DR is a crutch, it's a crutch I would like as a 5D3 owner (still slinging around that old off-chip architecture).

Also, this is a painful reminder that someone my age (not remotely old enough to give up on learning new tricks) needs to stop processing photos like an idiot with global adjustments in ACR.

- A

 

[richperson]

Because having a body built for a native mount is still ergonomically superior to slapping on an adapter and the crowd of 5D users is one Canon caters their pro business to.

I totally understand your point. It just seems like we would be hearing about the 5D5 first, and the the R5 later if there was a 5D5. At some point Canon will likely switch the 5D and 1D lines too mirrorless. That may be a decade from now, or they may start the with the 5D line first. To me, the only real barrier is the EVF response and blackout. If they have solved that, then I don't see much of a disadvantage other than the adapter.

 

[amorse]

My principal method of shooting is run and gun; I just capture my life, family and travels. I love tripod landscape but that's less than 3% of what and how I shoot.

So when I am out running around handheld, DR is really nice to have to capture some scenes under very difficult lighting. So I'm always shooting RAW+JPG and the odd difficultly lit shot gets the 'One shot HDR' horrible RAW file war crimes done to it (-80 or -90 highlights, +30 shadows in ACR). It's a pain to do, it's not always easy on the eyes, etc. but some shots simply require it. I rarely can wait for better light or setup on a tripod and composite these scenes.

Below was a handheld hiking shot at Zion. This is a classic example of 'What I had to do is not good, but it is better than if I didn't do it.' In hindsight, I wouldn't have pushed the shadows so much -- it looks flat as a result.

View attachment 188469

So as much as relying on more base ISO DR is a crutch, it's a crutch I would like as a 5D3 owner (still slinging around that old off-chip architecture).

Also, this is a painful reminder that someone my age (not remotely old enough to give up on learning new tricks) needs to stop processing photos like an idiot with global adjustments in ACR.

- A

I really don't think the outcome was bad! It looks like it recovered quite well and it doesn't look too flat. I like it!

I've been in those situations too - I've in the past flipped over to burst mode, bracketed and then manually blended where feasible. I guess my biggest thing is looking at shots out of Nikons where they don't clip the highlights but are close, especially in sunsets, I find the yellows that come out of big highlight recoveries get some weird saturation in it - maybe too much green or something. That, however, may just be the user error - I'm not the one editing those so it's tough to say. I think I just need to see them side by side in a scene I have complete control over to really know how it would affect my style of photography.

 

[ahsanford]

I totally understand your point. It just seems like we would be hearing about the 5D5 first, and the the R5 later if there was a 5D5. At some point Canon will likely switch the 5D and 1D lines too mirrorless. That may be a decade from now, or they may start the with the 5D line first. To me, the only real barrier is the EVF response and blackout. If they have solved that, then I don't see much of a disadvantage other than the adapter.

There's 100% going to be a 5D5. The mirrorless beast will feed on other product lines before that one goes.

And 1-series will lose their mirrors last of all.

Mirrorless will consume the mirrored product lines, I concede, but not in some 1-2 year frantic purge. A few may already have happened (no 7D3, no 5DS2 possibly, etc.), but I see this ultimately taking place over a period of numerous product cycles -- think 10 years, not two.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

These Specs are just PERFECT. It reads like a wishlist...
But I personaly have trouble to belive it. Especialy the 4k 120 and 8k part. The 1DX III is not even able to do this (4k120) and this camera is pretty much highend, with a big body and a highend processor. Its hard to imagine that they made such an incredible jump in performance between the EOS R and the R5. But one can hope

Way up this chain I mentioned a few possible caveats to these specs. 4k120 wont come without an extreme crop factor AND likely will be EXTERNAL only because of the heat issue. The 30MP EOS R and 5D4 sensor does 1:1 4K at a 1.75x crop. Going to 45MP, it gets even crazier. Your 35mm lens will now be 100mm. IF IF IF IF Canon manages to get a FF readout at THAT resolution (45MP) at even 60fps it would be something special. The Sony A7R3 is 42MP and can't break 30fps and that's using a low-rent garbage codec internally. Even externally its at 30fps. And that's FF readout. The unreleased A7R4 is on the way with 60MP+ and that records 4K in an oversampled crop APS-C in 6K that compresses down to 4K. THAT tops out at 30fps. IF IF IF Canon has managed to beat THAT spec EVEN WITH A CROP... it's astonishing. So maaaaaaaaybe Canon gets APS-C at 4k60 (downsampled from a 6k sensor area like the sony), but there's no flipping way at 4k120, which means 1:1 pixel readout for that which would be a staggering crop factor. WHICH IS FINE considering it can even do it. You just wont be able to do wide shots because even a 16mm lens would still put you at about 40mm equivalent in that crop.

 

[ahsanford]

I totally understand your point. It just seems like we would be hearing about the 5D5 first, and the the R5 later if there was a 5D5. At some point Canon will likely switch the 5D and 1D lines too mirrorless. That may be a decade from now, or they may start the with the 5D line first. To me, the only real barrier is the EVF response and blackout. If they have solved that, then I don't see much of a disadvantage other than the adapter.

And as far as 5D5 coming out first, I hear you. But 5D5 devotees have the 5D4 or 5D3 today, which are not exactly chopped liver. But mirrorless FF users have little right now other than the 5D4 sensor -- they lack a beefy/pro/2 card/high spec sort of product for daily professional use.

So I understand why Canon is fleshing out RF with a bit more urgency right now. They have to.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

I totally understand your point. It just seems like we would be hearing about the 5D5 first, and the the R5 later if there was a 5D5. At some point Canon will likely switch the 5D and 1D lines too mirrorless. That may be a decade from now, or they may start the with the 5D line first. To me, the only real barrier is the EVF response and blackout. If they have solved that, then I don't see much of a disadvantage other than the adapter.

Canon even has admitted in the recent Q4 financials they were late to this game and are going to push R HARD now. So that backseats the 5D5 this year. And the EVF on my EOS R seems to do exceptionally well so far as lag.

 

[Lee Jay]

Canon even has admitted in the recent Q4 financials they were late to this game and are going to push R HARD now. So that backseats the 5D5 this year. And the EVF on my EOS R seems to do exceptionally well so far as lag.

I tried the R and the RP. The lag was horrible and the view of moving subjects was blurry. Both crushed blacks and blew out whites.

What are people like me who greatly value instant feedback supposed to do when these EVFs are so unusable for us?

 

[PureClassA]

I tried the R and the RP. The lag was horrible and the view of moving subjects was blurry. Both crushed blacks and blew out whites.

What are people like me who greatly value instant feedback supposed to do when these EVFs are so unusable for us?

Well I'll admit, the only occasions Ive used the EVF for pictures (as opposed to video) have been relatively still subject matter, and I also still use the Histogram regardless to judge exposure (kinda ignore what I'm seeing in whatever VF Im using). Most of my use for that particular camera in my Canon family has been video and I'm using an external monitor/recorder anyway

 

[Lee Jay]

Well I'll admit, the only occasions Ive used the EVF for pictures (as opposed to video) have been relatively still subject matter, and I also still use the Histogram regardless to judge exposure (kinda ignore what I'm seeing in whatever VF Im using). Most of my use for that particular camera in my Canon family has been video and I'm using an external monitor/recorder anyway

Okay. More than 90% of what I shoot is moving, and moving fast, and less than 1% of what I shoot is video. On my cameras that do have an EVF, I shut off all the information (live histogram, etc.) because I find it distracting to have that stuff on top of the scene.

 

[reefroamer]

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

Ah, yes, I forgot about the mirror box necessary for the OVF. so I’m just wrong on that. Thanks for calling that out.

 

[reefroamer]

That physically cant happen. Not with a mirror box in there. Its not about the mount itself. It’s the depth of the sensor in relation to the mount. Thats flange distance. For RF lenses to work the rear elements have to be closer to the sensor than EF glass, which cant happen with a mirror in the way. That’s why you CAN adapt EF to RF but NOT RF glass to EF mounts. And you can't use a rail to slide it if you have an OVF in the way. We have disccused the possibility of the rail before but using an EVF, not OVF. Because the Mirror and pentaprism would still have to be gone to make it work. in reality I htink they closest thing to that is precisely what we have now. An R body that comes with an EF adapter mount

You’re right. I stand corrected.

 

[Go Wild]

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

Well, it´s on the rumors dual card slots and i think this is a "must have" no way Canon will do a High end camera without dual card slots.

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

How come a camera only be classified because the MP number? How can this R5 (if you assume that this one is a substitute of the 5ds) can be considered a downgrade or not to consider an upgrade?

Let´s see....45MP or 50MP is practically the same. It has less MP sure, but not noticeable in final result. If the camera comes with a new low pass filter you can merge the 2 versions of the 5ds in one and have the best of both. High increase of fps! High increase of video. Possibly increase in DN and overall increase in image quality due to superior sensor. I can see this as an upgrade even if the MP number is slight lower.

However, I don´t consider this camera a replace of the 5DS and 5ds R. This may not be the top MP camera from Canon. Also because they surely want to beat Sony on this and get the 1st place in the MP war. So maybe we need to wait a bit longer to get that EOS R camera with the 75MP sensor.

If MP means a lot to you, then yes you wont consider this R5 and wait for the other camera. However, if I was a 5D owner I could see this R5 as a potencial substitute for the 5Ds. But that´s just me, it´s pretty much a matter of personal use/opinion and no one is wrong of course!