Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R5 C

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
318
458
Sturtevant, WI
Don't mislead - I haven't said that "a person can't get a sharp photo without sensor and/or lens stabilization", what I've said is that having OIS or IBIS (and preferably both) makes a very significant difference to the ability to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. And I'm not just talking about very slow speeds (1/30 or below) - stabilisation makes long zooms and telephotos MUCH more usuable. My rough estimates are in the post above.

Sure, you can turn the ISO up from 400 to 6400 to compensate for the lack of stabilisation with stills, if you are content with much higher noise levels and lower dynamic range. Or you could find a handy tree or lamp-post to brace yourself against, but they can be hard to come by in open situations such as deserts, beaches, grasslands...

Oh, and you are clearly unaware that the stunning landscapes taken by Ansel Adams, to which you refer, were taken on large format cameras, so the degree of magnification to produce the final prints is very low, unlike the very high magnification when enlarging a 1.5" across FF image to a 24" print! High magnification hugely exaggerates camera shake, if you didn't know.

Furthermore, for almost all of his famous landscapes, Ansel Adams had his camera mounted on a very sturdy TRIPOD. - I assume you comprehend that stabilisation is deactivated (or manually switch off) when working with tripods?

By the way, you can't "ask" Ansel Adams - unless one of your two heads is able to communicate with the deceased.
The Ansel Adams bit was tongue in cheek. Clearly I know he's not alive. I mentioned tripods as a solution to make IBIS unnecessary, so I'm definitely aware of their impact on IBIS. As I said - specific situations are where IBIS shines. Your exaggerated "4 stops of ISO" example ignores aperture (though 6400 on an R5 is still very good), and yes - if you are shooting still subjects with a telephoto lens, with no IS, handheld, in the dark, then IBIS may provide some qualitative benefits. I don't know why a person who has the coin for an R5 or R5C would be doing that, but anything is possible I suppose.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
The Ansel Adams bit was tongue in cheek. Clearly I know he's not alive. I mentioned tripods as a solution to make IBIS unnecessary, so I'm definitely aware of their impact on IBIS. As I said - specific situations are where IBIS shines. Your exaggerated "4 stops of ISO" example ignores aperture (though 6400 on an R5 is still very good), and yes - if you are shooting still subjects with a telephoto lens, with no IS, handheld, in the dark, then IBIS may provide some qualitative benefits. I don't know why a person who has the coin for an R5 or R5C would be doing that, but anything is possible I suppose.
There's nothing "exaggerated" about my example of "4 stops of ISO". If anything, it was an understatement. That degree of stabilisation is very easily attained when using the combined OIS and IBIS of the R5. Alternatively you could use that stabilisation to enable shutter speeds as low as 1/60 with a hand-held RF 800mm, as I've done many times. When you are restricted by cost and weight to using a £800 F11 lens instead of a £15,000 big white, that stabilisation makes the difference between getting a razor-sharp shot, or an unrecognisable (without stabilisation) blur.

Of course there were very sharp photographs taken long before IBIS or OIS, but they were much harder to obtain with any degree of reliability or consistency. Under-estimating the value of IBIS is as crazy as under-estimating the massive improvements in sensors or AF which we currently have.

Sorry about the "two heads" leg-pull, but with a handle like that, you asked for it :p
 
Upvote 0
I haven't suggested that the R5C isn't a hybrid cinema camera, in fact I think I've made it pretty clear that I think it's a superb camera. I'm not a videographer, but the R5C seems to be near-perfect for video use, especially considering the relatively low price. The only fault I can find from a video perspective is that it lacks a full size HDMI port.

But Canon advertise it as being ready for anything, and it isn't "ready" for shooting stills with non-stabilised lenses, due to the lack of IBIS. For stills, the digital stabilisation is non-functional, so we are back to relying on OIS, which is less efficient than the synchronised OIS and IBIS of the original R5.

Instead of "ready for anything", a more accurate (though less catchy) slogan might be "class-leading for video, and adequate but not outstanding for stills"

I think that's why the R5 will continue to exist alongside the R5C. And that the R5C isn't mean to be a R5 Mark II. I love my R5 and was more of a photographer. But having used the video more and more (and it is gorgeous on the R5), it's gotten me really interested in video and that's where the R5C (which was originally off my radar) comes in. Yes, it would've been great if the R5C kept the IBIS for the photography side of things. that's why I wouldn't replace my R5 with the R5C.

I think if a person's focus is primarily photography with some gorgeous video, the R5 is fantastic. But if you're more video with features that made videography easier with need for high quality photography, then the R5C is great. And while IBIS is fantastic for the R5, you can still get amazing results with just lens IS because the R5 is just so fast. Of course I haven't tried the R5C but if it focuses as fast as the R5, then lens IS alone would still be great. In any case, I primarily shoot people so shooting at slow speeds doesn't help as you can't expect people to stay that steady.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
318
458
Sturtevant, WI
There's nothing "exaggerated" about my example of "4 stops of ISO". If anything, it was an understatement. That degree of stabilisation is very easily attained when using the combined OIS and IBIS of the R5.
Most of that improvement is from the OIS. Every test I have seen shows that IBIS independently accounts for a 1 - 2 stop improvement at best. I have not seen anything suggesting that the OIS + IBIS combo is greater than the sum of its parts, either - if the former gives you 3 stops, the latter 1, the two combined give you 4, not 4.5 or 5.

As is such with the 800mm - most of the improvement comes from the OIS. I generally find Ken Rockwell's tests to be 1/2 to 1 stop better than my personal experience, so he must have steadier hands, but his tests with and without IBIS and that lens are here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Most of that improvement is from the OIS. Every test I have seen shows that IBIS independently accounts for a 1 - 2 stop improvement at best. I have not seen anything suggesting that the OIS + IBIS combo is greater than the sum of its parts, either - if the former gives you 3 stops, the latter 1, the two combined give you 4, not 4.5 or 5.

As is such with the 800mm - most of the improvement comes from the OIS. I generally find Ken Rockwell's tests to be 1/2 to 1 stop better than my personal experience, so he must have steadier hands, but his tests with and without IBIS and that lens are here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm
Yes, most of the stabilisation comes from OIS, I certainly don't dispute that. IBIS and OIS effectiveness will vary according to focal length, lens design, and how "shaky" the photographer is. I'm quite shaky, but I can still manage very sharp handheld shots at 1/60 with the RF800mm and a static subject. Rockwell clearly has less shaky hands than I do.

Note that in my original post I was talking about a *total* of 4 stops improvement, with OIS and IBIS combined. And that is an underestimate.

Note also that I deliberately ignored the option of opening the aperture, simply because it often isn't possible. I regularly work in low light conditions at dawn and dusk, and I'm nearly always shooting at full aperture already.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, just giving my own experiences below:

My own tests, using the non-stabilised EF 180mm F3.5, show an improvement of around 1.5-2 stops, as I've posted elsewhere.

So add that to the 3-4 stops (average) of optical stabilisation that I'd estimate my more recent lenses provide (EF 100-400mm F4-5.6L Mkii, RF 24-105mm F4L, RF 800mm F11), and you get between 4.5-6 stops of stabilisation with synchronised OIS and IBIS. Canon claim up to 8 stops with certain lenses, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but 4.5-6 stops is still pretty amazing, and personally I'd hate to lose the 1.5-2 stops that IBIS contributes to that. Which is why I find the lack of IBIS in the R5C disappointing for stills use.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
I think that's why the R5 will continue to exist alongside the R5C. And that the R5C isn't mean to be a R5 Mark II. I love my R5 and was more of a photographer. But having used the video more and more (and it is gorgeous on the R5), it's gotten me really interested in video and that's where the R5C (which was originally off my radar) comes in. Yes, it would've been great if the R5C kept the IBIS for the photography side of things. that's why I wouldn't replace my R5 with the R5C.
Completely agree.

The R5 and R5C will continue alongside each other, with the R5 being better for stills and less demanding video, while the R5C will be better for video and less demanding stills. That's what I've been saying all alng, although a couple of :censored: keyboard warriors have chosen to twist it to support their own arguments
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
My own tests, using the non-stabilised EF 180mm F3.5, show an improvement of around 1.5-2 stops, as I've posted elsewhere.

So add that to the 3-4 stops (average) of optical stabilisation that I'd estimate my more recent lenses provide (EF 100-400mm F4-5.6L Mkii, RF 24-105mm F4L, RF 800mm F11), and you get between 4.5-6 stops of stabilisation with synchronised OIS and IBIS.
Just FYI, they don’t add linearly as you suggest. For example, IBIS alone gives 7-8 stops on some lenses. The same IBIS with some 5-stop OIS lenses doesn’t give 12-13 stops, the combo tops out at 8 stops.

1643569144195.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,518
Just FYI, they don’t add linearly as you suggest. For example, IBIS alone gives 7-8 stops on some lenses. The same IBIS with some 5-stop OIS lenses doesn’t give 12-13 stops, the combo tops out at 8 stops.

View attachment 202313
That's a very informative diagram, Neuro.
 
Upvote 0

twoheadedboy

EOS R5
CR Pro
Jan 3, 2018
318
458
Sturtevant, WI
Yes, most of the stabilisation comes from OIS, I certainly don't dispute that. IBIS and OIS effectiveness will vary according to focal length, lens design, and how "shaky" the photographer is. I'm quite shaky, but I can still manage very sharp handheld shots at 1/60 with the RF800mm and a static subject. Rockwell clearly has less shaky hands than I do.

Note that in my original post I was talking about a *total* of 4 stops improvement, with OIS and IBIS combined. And that is an underestimate.

Note also that I deliberately ignored the option of opening the aperture, simply because it often isn't possible. I regularly work in low light conditions at dawn and dusk, and I'm nearly always shooting at full aperture already.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, just giving my own experiences below:

My own tests, using the non-stabilised EF 180mm F3.5, show an improvement of around 1.5-2 stops, as I've posted elsewhere.

So add that to the 3-4 stops (average) of optical stabilisation that I'd estimate my more recent lenses provide (EF 100-400mm F4-5.6L Mkii, RF 24-105mm F4L, RF 800mm F11), and you get between 4.5-6 stops of stabilisation with synchronised OIS and IBIS. Canon claim up to 8 stops with certain lenses, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but 4.5-6 stops is still pretty amazing, and personally I'd hate to lose the 1.5-2 stops that IBIS contributes to that. Which is why I find the lack of IBIS in the R5C disappointing for stills use.
But no one is saying you should be "happy" that the R5C doesn't have IBIS. Just that lacking it doesn't make it a shit stills camera. Doesn't make it not a hybrid. Doesn't make it crippled, doesn't make it a ripoff. This is because the things the R5C DOES give you over the R5 *are* valuable (more skewed toward the video side than some of the things it's missing), and lacking IBIS is a design choice which not only impacts heat management positively, but also directly improves video quality in certain situations. In fact, it would be fair to say that it's presence or lack thereof impacts most shooters minimally, but based on what you actually shoot, having it or lacking it may be more preferable - and now you have the choice, carried with many other considerations much more important to output quality and workflow than IBIS.

-If you value HQ video without limits, the R5C is the choice. Lenses w/OIS on the telephoto end will likely be a worthwhile focal point on building your system (if you need telephoto), and perhaps wider, if you shoot in extremely dark situations handheld.
-If you value state-of-the-art features in how stills are captured, the R5 is the choice. You might be able to save money and weight on lenses w/o OIS in the wide to short telephoto range, or if your subjects move a lot as with sports, forego OIS in your bag entirely.
-If you absolutely cannot compromise between the two for a given job because you are a professional and your clients are paying for it, and renting isn't feasible because this is too frequently the case, own one of each; good news is you can focus on good glass that will be beneficial in any scenario.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
But no one is saying you should be "happy" that the R5C doesn't have IBIS. Just that lacking it doesn't make it a shit stills camera.
Imaging a camera lacking both IBIS and an eye-level viewfinder. I suspect @entoman would suggest it may as well lack a shutter button because there’d be no point in pressing one on such a camera.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
Just FYI, they don’t add linearly as you suggest. For example, IBIS alone gives 7-8 stops on some lenses. The same IBIS with some 5-stop OIS lenses doesn’t give 12-13 stops, the combo tops out at 8 stops.

View attachment 202313
I heard a theory, don't know how much truth there is in it, that it's impossible to get more than 8 stops of stabilisation - something to do with the rotation of the Earth, although it does sound a bit far-fetched.

Which camera/lens combination(s) provide 7-8 stops of IBIS? I've never heard even Sony claim that much, so I'm rather sceptical!

Presumably it would have to be an extreme wide-angle lens, as it seems to be generally accepted that OIS does most of the work with long focal length lenses.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
But no one is saying you should be "happy" that the R5C doesn't have IBIS. Just that lacking it doesn't make it a shit stills camera. Doesn't make it not a hybrid. Doesn't make it crippled, doesn't make it a ripoff.
Yet another example of someone deliberately twisting the words of another contributor, in a rather silly manner.

Where have I ever implied that the lack of IBIS makes the R5C a "shit" camera?
Where have I ever implied that the the R5C is "not a hybrid"?
Where have I used the term "crippled"?
Where have I called it a "rip off"?

To summarise what I've said, and I'll repeat what I wrote in my reply above to dityvu:

The R5 and R5C will continue alongside each other, with the R5 being better for stills and less demanding video, while the R5C will be better for video and "less demanding" stills.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
Which camera/lens combination(s) provide 7-8 stops of IBIS? I've never heard even Sony claim that much, so I'm rather sceptical!

Presumably it would have to be an extreme wide-angle lens, as it seems to be generally accepted that OIS does most of the work with long focal length lenses.
R3/R5/R6 with the RF 28-70/2L or RF 85/1.2 are rated for 8 stops. Those bodies with the RF 50/1.2 give 7 stops. None of those lenses have IS. So yes, it’s possible and no, it does not require a UWA lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
R3/R5/R6 with the RF 28-70/2L or RF 85/1.2 are rated for 8 stops. Those bodies with the RF 50/1.2 give 7 stops. None of those lenses have IS. So yes, it’s possible and no, it does not require a UWA lens.
Now *that* is interesting, and to me very surprising that such a figure is possible (claimed) for IBIS alone with those lenses.
I just wish that Canon would bring out a new version of my favourite lens - the 180mm F3.5L that could manage 8 stops of stabilisation (by either method, or both).

There is of course a difference between "rated" stabilisation figures and *actual* ones - I've yet to see any video or read any article in which the reviewer has been able to match Canon's claim. It's very easy for Canon or anyone else to claim "up to 8 stops" because it's meaningless. Even a half-stop improvement qualifies as "up to 8".

But leaving aside my natural scepticism, I've been very impressed with the OIS + IBIS stabilisation of my RF 800mm F11, and the IBIS and new firmware of the R5 has finally made my EF 180mm F3.5 usable for hand-held macro.
 
Upvote 0

stevelee

FT-QL
CR Pro
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
1,064
Davidson, NC
I heard a theory, don't know how much truth there is in it, that it's impossible to get more than 8 stops of stabilisation - something to do with the rotation of the Earth, although it does sound a bit far-fetched.

Which camera/lens combination(s) provide 7-8 stops of IBIS? I've never heard even Sony claim that much, so I'm rather sceptical!

Presumably it would have to be an extreme wide-angle lens, as it seems to be generally accepted that OIS does most of the work with long focal length lenses.
Are there other planets better suited for photography?
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
There is of course a difference between "rated" stabilisation figures and *actual* ones - I've yet to see any video or read any article in which the reviewer has been able to match Canon's claim. It's very easy for Canon or anyone else to claim "up to 8 stops" because it's meaningless. Even a half-stop improvement qualifies as "up to 8".
What you call meaningless is determined based on the 55-page CIPA standard on Measurement and Description Method for Image Stabilization Performance of Digital Cameras (Optical System).

Please quote from that document where the standard permits calling a half-stop improvement ‘up to 8 stops’. Don’t bother, obviously it doesn’t.

Skepticism is healthy, as long as it’s not so extreme it results in failure to accept facts. In today’s world, overdeveloped skepticism is literally deadly.
 
Upvote 0

entoman

wildlife photography
May 8, 2015
1,998
2,438
UK
What you call meaningless is determined based on the 55-page CIPA standard on Measurement and Description Method for Image Stabilization Performance of Digital Cameras (Optical System).

Please quote from that document where the standard permits calling a half-stop improvement ‘up to 8 stops’. Don’t bother, obviously it doesn’t.

Skepticism is healthy, as long as it’s not so extreme it results in failure to accept facts. In today’s world, overdeveloped skepticism is literally deadly.
Skepticism isn't just healthy, it's downright essential for survival, particularly in modern times when the truth is twisted beyond all recognition for political or commercial gain.

CIPA figures are based on laboratory testing conditions that are rarely, if ever, met in the real world. That's why, e.g. energy consumption of modern cameras tends to be overstated, shutter life is invariably underestimated, and IBIS claims are rarely matched in real-world shooting conditions.

So while CIPA figures can be useful when comparing brands or models, they are *very* much an approximation.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,088
12,851
Skepticism isn't just healthy, it's downright essential for survival, particularly in modern times when the truth is twisted beyond all recognition for political or commercial gain.
Too much of anything is unhealthy. For example, skepticism of the COVID-19 vaccines based on the belief they contain government-linked nanotrackers.

CIPA figures are based on laboratory testing conditions that are rarely, if ever, met in the real world. That's why, e.g. energy consumption of modern cameras tends to be overstated, shutter life is invariably underestimated, and IBIS claims are rarely matched in real-world shooting conditions.

So while CIPA figures can be useful when comparing brands or models, they are *very* much an approximation.
In my EF-M lens testing, I found the IS on some to be more effective than Canon’s rating. In practice, I find that I get within ±1 stop of Canon’s IS rating, so I’d call that a pretty good approximation. Perhaps you have difficulty holding a camera steady (which is partly innate and partly technique), just as you apparently find it too difficult to compose shots without an eye-level viewfinder.

Regardless, your claim that Canon could
market a half-stop improvement as ‘up to 8 stops’ was clearly ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0