Canon to release major firmware update for the Canon EOS R5

[ata bora]

Hi everyone, youtube channel "Ordinary Filmmaker" also says that the upcoming update for R5 will be paid.

Anyone know about this?

 

[entoman]

Hi everyone, youtube channel "Ordinary Filmmaker" also says that the upcoming update for R5 will be paid. Anyone know about this?

Well, Canon's done so before, with the C-log upgrade for the 5DMkiv, which required the camera to be sent in to the service department. So I guess it's quite possible, although I have heard nothing else to suggest it is the case. If the firmware can be installed by the user, which IMO is far more likely, I don't believe Canon would charge for the download. If they did, I wonder how many people would be tempted? It would really have to be a *major* upgrade that provided *major* benefits for stills, for me to consider it worthwhile, as the R5 does pretty much everything I want it to already.

 

[ata bora]

Well, Canon's done so before, with the C-log upgrade for the 5DMkiv, which required the camera to be sent in to the service department. So I guess it's quite possible, although I have heard nothing else to suggest it is the case. If the firmware can be installed by the user, which IMO is far more likely, I don't believe Canon would charge for the download. If they did, I wonder how many people would be tempted? It would really have to be a *major* upgrade that provided *major* benefits for stills, for me to consider it worthwhile, as the R5 does pretty much everything I want it to already.

Yes, the weird thing is that someone who has just bought the R5 in the US has to buy the R5 with a discount of $400, and then have to pay again (if the update is paid) and install the update on top of the discount.


I don't know how accurate it is to make this update paid. Assuming the R5 Mark 2 will be released in over a year, I think releasing the R5 update file normally during this time will keep sales alive. Of course, I think completely user expectation-oriented.

 

[entoman]

Yes, the weird thing is that someone who has just bought the R5 in the US has to buy the R5 with a discount of $400, and then have to pay again (if the update is paid) and install the update on top of the discount.


I don't know how accurate it is to make this update paid. Assuming the R5 Mark 2 will be released in over a year, I think releasing the R5 update file normally during this time will keep sales alive. Of course, I think completely user expectation-oriented.

"Ordinary Filmmaker" doesn't strike me as being a very reliable source - about as accurate as Tool (sorry Tony! ).
Just seems like click-bait speculation aimed at getting folk to subscribe and make him some dosh.

Best thing to do is just make a personal wish-list of what you'd like to see in the update, and then be prepared to be disappointed when none of it appears.

Do I sound a little bit cynical?

 

[ata bora]

"Ordinary Filmmaker" doesn't strike me as being a very reliable source - about as accurate as Tool (sorry Tony! ).
Just seems like click-bait speculation aimed at getting folk to subscribe and make him some dosh.

Best thing to do is just make a personal wish-list of what you'd like to see in the update, and then be prepared to be disappointed when none of it appears.

Do I sound a little bit cynical?

This answer is absolutely great. Let's wait and see what happens.

 

[Kit.]

Because 14 must be better than 12?

This hearkens back to the DRone Wars of 10 years ago, when those following the Jedi Cannon did battle with the Sonith who were seduced by the dark side of the Exmor. Now we're talking about the difference between 12 stops of DR and 10.5 stops of DR with different modes of the same camera, instead of the difference between 11 stops of DR and 9.5 stops of DR in different cameras, but the conclusion is no different. Having the extra 1.5 stops of DR can be of benefit in certain, limited situations. In most real world shooting situations, the DR of a scene is either less than 9 stops rendering the difference meaningless, or far more than 12 stops meaning multiple exposures are needed to capture the full scene DR regardless.

I am personally concerned about white (or light-colored in general, or reflective) plumage of birds. Way too often even the most experienced bird photographers here on CR have it overexposed (and I myself have it overexposed almost every time). Given the short time to make a decision about the exposure before the bird flies away, it would be good if the camera sensor were ISO-invariant, and the camera's ISO setting only changed the viewfinder gain.

 

[derrald]

OK, as you ask, for context, I've had 3 books published which between them included nearly 2000 of my images, and the publishers specified minimum resolutions which to me didn't make sense, considering the reproduction size and ppi. I did my own calculations, and these were accepted by the publisher. The books were accordingly published and got excellent reviews, with the quality of the images and printing being heavily praised.

But getting back to the original question - I've read several times on forums that people claiming to be professional photographers *have* recounted cases where clients *have* demanded high resolution images. To state that "clients don't care about MP" is pure nonsense - it depends entirely on what type of client you are dealing with, what the end-purpose of the images will be, and on their own level of understanding of photographic and printing requirements.

I've watched the thread develop on this and I'm going to chime in a little. My clients 95% ask for large prints - some measuring several feet across. I started out with a 20D and still regularly sell those images. In fact, I had a client ask for "the largest I could print" on an image from those days a couple of months ago. I was a bit stressed, but was able to upscale it and tweak it and it came out beautifully at 90 inches wide. I've had very few clients tell me resolution requirements, the exception being calendar companies I worked with. In those cases they were a bit unreasonable (not wholly unreasonable) at times, but I could understand why they asked. They eventually settled on ~14 megapixels which for the most part weeded out the amateurs.

Would I like more megapixels personally? Sure, I like to have the option to crop a little and maintain a large megapixel count. Does more make a difference? Printed largely and viewed closely, yes. Printed largely and viewed at a normal viewing distance, not as much, but every bit does count. Could I still sell photographs professionally at 20-24 megapixels? If the image is what the client wants, yup.

I've found that sharp lenses, good technique, and stable tripods are the best investments when it comes to printing big.

As for clients demanding high counts, I would also believe it would be a very specific use case. Is it unreasonable? In many cases probably, but then again who knows. There was a photographic exhibit that printed everything at about 120 inches across, but the images contained extremely small details that the artist basically wanted you to put your nose against the glass to see. In that case, my poor 5DsR and R5 would probably not have sufficed.

 

[entoman]

I've watched the thread develop on this and I'm going to chime in a little. My clients 95% ask for large prints - some measuring several feet across. I started out with a 20D and still regularly sell those images. In fact, I had a client ask for "the largest I could print" on an image from those days a couple of months ago. I was a bit stressed, but was able to upscale it and tweak it and it came out beautifully at 90 inches wide. I've had very few clients tell me resolution requirements, the exception being calendar companies I worked with. In those cases they were a bit unreasonable (not wholly unreasonable) at times, but I could understand why they asked. They eventually settled on ~14 megapixels which for the most part weeded out the amateurs.

Would I like more megapixels personally? Sure, I like to have the option to crop a little and maintain a large megapixel count. Does more make a difference? Printed largely and viewed closely, yes. Printed largely and viewed at a normal viewing distance, not as much, but every bit does count. Could I still sell photographs professionally at 20-24 megapixels? If the image is what the client wants, yup.

I've found that sharp lenses, good technique, and stable tripods are the best investments when it comes to printing big.

As for clients demanding high counts, I would also believe it would be a very specific use case. Is it unreasonable? In many cases probably, but then again who knows. There was a photographic exhibit that printed everything at about 120 inches across, but the images contained extremely small details that the artist basically wanted you to put your nose against the glass to see. In that case, my poor 5DsR and R5 would probably not have sufficed.

Thanks, it's always good to read multiple perspectives.

As you say, a lot depends on the size of the print/poster and the distance at which it is viewed. Much also depends on the subject matter e.g. you can usually get away with quite low resolution on a portrait, but if you wanted fine details and textures in architecture or product photography you'd probably need a lot more. Also subjects such as fashion and car photography generally require high resolution.

For publication in books or magazines, it's rarely necessary to have more than 20MP - I've had 6MP images published A4 size and they suffice, although clearly aren't as fine-detailed as those shot at 20MP or higher. For publication on websites it should never be necessary to have more than about 6MP (after cropping). Clients sometimes express unrealistic MP requirements and sometimes need "educating", but of course to satisfy the client you need to abide by their wishes.

For purely personal use, it's a different thing altogether. Photographers (especially gear-heads) are generally far more critical of sharpness and fine detail than the general public. I like at least 30MP and currently shoot 45MP, and I'd be happy to shoot 200MP if it didn't clog up the hard drives and make PS and LR grind to a halt. But I'm one of the guys that presses his nose against the screen and counts the pixels.

 

[AlanF]

Nothing wrong with overkill, it pays to be cautious with important shots - I shoot a duplicate set simultaneously to both cards in my R5. I back up all my photos daily via Time Machine to a pair of portable SSDs, and also backup everything to iCloud. If I leave the house empty for more than a couple of hours, I take one of the portable SSDs with me and put the other one in a fireproof safe! How's that for overkill?

And I thought I was paranoid! One card only and then DropBox after culling. And, I rarely reformat.

 

[entoman]

I am personally concerned about white (or light-colored in general, or reflective) plumage of birds. Way too often even the most experienced bird photographers here on CR have it overexposed (and I myself have it overexposed almost every time). Given the short time to make a decision about the exposure before the bird flies away, it would be good if the camera sensor were ISO-invariant, and the camera's ISO setting only changed the viewfinder gain.

White plumage on birds can be a problem, it's extremely easy to over-expose and burn out all the detail. I usually meter manually from a bit of blue sky, and then close down half a stop. This under-exposes the bird slightly, but prevents detail burnout and minimises light bleed into adjacent pixels. With modern sensors a bit of under-exposure does no harm - it increases noise a little but that's easily fixed with Topaz DeNoise and similar AI de-noising software.

Even with a bit of under-exposure it's dead easy to lift shadows selectively on dark parts of a bird, using the great selection tools in LR and PS. Similarly it's usually easy to recover what appears to be "lost" highlight detail, by selecting the white areas, sliding the highlight and/or white slider a little to the left, and adding a touch of texture and/or clarity via the relevant sliders.

 

[entoman]

And I thought I was paranoid! One card only and then DropBox after culling. And, I rarely reformat.

I'd call that brave!

 

[AlanF]

I am personally concerned about white (or light-colored in general, or reflective) plumage of birds. Way too often even the most experienced bird photographers here on CR have it overexposed (and I myself have it overexposed almost every time). Given the short time to make a decision about the exposure before the bird flies away, it would be good if the camera sensor were ISO-invariant, and the camera's ISO setting only changed the viewfinder gain.

The R5 is basically iso-invariant above iso 400. I look at every bird photo posted on CR and only a few are over-exposed. You don't post on it so I don't know about yours.

 

[eosuser1234]

Pixel shift please.

 

[HMC11]

Thanks, it's always good to read multiple perspectives.

As you say, a lot depends on the size of the print/poster and the distance at which it is viewed. Much also depends on the subject matter e.g. you can usually get away with quite low resolution on a portrait, but if you wanted fine details and textures in architecture or product photography you'd probably need a lot more. Also subjects such as fashion and car photography generally require high resolution.

For publication in books or magazines, it's rarely necessary to have more than 20MP - I've had 6MP images published A4 size and they suffice, although clearly aren't as fine-detailed as those shot at 20MP or higher. For publication on websites it should never be necessary to have more than about 6MP (after cropping). Clients sometimes express unrealistic MP requirements and sometimes need "educating", but of course to satisfy the client you need to abide by their wishes.

For purely personal use, it's a different thing altogether. Photographers (especially gear-heads) are generally far more critical of sharpness and fine detail than the general public. I like at least 30MP and currently shoot 45MP, and I'd be happy to shoot 200MP if it didn't clog up the hard drives and make PS and LR grind to a halt. But I'm one of the guys that presses his nose against the screen and counts the pixels.

For me, an image would normally be viewed at a ‘comfortable’ distance. If one sticks one’s eyes close enough to the image, then no matter how many megapixels are there, it would still look pixelated. While there is no absolute standard of ‘comfortable’ viewing distance, there seems to be some general consensus that it would roughly be about 1.5-2 times the diagonal of the image (e.g. for a 4x6 inch print, this distance would be about 11-14inchs). At these viewing distances, how much resolution is needed above which a person with ‘normal’ eyesight would not be able to tell the difference? The ‘average’ human eye (20/20) can see about 300 microradians of visual acuity and has a near point of 25 cm. That works out to 75 microns, or 338 pixels per inch, or one can approximate the PPI needed for a print viewed at distance x inch using PPI ~ 3327/x. For a 4x6 in image, the PPI at 11 in viewing distance (the most stringent in the viewing distance range) works out to a PPI of about 302, which translates into about 2.2mpx for the 4x6 print. If we repeat this for larger print and proportionally larger viewing distance, we would still arrive at about 2.2mpx for the image. Even if we were to use a viewing distance of 1xdiagonal (which is beginning to be uncomfortable for me), the mpx required would still be ‘only’ about 5.1mpx. So for viewing an image ‘normally’, very high mpx final images are not necessary. This does not, of course, negate other viewing preferences (such as ‘pressing nose against screen’ ) or the flexibility of heavy cropping afforded by high mpx sensors, or simply the comfort/desire of having a high mpx camera.

 

[AlanF]

White plumage on birds can be a problem, it's extremely easy to over-expose and burn out all the detail. I usually meter manually from a bit of blue sky, and then close down half a stop. This under-exposes the bird slightly, but prevents detail burnout and minimises light bleed into adjacent pixels. With modern sensors a bit of under-exposure does no harm - it increases noise a little but that's easily fixed with Topaz DeNoise and similar AI de-noising software.

Even with a bit of under-exposure it's dead easy to lift shadows selectively on dark parts of a bird, using the great selection tools in LR and PS. Similarly it's usually easy to recover what appears to be "lost" highlight detail, by selecting the white areas, sliding the highlight and/or white slider a little to the left, and adding a touch of texture and/or clarity via the relevant sliders.

A great thing about mirrorless is you can use the exposure compensation and easily judge how much to underexpose bleached birds or overexpose backlit ones. If you underexpose using auto shutter speed or auto aperture at a fixed iso then you will introduce more noise as you will reduce the amount of light hitting the sensor. However, if you have the speed and aperture fixed and use auto iso, you don't decrease the amount of light and so don't add any noise.

 

[Kit.]

The R5 is basically iso-invariant above iso 400.

In the 14-bit mode. Otherwise, from ISO 800 on.

But even at ISO 400 with f/5.6 aperture and 1/2000 shutter speed, one risks overexposing a white diffuse (let alone reflective) surface if a Sunny-16 light source is present.

I look at every bird photo posted on CR and only a few are over-exposed. You don't post on it so I don't know about yours.

Just posted an example in the bird portrait thread.

 

[scyrene]

I'd call that brave!

You'd hate what I do then. I just have one card, which I use all the time. All my photos are on there. I transfer the ones I want to edit/share to my phone, but the originals (and raws) are just on the card in the camera. No backups as it's too hard/slow using a phone for that. What will be will be.

 

[AlanF]

In the 14-bit mode. Otherwise, from ISO 800 on.

But even at ISO 400 with f/5.6 aperture and 1/2000 shutter speed, one risks overexposing a white diffuse (let alone reflective) surface if a Sunny-16 light source is present.


Just posted an example in the bird portrait thread.

Thanks for posting. I replied there:
The answer to your question is to set your camera in advance of the shot, like underexposing by 0.5-1 ev. If you are not prepared then it might not be a keeper. The keeper rate for bird photography is not 100%, and you have to accept that, and that is part of the fun - it isn't easy to get the right shot and we have to work at it, and if was easy it would be boring apart from getting interesting shots for the record. By chance, I posted some shots of a Firecrest like yours about 3 weeks ago. Look at the file names of the images and you will see "+0.5" on them, which means I increased the ev in post by 0.5 as I had underexposed them. I hadn't sharpened or emphasised brightness or any colour, but bleached whites there weren't.

My standard iso believe it or not is 800 for bird shots as I attach importance to high shutter speeds and I am always in the range of lower DR - 12 or 14 are both above my range.

 

[Kit.]

The answer to your question is to set your camera in advance of the shot, like underexposing by 0.5-1 ev. If you are not prepared then it might not be a keeper. The keeper rate for bird photography is not 100%, and you have to accept that, and that is part of the fun - it isn't easy to get the right shot and we have to work at it, and if was easy it would be boring apart from getting interesting shots for the record. By chance, I posted some shots of a Firecrest like yours about 3 weeks ago. Look at the file names of the images and you will see "+0.5" on them, which means I increased the ev in post by 0.5 as I had underexposed them. I hadn't sharpened or emphasised brightness or any colour, but bleached whites there weren't.

My standard iso believe it or not is 800 for bird shots as I attach importance to high shutter speeds and I am always in the range of lower DR - 12 or 14 are both above my range.

My point is that if we had an ISO-invariant 18-bit (or so) sensor, we woudn't need to care about intentionally underexposing by 0.5, or 1, or 1.5 stops when shooting at ISO 800 and trying to catch an acceptable composition in variable light, and would have more keepers.

 

[Loswr]

My point is that if we had an ISO-invariant 18-bit (or so) sensor

And if we had flying unicorns, we'd all ride them.