DPReview: Review of the Canon EOS R5

A 12-24mp sensor requires doing ~half the information processing as a 36-61 mp sensor, and therefore generates half the heat. I have no doubt future models will bump that up but today it's not a flat comparison if evaluating the camera as a hybrid. If you're more video focused, those cameras will probably give you better results than the R5, and 24mp is a better compromise between video and stills.
That's (half the processing) true if they're downsampling from the whole sensor, but if they're not (e.g. R5 crop), then I'm not sure it still holds....

Also, I've not seen anything that equates twice the amount of data to twice the amount of heat - it depends on how you process the data (line skip, downsample etc). What I don't know is the relative impact of the downsample vs encode. The 24HQ encode times seem to infer the HQ has significant processing.

But overall, if that were the case, then the would that not mean the R6 should have longer recording times before it overheats compared to the R5?
 
Feb 24, 2016
8
11
It's still a great stills camera. And that is what I want. I really don't care about video especially, except to do some FHD video clips for clients on shoots periodically (And I still have my R for that). I'm a still photographer first and foremost so it fits the bill for that. I sold my 1Dx. I'll retire my 5Ds to backup when I eventually get this.
 
D

Deleted member 384473

Guest
Yes. And that's why you would want to use a Canon Cinema camera, not a still camera that shoots video.
I do. Canon got my interest up when they said: " Canon revolutionized the video industry with the introduction of the EOS 5D Mark II which provided solutions for what was previously seen as improbable - the EOS R5 will again push the boundaries of what filmmakers can do compared to current DSLR and Mirrorless cameras. With Internal, uncropped 8K video shooting at up to 29.97fps, and 4K video shooting at up to 119.9fps, in 4:2:2 10-bit (H.265) Canon Log, and Dual Pixel CMOS AF available in all 8K and 4K modes, image makers worldwide will be able to tell their stories in larger-than-life resolutions. Additional new features include: Internally recorded and uncropped 8K RAW Recording up to 29.97 fps with Dual Pixel CMOS AF, and HDR-PQ Recording (H.265) capability. "
 

davidhfe

EOS RP
Sep 9, 2015
302
443
That's (half the processing) true if they're downsampling from the whole sensor, but if they're not (e.g. R5 crop), then I'm not sure it still holds....

Also, I've not seen anything that equates twice the amount of data to twice the amount of heat - it depends on how you process the data (line skip, downsample etc). What I don't know is the relative impact of the downsample vs encode. The 24HQ encode times seem to infer the HQ has significant processing.

But overall, if that were the case, then the would that not mean the R6 should have longer recording times before it overheats compared to the R5?
I was speaking more to the thermals from just the sensor, you are processing twice the information off the sensor, and that's going to have a heat implication. I don't know what the real multiplier is but you can't process information for "free". I have no idea what the heat implications of the downsampling are either, but they're non-zero as well. And if you're encoding a 4K video stream, the source of those pixels doesn't really matter so that's a bit of a constant.

But really, the only point I was trying to make here is that you can't look at a 12 or 24 mp sensor and use it as a proof point for what "is possible" in a 45 or 61 mp body. Nor do you need to—the evidence is right in front of us in terms of the spec sheets of a dozen cameras! Anything FF with a high MP count has either a) active cooling or b) limited full read modes. We thought Canon had it cracked, we were wrong, and need to wait another cycle. I will say this though—Canon has come closer than literally any other body on the market today.

As to the R6, it's got a pretty different body composition and I'd guess the plastic is less effective than the metal R5 body at dissipating the heat.
 
I was speaking more to the thermals from just the sensor, you are processing twice the information off the sensor, and that's going to have a heat implication. I don't know what the real multiplier is but you can't process information for "free". I have no idea what the heat implications of the downsampling are either, but they're non-zero as well. And if you're encoding a 4K video stream, the source of those pixels doesn't really matter so that's a bit of a constant.

But really, the only point I was trying to make here is that you can't look at a 12 or 24 mp sensor and use it as a proof point for what "is possible" in a 45 or 61 mp body. Nor do you need to—the evidence is right in front of us in terms of the spec sheets of a dozen cameras! Anything FF with a high MP count has either a) active cooling or b) limited full read modes. We thought Canon had it cracked, we were wrong, and need to wait another cycle. I will say this though—Canon has come closer than literally any other body on the market today.

As to the R6, it's got a pretty different body composition and I'd guess the plastic is less effective than the metal R5 body at dissipating the heat.
I agree with the sentiments, I just worry a bit when simple maths is used - as you rightly say it is more complex. Yes the R6 doesn’t have the same weather sealing and whether it is down to the body composition I don’t know. It should be generating less heat but until someone puts a couple of sensors inside then I’m not sure how we can get a better understanding.

Agree they have got close - close enough for some, not for others. I think if gone for more modes only over HDMI that may have improved matters for some, but the heat dissipation time trade-off is the one which is causing the most issue. It would be great if they could design a vent which is sealed in normal operation but you can open it if conditions allow and it allows the cool down to proceed quicker. Whether it is an hour or two hours, that seems to cause the most issues which I understand if I was doing that sort of work.
 

David - Sydney

EOS RP
CR Pro
Dec 7, 2014
309
257
www.flickr.com
my feedback after 3 days with the R5 coming from a 5Div:
- Eye AF is simple and amazing. ISO12800 @5m @20mm focal length was perfect on a EF16-35mm f4 lens! SOOC had well controlled noise
- Focus bracketing a breeze but too easy for a huge stack that my PC/photoshop had issues :)
- Just a breeze with the RF 70-200mm lens. With IBIS I think that the tripod mount won't be used too often and light enough that mounting a tripod on the body is sufficient
- Flippy screen use even for my daughter (iPhone style shooting at arm's length) + selfies + canon app for transferring files is the number #1 benefit from their perspective
- half a battery usage for a day's macro shooting of about 700 shots. Again, love the flippy screen!
- Adobe .cr3->dng works fine but am looking forward to ACR support in Lightroom
- Sold the custom R5 strap! Lovely but it wouldn't see any love from me.
- Control ring R mount adaptor is sold out across Australia

Has anyone had any issues with minimum focusing distance with the EF100mm L? It seemed that is wouldn't focus close to 1:1
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974
Feb 15, 2020
329
238
my feedback after 3 days with the R5 coming from a 5Div:
- Eye AF is simple and amazing. ISO12800 @5m @20mm focal length was perfect on a EF16-35mm f4 lens! SOOC had well controlled noise
- Focus bracketing a breeze but too easy for a huge stack that my PC/photoshop had issues :)
- Just a breeze with the RF 70-200mm lens. With IBIS I think that the tripod mount won't be used too often and light enough that mounting a tripod on the body is sufficient
- Flippy screen use even for my daughter (iPhone style shooting at arm's length) + selfies + canon app for transferring files is the number #1 benefit from their perspective
- half a battery usage for a day's macro shooting of about 700 shots. Again, love the flippy screen!
- Adobe .cr3->dng works fine but am looking forward to ACR support in Lightroom
- Sold the custom R5 strap! Lovely but it wouldn't see any love from me.
- Control ring R mount adaptor is sold out across Australia

Has anyone had any issues with minimum focusing distance with the EF100mm L? It seemed that is wouldn't focus close to 1:1
Thanks, great to hear about battery life
 
  • Like
Reactions: David - Sydney

Thcwub

I'm New Here
Mar 6, 2019
10
26
How much?

Can you please show me a cheaper camera with similar specs and ergonomics for wildlife photography?

(Just checked my Adobe Lightroom library for 5D2. The ratio of short video clips to photos was 1:5000. I could as well go without any video functionality in my stills camera, if, at you are saying, it would be cheaper)
It's not something I plan on justifying further, but with any technology you are paying for the sum of the parts, plus manufacturing plus overhead etc sure. We accept the costs of a physical product to be physically delivered. But in a very big way you are paying for the massive R&D investment in developing the new technology or improving it etc. This is why new tech costs a fortune when it is released and slowly prices equalise over time. The R5 stands at such a massive cost because there is some massive R&D that has gone into creating a camera with such advanced specs. You arent paying the big premium because there isnt any competition that can do the same thing, you are paying the big premium because in order to release a product no one else can compete with costs a lot in terms of R&D. It is the same rationale that Peak Design, for example, proudly uses to justify the price points of its inventory; development of quality and new initiatives costs money.

If the R5 had not been developed yet, and Canon set out to develop the R5 as a stills exclusive camera, there would be significantly less R&D and the end result would indeed be cheaper on the whole to produce, versus developing the same product to also accommodate video functionality. Sure, there will be some overlap so there is some diminishing returns in this consideration, but the point still stands well enough.

I was sure I recalled a report on this website somewhere in the last 18months where Canon had actually explained how being market leaders in innovation was costing them ridiculous amounts of money and that they were pulling back on R&D in the camera-space, while they focused on other markets (like printers and medical imaging). My understanding at the time was that Canon were happy not being first to the table with leaps forward in technology and instead were more interested in providing market leadership via excellence. The R5 seems to fly in the face of all of that, and stands as a good example of why Canon likely made those comments back when they did.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
1,996
1,350
If the R5 had not been developed yet, and Canon set out to develop the R5 as a stills exclusive camera, there would be significantly less R&D and the end result would indeed be cheaper on the whole to produce, versus developing the same product to also accommodate video functionality. Sure, there will be some overlap so there is some diminishing returns in this consideration, but the point still stands well enough.
R&D for developing H.265 video support on DIGIC X could indeed be "massive"... but has already been done for 1DX III.

Adapting the results to the R5 body in particular? 10 man-months maximum from the engineering point of view, with all that thermal testing. OK, let's make it 30 to account for the bureaucratic overhead.

How many extra R5s do you think Canon will sell just because it has its video specs?
 

Thcwub

I'm New Here
Mar 6, 2019
10
26
How many extra R5s do you think Canon will sell just because it has its video specs?
I'd wager Canon thinks a good portion of their sales will be because it has its video specs; otherwise why gamble it? If the 8k jump into future-proofing wasnt considered a significant enough reason to release with it included, in the face of the issues it is presenting, then they wouldn't have done so. If the camera was running industry standard video specs, for the same price it would be insanity and so they need the specs to justify the price. If they released the camera with industry standard video specs for a lesser price then no one would have bat an eyelid; it would simply be an absolutely amazing stills camera with industry standard video. Canon chose to dedicate resources to pushing the tech further than anyone else has, they chose to gamble on that, and now they're charging early adopters the cost of that irrespective of whether you'll use the video specs or not.

Don't forget Canon is pitching this as a " Professional full-frame mirrorless camera with ground-breaking features. Game on!" (their website). If those ground-breaking features are not up to production-value professional standards then you're paying out the a$$ for features that Canon failed to deliver on and want you to pay for the R&D for. I for one wont be dropping AU$7000 for a stills only camera, and will reluctantly wait for the tech to trickle down into some more reasonably priced models. Good luck to anyone paying an arm and a leg to be an early adopter of broken implementationof 'game changing' video specs. The stills capabilities do not alone warrant the price.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
1,996
1,350
I'd wager Canon thinks a good portion of their sales will be because it has its video specs; otherwise why gamble it?
So that makes this camera cheaper for us stills shooters, as the relatively small work of enabling the already existing video functionality of DIGIC X lets Canon spread the cost of R&D for this camera onto a bigger pool of paying customers.

Don't forget Canon is pitching this as a " Professional full-frame mirrorless camera with ground-breaking features. Game on!" (their website). If those ground-breaking features are not up to production-value professional standards then you're paying out the a$$ for features that Canon failed to deliver on and want you to pay for the R&D for. I for one wont be dropping AU$7000 for a stills only camera,
I will. I don't see a better value on the market for what it does for the wide range of wildlife shooters. Do you?

and will reluctantly wait for the tech to trickle down into some more reasonably priced models.
Yeah, in 4 years from now this camera will be bargain-priced. Like 5D IV right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Jack Douglas

CR for the Humour
Apr 10, 2013
6,626
1,996
Alberta, Canada
Pixel peeping video filming static subjects:sneaky: too me as useful as testing headsets with white noise.
[/Q
I'd wager Canon thinks a good portion of their sales will be because it has its video specs; otherwise why gamble it? If the 8k jump into future-proofing wasnt considered a significant enough reason to release with it included, in the face of the issues it is presenting, then they wouldn't have done so. If the camera was running industry standard video specs, for the same price it would be insanity and so they need the specs to justify the price. If they released the camera with industry standard video specs for a lesser price then no one would have bat an eyelid; it would simply be an absolutely amazing stills camera with industry standard video. Canon chose to dedicate resources to pushing the tech further than anyone else has, they chose to gamble on that, and now they're charging early adopters the cost of that irrespective of whether you'll use the video specs or not.

Don't forget Canon is pitching this as a " Professional full-frame mirrorless camera with ground-breaking features. Game on!" (their website). If those ground-breaking features are not up to production-value professional standards then you're paying out the a$$ for features that Canon failed to deliver on and want you to pay for the R&D for. I for one wont be dropping AU$7000 for a stills only camera, and will reluctantly wait for the tech to trickle down into some more reasonably priced models. Good luck to anyone paying an arm and a leg to be an early adopter of broken implementationof 'game changing' video specs. The stills capabilities do not alone warrant the price.
This is shaping up to be one amazing camera that is in many ways the equal of the 1DX3 and yet it's overpriced? I can understand saying, "I can't afford it" - I can't but I'll find some way because this will do great things for wildlife photographers. Like many, months ago I visualized it as possibly being priced closer to the 1DX3, so yes it hurts when one is not "rich" but for me I'll scrimp on other things so I can enjoy what it brings. The AF capability and speed are groundbreaking, to me anyway, and I'll continue saving for it.

Jack
 

bandido

EOS M50
May 4, 2016
25
18
Still waiting to hear if Canon will duplicate the R5 into 5Dmark5 (with OVF).
There have been rumors (from this site) that Canon doesn't have any plans to further develop the EOS 5d line. So there won't be a 5d Mark V. I hope they are wrong.