DPReview: Review of the Canon EOS R5

[Chris.Chapterten]

I noticed the triangles and noise reduction too, but couldn't find what that means exactly in practice. Is it really applied in camera? Or the files used in measurements has the noise reduction applied (for any reason)?

My understanding is that it is applied in camera and can't be deactivated..

From some of the sample photos posted to this forum though, the sharpness and detail in heavily raised shadows still looks better than the 5Div and R

 

[padam]

The trouble with the R5 you’re paying a large premium for those video features that aren’t reliable. I don’t mind the recording times as much as the glacial recovery from overheating annd even worse an hour of just stills shooting can render HQ video modes unusable as camera has already reached thermal limits. The body design is very poor in that it has woeful thermal conductivity properties and traps heat for up to 2 hours. They really do need to make a physical change rather than just rely on fw hacks. It’s a bit rich for people to now claim it’s not a video camera, when it was Canon that was pushing 8K as the headline act. Also the 4K line skipped video is poor quality and the H.265 codec I’ve heard is a nightmare to try and work with in editing. I’m sure fw will address some issues but the poor thermals are intrinsic to their body design and choice of materials. I really want to get the R5 but will dealy that purchase for at least 6 months and hope by Q1 next year soemthingnhas been done.

I disagree with most things.
This 8K sensor seems superb, it has a very fast readout for 45MP, which translates into usable 20fps silent shooting and better AF performance as well. As good as the 1DX III / R6 sensor is, this seems like a further step up, apart from doing a stacked sensor, this is as good as it is going to get in the current generation.

They have been open about developing this 8K camera since early 2019 and they have started even earlier, so it is safe to say they knew what they were doing and they made design decisions that they had to make. They would not put a product out on the market that they wouldn't feel confident about in practise. Can they tweak a little bit in software? Probably.

H.265 10-bit 4:2:2 at this point is not hardware accelerated on most devices (H.265 10-bit 4:2:0 is, which is used in other cameras), currently only supported by Apple processors like the new iPad Pro, and it works quite well on that. So it seems that's really what it needs.

Is that Canon's fault? I don't think so.
Will we see better hardware support? Apple is planning to make a big switch to their own processors soon, after that it will be definitely supported on those.
But I can't imagine others not jumping on this train and also staring to support this codec, since it can be recorded internally with a good quality/file size ratio and they can sell new products with that.
They are just thinking ahead, other camera will probably start using similar internal codecs going into next year.

It is priced just like a 5D Mark V mirrorless equivalent would be, yes there are thermal issues but there is no extra price upon that as such, only the 'normal' price increase.

All this press will have very little effect on sales. Whether people buying it for stills or video or both, they know what they are buying into.
The global situation is more relevant, but they can't control that.

 

[Antono Refa]

I mean publicizing the specs alone and leading with that on every ad is pretty misleading.

From Canon’s page: “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.”

You’ll be hard pressed to find anything about limitations due to heat on their website.

There's a reason technical writing and advertising are two different things. The former is about full & accurate description, the later is about creating a halo. Canon made the information available ahead of time, down to making the user manual available on line. The smart thing for a customer to do is read beyond the ads prior to forking $3K+

 

[rbielefeld]

I disagree with most things.
This 8K sensor seems superb, it has a very fast readout for 45MP, which translates into usable 20fps silent shooting and better AF performance as well. As good as the 1DX III / R6 sensor is, this seems like a further step up, apart from doing a stacked sensor, this is as good as it is going to get in the current generation.

They have been open about developing this 8K camera since early 2019 and they have started even earlier, so it is safe to say they knew what they were doing and they made design decisions that they had to make. They would not put a product out on the market that they wouldn't feel confident about in practise. Can they tweak a little bit in software? Probably.

H.265 10-bit 4:2:2 at this point is not hardware accelerated on most devices (H.265 10-bit 4:2:0 is, which is used in other cameras), currently only supported by Apple processors like the new iPad Pro, and it works quite well on that. So it seems that's really what it needs.

Is that Canon's fault? I don't think so.
Will we see better hardware support? Apple is planning to make a big switch to their own processors soon, after that it will be definitely supported on those.
But I can't imagine others not jumping on this train and also staring to support this codec, since it can be recorded internally with a good quality/file size ratio and they can sell new products with that.
They are just thinking ahead, other camera will probably start using similar internal codecs going into next year.

It is priced just like a 5D Mark V mirrorless equivalent would be, yes there are thermal issues but there is no extra price upon that as such, only the 'normal' price increase.

All this press will have very little effect on sales. Whether people buying it for stills or video or both, they know what they are buying into.
The global situation is more relevant, but they can't control that.

From my limited experience shooting the R5 (two days), I believe still photographers that choose to forego the R5 may be missing out on an excellent tool. More testing to come, but right now the AF and overall performance of the R5 is stellar for me. Video-wise, I have shot short clips, as that is how I generally use video, and I love the performance and video quality. I don't shoot long footage, just 1-5 minute clips, so I think the R5 is going to be a great tool for me.

 

[Stu_bert]

Another observation...

If the majority (see below) of people are not using a 4K screen to watch content (other than Streaming Media, UHD Media, some games, weddings), and very few (if any) mobiles have 4k screens (though this could be because streaming 4K over 4G), then why is there such demand for 4K capable recording devices unless you are providing content for those watching 4K TVs (and I would love to know how many 4K TV users watch YT and the like)....

When 4K does become more pervasive in Desktops, Mobiles and everyday Internet then will the content produced today be still relevant?

I'm just curious as to what is driving this desire to have 4K60p (I genuinely don't know). I get the flexibility of more resolution for cropping - just like I do in stills. I get that you can downsample to produce better output. I get the quality that 4K and higher frame rates may provide you, but if your target audience can't view it then isn't it cheaper to just produce HD? And pay someone in x years time to produce 4K content when people are actually watching it?

Presumably (paying) customers are asking for 4K content - just trying to figure out if that is FOMO or some of the editing benefits or something else.

Source on "Majority" - just google "most commonly used screen resolution 2020" to get a bunch of sites which seem to indicate very few are using anything higher than HD and many not that high. And then I did the same for Iphone and Samsung screen resolutions.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

My understanding is that it is applied in camera and can't be deactivated..

From some of the sample photos posted to this forum though, the sharpness and detail in heavily raised shadows still looks better than the 5Div and R

That's strange because any noise reduction means loss of sharpness but the R5 is quite sharp at low ISOs. Also any NR implies additional performance hit when writing raw files.

 

[tron]

According to Bill Claff on the DPreview forums all ISOs before 640 have noise reduction applied and at ISO 400 a new gain kicks in.

Have a look at https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4509197 and https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4509191

Canon EOS R5 Dynamic Range. Canon's first dual gain sensor

Bill from PhotonsToPhotos has completed his testing of the EOS R5 and it has some surprising results. This is Canon's first true dual gain sensor - which means that when the second gain kicks in you get a DR "bump". It also means to maximize the DR of this camera from a purist standpoint you...

www.canonnews.com

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

That's strange because any noise reduction means loss of sharpness but the R5 is quite sharp at low ISOs. Also any NR implies additional performance hit when writing raw files.

Yeah it's strange to me too. Perhaps the noise reduction is only being applied to shadow areas? Whatever Canon is doing doesn't seem to be affecting the overall detail or sharpness

 

[BakaBokeh]

I have one simple question: why video is so important in primary - photo camera like R5?
Why video makers do not use Cx00 camcorders?

The form factor is super attractive. To be able to have cinema quality video in a sleeper size photo camera body is the dream for videographers. As one small case, when I travel, I don't really wanna walk around with a cinema camera like a C300 if I can get similar results in a smaller mirrorless body.

The thing is, we've already achieved that type of image quality to an extent since the 5DmkII. Now, everything is about improving workflow, or stretching for that improved dynamic range or low light performance, or run time. The R5 ticks so many boxes except one thing. And to me it's not even the overheating... overheating is expected from an 8k or oversampled 4k camera... it's the weird diminishing usability when recovering from overheating.

I know there's this idea that they are protecting their cinema line. Okay that is understandable from a corporation's perspective. But at some point there is going to be an overwhelming market for providing these professional features in a consumer form factor. I look at the music industry as an example. There was a time when if you wanted pro results, you had to book studio time in a multi million dollar studio. Studios would have 6 figure consoles, expensive outboard gear like preamps, EQ, compressors and stupid expensive microphones. As well as expensive studio instruments. Now a lot of stuff you hear that is 'professionally' made is made in a home studio, with decent affordable equipment and plug-ins that mimic all that expensive outboard gear and virtual instruments. There will be camera companies that eventually offer these high end features to the consumers, and if creators can get the same results using smaller cameras as the more expensive and larger cinema gear, there will be a paradigm shift in how video is produced.

I know long answer for simple question. But simply put, it's the same path that all other technologies follow. Just like super computers which once filled entire rooms can now fit in tiny form factors. Video cameras are just the next form of technology that is on that precipice of becoming smaller and lighter.

 

[blackcoffee17]

I have one simple question: why video is so important in primary - photo camera like R5?
Why video makers do not use Cx00 camcorders?

From my perspective only:

1. I like to have one camera for stills and video. Can use the same lenses, it's more convenient to carry around only 1 camera and it's a lot cheaper than buying a separate device for video only.
2. Cx00 cameras are very expensive.

 

[Kit.]

the R5 is applying some noise reduction to the RAW files at low ISO.

Can it be that subtle dual-pixel related artifacts are getting detected as "noise reduction"?

 

[SecureGSM]

Can it be that subtle dual-pixel related artifacts are getting detected as "noise reduction"?

I read it a bit differently.:

Read Noise in DNs versus ISO Setting

A secondary gain amplifier kicks in at around ISO400 and brings read noise levels Down quite a bit. A separate amplifier for intermediate ISO

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Can it be that subtle dual-pixel related artifacts are getting detected as "noise reduction"?

I'm not sure if that's very likely. I don't believe the 5div or EOS R had the noise reduction showing up in tests and they are dual pixel too. Would be interesting to know how the noise reduction was identified

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Can it be that subtle dual-pixel related artifacts are getting detected as "noise reduction"?

I was thinking, maybe it's the noise subtraction. Where they subtract the noise from a completely blacked out sensor.

Perhaps the noise reduction is only being applied to shadow areas?

That may create artifacts on the edges. Very strange thing to do on raw files.

I think Sony was applying NR to long exposures (star eater), but that's an extreme case, not normal shooting at base ISO.

 

[BeenThere]

Another observation...

If the majority (see below) of people are not using a 4K screen to watch content (other than Streaming Media, UHD Media, some games, weddings), and very few (if any) mobiles have 4k screens (though this could be because streaming 4K over 4G), then why is there such demand for 4K capable recording devices unless you are providing content for those watching 4K TVs (and I would love to know how many 4K TV users watch YT and the like)....

When 4K does become more pervasive in Desktops, Mobiles and everyday Internet then will the content produced today be still relevant?

I'm just curious as to what is driving this desire to have 4K60p (I genuinely don't know). I get the flexibility of more resolution for cropping - just like I do in stills. I get that you can downsample to produce better output. I get the quality that 4K and higher frame rates may provide you, but if your target audience can't view it then isn't it cheaper to just produce HD? And pay someone in x years time to produce 4K content when people are actually watching it?

Presumably (paying) customers are asking for 4K content - just trying to figure out if that is FOMO or some of the editing benefits or something else.

Source on "Majority" - just google "most commonly used screen resolution 2020" to get a bunch of sites which seem to indicate very few are using anything higher than HD and many not that high. And then I did the same for Iphone and Samsung screen resolutions.

The mainstream home TV for sale in the WalMarts are 4K. 8K is now the premium TV. There is a lot of 4K content available on streaming channels and almost all new production movies and such is 4K.

 

[WhatDoesMStandsFor]

From my perspective only:

1. I like to have one camera for stills and video. Can use the same lenses, it's more convenient to carry around only 1 camera and it's a lot cheaper than buying a separate device for video only.
2. Cx00 cameras are very expensive.

The first point I do understand. Having a single body for hybrid purposes is a must among every content creator or professional right now. And, according to my research, you can:

- Use the R5 in regular 4K (which already looks great, even if it's pixel binned because most clients won't even know what does that mean) while shooting photos
- If needed, record some small bits in 4KHQ, 4K120 or 8K

I do agree with everyone saying that "we don't asked for the 8K", but I've asked for 4K without crop and this camera is delivering it.

As for your second point, well... You can get a C200B for $3,999 (which is the price point of the R5) or a C200 for $ 5,499 (the price point of the 1Dx Mk III). I've also saw used C300 MkII on the market for about $ 3,500 as well. If you are willing to spend almost $ 4k on a camera and you primarily shoot video, the R5 will only fit your needs if you are ok with the compromises made by it being a stills camera that shoots video. If it does not fit your needs, you can grab a C200B and have a really reliable workhorse for videos (I've sold mine to get a C300 Mk III).

 

[WhatDoesMStandsFor]

The mainstream home TV for sale in the WalMarts are 4K. 8K is now the premium TV. There is a lot of 4K content available on streaming channels and almost all new production movies and such is 4K.

That's not a universal truth. You have markets such USA and Japan that are pushing the boundaries, but I've went to Portugal last year and they are still selling 1080p displays in abundance.

 

[Thcwub]

I kind of feel like people need to stop trying to save face on behalf of the camera for stills photographers on the back of its stills performance. It is a hybrid camera and all that video technology is absolutely coming at a premium. For mine, this product is a failure that perpetuates this issue with hybrid systems. You dont get to defend this as a stills product when so much of the purchase price is hiked up for experimental video tech that is, as discussed here, unusable for production purposes.

You cant tell me that a R5esque camera with all video functionality omitted would draw the same premium price. Id absolutely buy one in a heartbeat, but I wont be paying 7 grand dollars for a stills camera. Is there honestly not a strong enough market prospect for stills-only cameras?

 

[scyrene]

From my perspective only:

1. I like to have one camera for stills and video. Can use the same lenses, it's more convenient to carry around only 1 camera and it's a lot cheaper than buying a separate device for video only.
2. Cx00 cameras are very expensive.

Absolutely valid points *but* don't you think the cinema cameras are expensive largely because they offer those 'pro' video features? Asking for the cheaper stills/hybrid bodies to do what they do is wanting to have your cake and eat it?

 

[scyrene]

The mainstream home TV for sale in the WalMarts are 4K. 8K is now the premium TV. There is a lot of 4K content available on streaming channels and almost all new production movies and such is 4K.

Really? Where is that? I've never seen an 8K display for sale here in the UK. Mainstream tv is still HD, and I find streaming anything much above HD prohibitively slow/file sizes are too large (but I expect it's easier in major cities now).