Here is the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6, along with the announcement date

[blackcoffee17]

Yes. You are not shooting at 1/400 on an 800mm lens. Even with a tripod you would get soft images 90% of the time. In rrality 1/800sec is the minumum. So you would then be looking at ISO 10000

That's not the case at all. I did shot plenty of sharp images at 600 and 800mm equivalent focal lengths and shutter speeds of 1/100 or 1/200 but often less than that. With fairly static subject and IS is perfectly possible.

 

[raptor3x]

Yes. You are not shooting at 1/400 on an 800mm lens. Even with a tripod you would get soft images 90% of the time. In rrality 1/800sec is the minumum. So you would then be looking at ISO 10000

Fully electronic shutters and hybrid IS + IBIS together allow for sharp shots at much lower shutter speeds than 1/400s. If the combined IBIS + IS performance is as good as the early rumors reported than I would expect to be able to get sharp shots at 1/50s with some reliability.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Fully electronic shutters and hybrid IS + IBIS together allow for sharp shots at much lower shutter speeds than 1/400s. If the combined IBIS + IS performance is as good as the early rumors reported than I would expect to be able to get sharp shots at 1/50s with some reliability.

Not with wildlife you wouldn't. The slightest movement will cause a blurry image at low shutter speeds. IF you can guarantee your subject will remain perfectly motionless then you can shoot a bird at maybe 1/150 but on an 800mm lens no amount of stabalization is gong to let you drop that to much lower speeds and still get good images. At least it would be very very rare which goes back to my point that 90% of shots would be soft

 

[Aussie shooter]

That's not the case at all. I did shot plenty of sharp images at 600 and 800mm equivalent focal lengths and shutter speeds of 1/100 or 1/200 but often less than that. With fairly static subject and IS is perfectly possible.

Yes. Which is why I said 90% of shots would be soft which implies 10%might be sharp. But if you accepted those numbers and lowered your shutter speed to 1/50sec then you would be missing so many more good shots and doing yourself no favours at all

 

[Quarkcharmed]

http://[URL]https://www.photonstoph...,Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

[/URL]

This is a more relevant metric in my opinion. The sensor response to lifting shadows has a greater bearing on the way I work than total dynamic range. TDR of Canon sensors is usually suficient for most subjects I photograph. The 1DX3 has a significantly flatter ISO curve than any other Canon sensor I've looked at. If the sensor in the 6R is as ISO invarient as the 1DX3 than it is going to be a winner IMO.

I think it's very specific measurement, as explained here https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...ographic_Dynamic_Range_Shadow_Improvement.htm

It doesn't tell us a lot about the absolute noise in the shadows. This metric only tells you what to use, in-camera ISO gain or lifting the exposure in post processing.

From the landscape photography perspective, I'm interested in the DR at the base ISO, i.e. max DR possible. High ISO performance is also of some interest (for night photography) but not so much.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Not much better, in terms of the dynamic range it's pretty much on par with the rivals, e.g. it's slightly better than A9II and slightly worse than A7RIV, and better than 5DIV. That's according to photonstophotos:

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV,Sony ILCE-7RM4,Sony ILCE-9M2

Yes exactly, as I said, it compares much better than in the DXO report. That is not to say it is 'much better' in absolute terms just that the comparison is usually more favourable to the 1dxiii

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Yes exactly, as I said, it compares much better than in the DXO report. That is not to say it is 'much better' in absolute terms just that the comparison is usually more favourable to the 1dxiii

Right, overall 'sensor score' from DxO is pretty much meaningless to me, especially considering their obscure methods of measurement.
I just shared the news, somewhat concerned about the prospective sensor performance of the R5, as supposedly it's the same next-gen sensor tech from Canon as we see in 1DxIII. My hope was it wouldn't be worse than 5DIV and hopefully better.

 

[Aussie shooter]

Right, overall 'sensor score' from DxO is pretty much meaningless to me, especially considering their obscure methods of measurement.
I just shared the news, somewhat concerned about the prospective sensor performance of the R5, as supposedly it's the same next-gen sensor tech from Canon as we see in 1DxIII. My hope was it wouldn't be worse than 5DIV and hopefully better.

Do we know what sensor tech it is? Or are we going on the (probably logical) assumption it is the same as the 1Dx3? Which I thought was pretty good anyway from what I have heard

 

[raptor3x]

Not with wildlife you wouldn't. The slightest movement will cause a blurry image at low shutter speeds. IF you can guarantee your subject will remain perfectly motionless then you can shoot a bird at maybe 1/150 but on an 800mm lens no amount of stabalization is gong to let you drop that to much lower speeds and still get good images. At least it would be very very rare which goes back to my point that 90% of shots would be soft

I think you're going to pleasantly surprised here. Sure, if you have moving wildlife that all goes out the window, but for things like perched birds or animals at rest then you can go pretty low with shutterspeed. In the m43 world, you get people shooting at 800mm EFL at shutter speeds of around 1/10s pretty regularly and 1200mm at 1/20s.

 

[Ozarker]

I think you're going to pleasantly surprised here. Sure, if you have moving wildlife that all goes out the window, but for things like perched birds or animals at rest then you can go pretty low with shutterspeed. In the m43 world, you get people shooting at 800mm EFL at shutter speeds of around 1/10s pretty regularly and 1200mm at 1/20s.

I regularly photograph a toddler at anywhere from 24mm to 200mm ff, or 24-80mm EFL M43. Even when he's still, a shutter speed of 1/10-1/20 sec is going to be blurry at the detail level. I don't know of any songbirds that sit still enough for shutter speeds that low. Maybe a buzzard, sleeping. Forget BIF, landing, taking off, eating, feeding young, breeding, etc. Forget pretty much anything. While lens IS or IBIS will take care of my movements, it will have zero effect if the subject moves at all. 800mm ff or crop EFL at those speeds on an animal would have very very very low success rates. It is silly to even suggest. That people shoot at those speeds... fine. That does not, by any means, represent that they are getting anything usable on a regular basis. Until I see a photo with exif proving it, I am a doubter.

 

[David_E]

Here is the Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6...

Ouch! Here are the Canon EOS R5 and the Canon EOS R6...

 

[raptor3x]

I regularly photograph a toddler at anywhere from 24mm to 200mm ff, or 24-80mm EFL M43. Even when he's still, a shutter speed of 1/10-1/20 sec is going to be blurry at the detail level. I don't know of any songbirds that sit still enough for shutter speeds that low. Maybe a buzzard, sleeping. Forget BIF, landing, taking off, eating, feeding young, breeding, etc. Forget pretty much anything. While lens IS or IBIS will take care of my movements, it will have zero effect if the subject moves at all. 800mm ff or crop EFL at those speeds on an animal would have very very very low success rates. It is silly to even suggest. That people shoot at those speeds... fine. That does not, by any means, represent that they are getting anything usable on a regular basis. Until I see a photo with exif proving it, I am a doubter.

Here's a photo shot a rather extreme example for you, note that this particular image isn't mine but from a poster over on DPReview. This photo was shot at 1200mm EFL | 1/40s but in the Olympus HHHR mode, which means it's taking 16 shots and then stacking them together, although this image was then downsampled to regular resolution. I'm not claiming that stabilization to get very low shutter speed works all the time, but it can definitely work even for small birds.

 

[Ozarker]

Here's a photo shot a rather extreme example for you, note that this particular image isn't mine but from a poster over on DPReview. This photo was shot at 1200mm EFL | 1/40s but in the Olympus HHHR mode, which means it's taking 16 shots and then stacking them together, although this image was then downsampled to regular resolution. I'm not claiming that stabilization to get very low shutter speed works all the time, but it can definitely work even for small birds.

And below is the exif from the shot.

And yes, at 2x and 4x your suggested 1/10 and 1/20 shutter speed and a lower f/stop (f/7.1 vs f/11), using a feature Canon doesn't have (HHHR mode).

Look, stabilization (IS or IBIS) isn't even a factor here. I hope you know that. All it does is help with camera/lens movement. What we are talking about is subject movement at low shutter speeds. Stabilization does not help that one single bit. Not a bit. Not even a tiny bit.

Also, EFL doesn't really mean anything either. What you have is a 300mm lens and a 2x digital teleconverter (digital crop, not a real tele converter) on a m4/3 crop. It is still a 300mm lens.

 

[raptor3x]

And below is the exif from the shot.

And yes, at 2x and 4x your suggested 1/10 and 1/20 shutter speed and a lower f/stop (f/7.1 vs f/11), using a feature Canon doesn't have (HHHR mode).

Look, stabilization (IS or IBIS) isn't even a factor here. I hope you know that. All it does is help with camera/lens movement. What we are talking about is subject movement at low shutter speeds. Stabilization does not help that one single bit. Not a bit.

Literally nobody here has claimed stabilization helps with subject movement, please stop beating up on a strawman. Also, it's shot at f/7.1 but that's equivalent to shooting at f/14 on a FF body. You and Aussie are suggesting that it's essentially impossible to get pixel level sharpness on a living subject at very low shutter speeds which is just not true. In that image, the HHHR mode doesn't help make it sharper, with a living subject it makes much harder to get a sharp shot as you're almost shooting at a shutter speed that's effectively 16x as long, the effective exposure time of that image is 1/2.5s; that's why I said that image is something of an extreme example. The whole point is that stabilization makes these slow lenses much more useful as long as you have subjects that are relatively still. If you're trying to shoot small birds at their most active then yeah, you're not going to have much success at those shutter speeds, but then again at that time of day you probably won't need to use shutter speeds that low even with an f/11 lens.

 

[Ozarker]

Literally nobody here has claimed stabilization helps with subject movement, please stop beating up on a strawman. Also, it's shot at f/7.1 but that's equivalent to shooting at f/14 on a FF body. You and Aussie are suggesting that it's essentially impossible to get pixel level sharpness on a living subject at very low shutter speeds which is just not true. In that image, the HHHR mode doesn't help make it sharper, with a living subject it makes much harder to get a sharp shot as you're almost shooting at a shutter speed that's effectively 16x as long, the effective exposure time of that image is 1/2.5s; that's why I said that image is something of an extreme example. The whole point is that stabilization makes these slow lenses much more useful as long as you have subjects that are relatively still. If you're trying to shoot small birds at their most active then yeah, you're not going to have much success at those shutter speeds, but then again at that time of day you probably won't need to use shutter speeds that low even with an f/11 lens.

Nobody said it is impossible. Nobody. What we are saying is that it is impracticable for most situations.

"I'm not claiming that stabilization to get very low shutter speed works all the time, but it can definitely work even for small birds." Not my straw man, yours. Stabilization has nothing to do with the subject. It has to do with the photographer and his chosen shutter speed.

When you mention an equivalency between f/7.1 and f/14, the equivalency is the DOF (I believe), not the amount of light let in. My f/2.8 on my m43 lens lets in the same light as f/2.8 on a FF lens. Same exposure settings for the same scene.


Exposure: m43 F4 = FF F4 (same ISO and shutter)

Dof: m43 F4 = FF F8

BTW: I see nothing in the exif indicating that HHHR mode was used. I'm simply giving the benefit of the doubt to be friendly. I certainly do not believe the bird sat completely still for as long as you say for that mode to have been used. If you say the bird sat still for 16 shots at 1/40 sec, then okay. I don't see that. I am seeing a single shot. HHHR mode is for static subjects.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Do we know what sensor tech it is? Or are we going on the (probably logical) assumption it is the same as the 1Dx3? Which I thought was pretty good anyway from what I have heard

The tech should be similar despite different megapixel count - both 1DxIII and R5 have very fast readout which previous sensors didn't have, also Canon claimed it was the new tech - I just assume it's likely the same improvement in the dynamic range (if any).

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha...,Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Canon EOS 5D Mark IV

This chart shows the DR improvement against both 1DxII and 5DIV, so I hope the R5 will be maybe 0.5 stops better than the 5DIV or at least not worse.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Literally nobody here has claimed stabilization helps with subject movement

It actually does.
First the shake blur adds to the subject movement blur, so unstabilised images are still worse than stabilised especially in edge cases when the subject movement blur is small.
Second, a good stablisation enables you to do panning which also helps reduce the motion blur. Tele lenses have special panning mode and sometimes more than one.

 

[Max TT]

Listen, this R6!!!

I have been asking for more info about it since February, to the point of developing a little resentment of the R5.

Now that we got it.... I am beyond excited. This is going to be the best selling camera body for the foreseeable future.

Wonder what is going to be the price tag on the 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 2 Macro.

 

[Graphic.Artifacts]

I think it's very specific measurement, as explained here https://www.photonstophotos.net/Gen...ographic_Dynamic_Range_Shadow_Improvement.htm

It doesn't tell us a lot about the absolute noise in the shadows. This metric only tells you what to use, in-camera ISO gain or lifting the exposure in post processing.

From the landscape photography perspective, I'm interested in the DR at the base ISO, i.e. max DR possible. High ISO performance is also of some interest (for night photography) but not so much.

In my experience with multiple generations of cameras across several brands I’ve found that metric to be the most accurate predictor of noise performance. It clearly shows improvement between successive generation of Canon sensors which I understood to be your concern. Sorry you didn’t find the information useful.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

In my experience with multiple generations of cameras across several brands I’ve found that metric to be the most accurate predictor of noise performance. It clearly shows improvement between successive generation of Canon sensors which I understood to be your concern. Sorry you didn’t find the information useful.

It's a useful metric, only it doesn't tell a lot about the dynamic range. This is how the author explains it:

For those shooting raw it can be useful to know when raising ISO in the camera has little or no advantage over applying digital gain in post processing.

It doesn't tell us how good a sensor is at the base ISO.