Previews and Reviews of the Canon EOS R5 Mark II

[Canon Rumors Guy]

We've scoured the internet and pulled in what we could find in terms of previews and reviews of the Canon EOS R5 Mark II. This is a live article that we will update as we find more information. If you find something cool – let us know so we can share it. The R5 Mark

See full article...

 

[josephandrews222]

Thanks for this collection of links.

Another link for the R5MkII--Technical Specifications pdf

https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/content/canon/EOS-R5-final-Mark-II-Specspdf

 

[neuroanatomist]

Note that Canon USA specs list the R5II as having cross-type AF, whereas Canon Japan and Canon Europe do not. I suspect Canon USA messed that one up, so don't get your hopes up on that front.

 

[josephandrews222]

Note that Canon USA specs list the R5II as having cross-type AF, whereas Canon Japan and Canon Europe do not. I suspect Canon USA messed that one up, so don't get your hopes up on that front.

Indeed (lifted from the pdf):



1. Good find by you.
2. If truly an error, that's a rather significant 'booboo' (not just a stray sentence or phrase).

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon Japan:


Canon Europe:


Both Canon Japan and Europe also list the sensitivity for the R5II as -6.5 EV, whereas Canon USA lists -7.5 EV. It looks like someone at Canon USA entered the R1 specs into the R5II list.

 

[josephandrews222]

The analogous R1 Canon USA page does not yet have a working link to a specs pdf...but links do exist to various R1 specifications, including for AF (extracted and pasted below):



...the plot thickens

 

[josephandrews222]

Canon EOS R5 Mark II Preview: STACKED & IMPRESSIVE…the TRUE “Flagship”?!

This video is brought to you by B&H's credit card called PayBoo, where you pay the tax, and B&H pays you back instantly. I just saved over $800 in tax on a $...

www.youtube.com

(from the top, the fourth of six videos posted here) confirms the lack of cross-type AF in the R5MkII.

Comparisons of the images I posted above reveal a likely copy-and-paste error--every word (R5MkII & R1) is identical.

 

[P-visie]

Thanks for this collection of links.

Another link for the R5MkII--Technical Specifications pdf

https://s7d1.scene7.com/is/content/canon/EOS-R5-final-Mark-II-Specspdf

Thanks for providing the link.

These specs contain an interesting thing about the sensor (emphasis mine): “Canon designed full-frame back-illuminated stacked CMOS sensor”. It does not state “Canon designed and manufactured”. Does that mean that the sensor is not manufactured by Canon?

 

[tomri]

(from the top, the fourth of six videos posted here) confirms the lack of cross-type AF in the R5MkII.

So Canon is introducing cross type AF veeery slowly into the R cameras. Given the current pace of releases, most of the potential customers will be dead before it reaches the consumer range.

I guess I will focus on my smartphone more (pun intended). That also has the 16 stops of DR that were rumored earlier.

 

[josephandrews222]

I can suggest the following R5MkII review:

Canon EOS R5 Mark II review: still the best damn camera you can buy

The Canon EOS R5 II is, once again, the company's most important – and most powerful – camera

www.digitalcameraworld.com

=====

But part of what I find fascinating in the writings of James Artaius (the author of the above-linked article) is within his 'mini-review':

OH. MY. GOD. Canon's in-camera AI is going to change everything

Canon's EOS R1 and R5 Mark II can upscale images 400% and remove 2 stops of ISO noise in-camera. How good is it? It's THIS good

www.digitalcameraworld.com

Specifically, the author writes this:

"Fiddliness aside, I believe these AI features are going to completely transform the way we look at cameras, sensors and performance. In one sense, the EOS R5 Mark II is essentially a 180MP camera with super-clean ISO performance. Why bother making expensive sensors with crazy resolution when you can just upscale at this quality?

But I look at this another way. Why even bother making a 24MP camera when you can make a 6MP sensor and upscale the files? That way you'll get the benefits of huge photosites for supreme low light performance, without any of the overheating woes that plague modern sensors.

And what does this mean for Canon's PowerShot products with 1-inch sensors – how much better could the image quality be coming out of pocket-sized cameras using this tech? [My emphasis added.]

Whatever happens, Canon's in-camera AI is going to change everything."

=====

I have long wondered how much modern technology Canon could pack into an S-series sized truly pocketable camera, a camera that could do more than a modern iPhone (or whatever phone) can do.

In fact I've posted this sort of thing previously, right here on CR.

I would pay a premium price for such a product.

 

[ashmadux]

"In one sense, the EOS R5 Mark II is essentially a 180MP camera with super-clean ISO performance..."

Sometimes writers just...lose it. That's one..dumb take.

Regardless, there could be various uses for that up-scaled image, however, its still a jpeg. I wonder if it will be a 300dpi jpeg, or a 72dpi image that must be altered for print. Large scale printers also do some mumbo jumbo to files to print at those huge sizes, so there's that as well.

I dont care much, just a techie question. Questions need answers, hah.

 

[David - Sydney]

"Fiddliness aside, I believe these AI features are going to completely transform the way we look at cameras, sensors and performance. In one sense, the EOS R5 Mark II is essentially a 180MP camera with super-clean ISO performance. Why bother making expensive sensors with crazy resolution when you can just upscale at this quality?

But I look at this another way. Why even bother making a 24MP camera when you can make a 6MP sensor and upscale the files? That way you'll get the benefits of huge photosites for supreme low light performance, without any of the overheating woes that plague modern sensors.

And what does this mean for Canon's PowerShot products with 1-inch sensors – how much better could the image quality be coming out of pocket-sized cameras using this tech? [My emphasis added.]

Whatever happens, Canon's in-camera AI is going to change everything."

The difference is that the jpg is 8bit so as long as you don't need to adjust it in post too much then an upscaled file is okay. It may be far better to take a 14 bit raw raw, edit it then upscale in Topaz for example.
In-camera upscale is faster (even if 10 seconds) vs editing in post but quality needs to be great SooC

 

[Richard CR]

Thanks, I saw that review on my ticker and was going to add it today.

the AI upscaling looks far better than I thought it would.

 

[josephandrews222]

Thanks, I saw that review on my ticker and was going to add it today.

the AI upscaling looks far better than I thought it would.

You are welcome!

Your efforts on CR are much appreciated.

 

[Richard CR]

You are welcome!

Your efforts on CR are much appreciated.

Thank you!

Yesterday was the craziest of days. Craig and I were both at it for about 12 solid hours yesterday.

 

[Richard CR]

The difference is that the jpg is 8bit so as long as you don't need to adjust it in post too much then an upscaled file is okay. It may be far better to take a 14 bit raw raw, edit it then upscale in Topaz for example.
In-camera upscale is faster (even if 10 seconds) vs editing in post but quality needs to be great SooC

in a studio environment as an example - there wouldn't be much pushing required in post.

I could see them adding this into HEIF once they get the kinks out - now then that would be something.,

 

[David - Sydney]

in a studio environment as an example - there wouldn't be much pushing required in post.

I could see them adding this into HEIF once they get the kinks out - now then that would be something.,

I am really surprised that HEIF hasn't taken off and been supported across platforms. Extra 2 bit depth and smaller files is a no-brainer.

 

[josephandrews222]

"In one sense, the EOS R5 Mark II is essentially a 180MP camera with super-clean ISO performance..."

Sometimes writers just...lose it. That's one..dumb take.

Regardless, there could be various uses for that up-scaled image, however, its still a jpeg. I wonder if it will be a 300dpi jpeg, or a 72dpi image that must be altered for print. Large scale printers also do some mumbo jumbo to files to print at those huge sizes, so there's that as well.

I dont care much, just a techie question. Questions need answers, hah.

I wouldn't know the author of your quote here (James Artaius) from King James...but I think he is a bit more than just a writer.

From the tail end of the link:

The editor of Digital Camera World, James has 21 years experience as a journalist and started working in the photographic industry in 2014 (as an assistant to Damian McGillicuddy, who succeeded David Bailey as Principal Photographer for Olympus). In this time he shot for clients like Aston Martin Racing, Elinchrom and L'Oréal, in addition to shooting campaigns and product testing for Olympus, and providing training for professionals.

But your point here is a good one; most writers engage in occasional hyperbole. In a review like his...on Day 1...I don't mind a bit of hyperbole. YMMV.

 

[josephandrews222]

in a studio environment as an example - there wouldn't be much pushing required in post.

I could see them adding this into HEIF once they get the kinks out - now then that would be something.,

From the AI link above:

"There's also the fact that, right now, upscaling only works on JPEGs or HEIFs rather than RAW files"

 

[Richard CR]

From the AI link above:

"There's also the fact that, right now, upscaling only works on JPEGs or HEIFs rather than RAW files"

HEIF's then give you far more lattitude. so that would be actually not half bad.