Rumors of a Canon EOS R5c and EOS R5s [CR1]

DBounce

EOS RP
May 3, 2016
208
253
Hmmmm.... An high resolution body with IBIS and 12 FPS... You are welcome!!
80MP with an (double) IBIS - this will be usable - even handheld with moderate shutter speeds.
An higher DR and better low light capacity... (y)

5500 € for this monster body?

I wonder, how Canon will fix my/the heat problem with my/the R5. Maybe, an modification is possible. But I am in fear Canon will ignore this and say the newer bodies will get an heat update.
I think the ignore option is the one they will select. This concern is why I returned my R5.
 

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,217
642
Eastern Shore
A couple of us did the math in another thread. There would likely be limitations, but it appears that the Digic X can handle 10 fps on a 90 MP sensor. So, some slight adjustments, 12 fps on an 80 MP sensor.

Current R5: 45 MB x 20 fps = 900 MB/sec
80 MB x 12 fps = 960 MB/sec.

These are essentially the same (and for the purists, the MB increases with ISO, so the Digic X can actually handle >1 TB/sec).

Basically, Canon took a huge leap forward with the Digic X and we will likely reap the rewards moving foward.
And digic X plus must be coming?
 
  • Like
Reactions: docsmith

BeenThere

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 4, 2012
1,217
642
Eastern Shore
If Canon can standardize on a couple of body designs ( like car makers do), then maybe they can widen their Camera offerings with different sensors and electronics tweaks at little increase in production costs. Otherwise it is hard to see how they will make money by fractionating their offerings into so many niche pockets.
 

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,239
1,404
Hamburg, Germany
CR1 sounds about right, if not too generous.

If super 35 means using a 26 mm wide section of the sensor, and this gives 2.8 thousand pixels along that edge, that puts the total horizontal resolution of the sensor at (36 mm / 26 mm) * 2.8 = 3.9 and the entire sensor comes out to be about 10 MP. That's less than half the R5 resolution, even if you talk about linear resolution. Either the wording here is bad or the rumor contradicts itself.

Also: Newly developed heatsinks? WTH? Either bad wording again, or simply BS. The heat has to be removed from the body's. A heat sink on its own won't do the trick. If this is bad wording for active cooling, fine. But why New ones? Any active cooling will be better than none, which is what the R6 and R5 have. So why call it new? The R6 and R5 didn't get 'new IBIS'. They got IBIS. If Canon introduces stills cameras with active cooling, it won't be new active cooling. It will be active cooling. Period.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: scyrene and amorse

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,733
975
A couple of us did the math in another thread. There would likely be limitations, but it appears that the Digic X can handle 10 fps on a 90 MP sensor. So, some slight adjustments, 12 fps on an 80 MP sensor.

Current R5: 45 MB x 20 fps = 900 MB/sec
80 MB x 12 fps = 960 MB/sec.

These are essentially the same (and for the purists, the MB increases with ISO, so the Digic X can actually handle >1 TB/sec).

Basically, Canon took a huge leap forward with the Digic X and we will likely reap the rewards moving foward.
Except that this rate (45 x 20) is possible with 12 bit raw files!
 

knight427

EOS 90D
CR Pro
Aug 27, 2018
131
221
If Canon can standardize on a couple of body designs ( like car makers do), then maybe they can widen their Camera offerings with different sensors and electronics tweaks at little increase in production costs. Otherwise it is hard to see how they will make money by fractionating their offerings into so many niche pockets.
This is an interesting idea to consider. Another analogy would be laptops. Pick your form factor (traditional, 2-in-1, tablet) then select your specs (CPU, RAM, screen quality/resolution). The computing industry has mastered the art of squeezing profits out of incremental upgrades. As the camera industry approaches what appears to some physics based limitations on sensor technology and a shrinking market, this approach would make a lot of sense.
 

lbeck

*
Jul 30, 2019
17
40
This is exactly what Sony does with their A7 series, and there is no shame in Canon following that product lineup. The problem is high end video and high end photography require two different sets of focused technology inside the camera. So yeah, this makes perfect sense to have a video focused version and photo focused version.
 

Inspired

EOS M50
Jun 21, 2017
25
4
Caribbean
So let me get this straight, half the resolution so we're looking at somewhere close to 24mp.
Same features as R5 but with heat sinks to help with cooling?
Perfect hybrid for wedding images and video clips.
 

docsmith

EOS R
CR Pro
Sep 17, 2010
1,004
440
Except that this rate (45 x 20) is possible with 12 bit raw files!
I have not seen anyone claim that files from 20 fps are significantly smaller than the files taken on the R5 at 12 fps. Matter of fact, most evidence that I've seen indicate that they are not, such as TDP looking at buffer capacity at 12 fps and 20 fps. It actually indicates that the file sizes are larger at 20 fps, which means the Digic X is processing more than I estimated above.

Just playing with that dataset, at 12 fps TDP had 151 files written to a UHS-I card before the buffer filled (12.6 sec) and 182 images written onto a UHS II card (15 sec) but only 110 files before the buffer filled at 20 fps (5.5 sec) to a UHS II card. Playing with the math, assuming that the UHS-I card wrote at 60 MB/sec and the UHS-II card wrote at 180 MB/sec (observed on EOS-R), and the file size of the 20 fps files actually need to be significantly larger than the file size at 12 fps.
 

privatebydesign

Garfield is back...
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
9,203
3,429
120
2.8k as a direct sample from a ‘Super 35’ crop of the full sensor points to a 13.2 MP FF sensor.

13.2 MP puts 4,480 pixels on the long side, the R5 is 8,192 readable so the numbers are pretty close when you factor in the dark edge.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: FramerMCB

tron

EOS R5
CR Pro
Nov 8, 2011
4,733
975
I have not seen anyone claim that files from 20 fps are significantly smaller than the files taken on the R5 at 12 fps. Matter of fact, most evidence that I've seen indicate that they are not, such as TDP looking at buffer capacity at 12 fps and 20 fps. It actually indicates that the file sizes are larger at 20 fps, which means the Digic X is processing more than I estimated above.

Just playing with that dataset, at 12 fps TDP had 151 files written to a UHS-I card before the buffer filled (12.6 sec) and 182 images written onto a UHS II card (15 sec) but only 110 files before the buffer filled at 20 fps (5.5 sec) to a UHS II card. Playing with the math, assuming that the UHS-I card wrote at 60 MB/sec and the UHS-II card wrote at 180 MB/sec (observed on EOS-R), and the file size of the 20 fps files actually need to be significantly larger than the file size at 12 fps.
So it has to be a processing issue otherwise Canon would keep the 14bit raw files. Traditionally lowering the bits from 14 to 12 has been a Nikon trick up to now!
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
1,879
1,737
The reason I am sceptical about this is the CanonWatch report contains the alternative designation of 3 instead of 5. Anyone familiar with rumours about Canon cameras for the last 12 years or so is familiar with the fabled 3 series of cameras that would fit between the 1D cameras and the 5D line. The thing is they never materialised. Maybe Canon was considering it, but when they bought out the 5Ds line, they still kept the 5. Which is what made me think the whole mythical 3 series was a figment of wishful thinking, and not based on anything Canon was ever really considering. This is what makes me sceptical about any mention of 3. Yes, Canon could slot in another line of camera, but that isn't what they actually did with the 5D line. What actually happened, is that Canon upped the specification of the 5D line, so they became tougher, gained AF systems close to the 1D line, rather than Canon creating a whole new line of cameras. The original 5D was prosumer type camera, and even the 5D mkII didn't have a top flight AF system. This is what the original 3 rumour was about, a full professional FF, none 1D camera. But the 5D mkIII and mkIV were that camera, not a 3.
Speculation I've heard: The main reason they didn't use the number 3 is then there would have been a "3D" camera, which of course has another meaning.

And if you think Canon caught a metric tonne of flung feces for the heating issue, imagine what they'd have taken for a "3D" camera that still took flat pictures.

Not an issue with a potential "R3" name.
 

eat-sleep-code

I'm New Here
Sep 7, 2018
18
34
I am pretty sure the high resolution "R5s" camera is coming, that one has been rumored for a while and makes a lot of sense for studio shooting, landscapes, etc.

But, I don't see the purpose of a dumbed down video-focused "R5c" camera if the video resolution specs are lower? What, just to get 4K 120 for longer record times? Why are you recording slow motion for longer than 25 minutes? Nobody wants to watch your half-hour long documentary in slow motion. :)

The C50 and C70 will fill the video needs of folks wanting an RF-mount video camera.

I also don't see anything being labeled a 5-series without weather sealing. The only way to keep the heat down is to get the heat out. The only way to get the heat out is by venting (i.e. no weather sealing) or externally exposed heat sinks (maybe anodized red with big "do not touch" labels on them?). Internal heat sinks will not get the heat out of the body.