The Canon EOS ‘R5s’ may be in the hands of testers [CR2]

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,402
1,656
Hamburg, Germany
I tried that. It isn't supporting Windows 7.
Well to be fair, you should probably not be using that anymore :confused:

If you have to stick to 7, but need acess to a 10 machine for conversion, you could try a virtual machine. There are free ones, and if converting Canon files to DNG is all you're doing, their performance should not be too bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KeithBreazeal

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,285
1,948
you are totally missing the point and making this way to complicated. I'm talking about ONE lens here.

A R5s (of 83mp) has the inherent benefit of cropping 83MP down to 32MP (1.6x) crop which effectively gives a "ZOOM" of 400mm to 640mm.

An R7 can only see the field of view equivalent of 640mm with the same 400mm lens. Since it can't go wider (not a full frame sensor) it can't give you a FOV of 400mm. Ever.

In conclusion ..

If you have a Canon EF 400mm F2.8L IS USM;

  • A R5s of 83mm will allow you to shoot down to a 1.6x crop of 32MP image size to effectively give you a FOV of 640mm - allowing essentially a 400-640mm F2.8-4.0 zoom. At no point is the lp/mm or lp/image height less than an R7. It's impossible.
  • An R7 will allow you to use that same 400mm F2.8 lens to get you an equivalent reach of 640mm F4. and that's it.
So when people quibble about the price of a R5s versus an R7 - they arent taking into account the abilities that a Full frame high MP sensor allows - because a Canon RF 400-640mm F2.8-4.0 wouldn't be cheap, or light. It would be an insane lens that would probably cost in excess of 20K.

That was my point. People that complain about a 4K USD camera body instead of a 2K camera body aren't thinking about all the possibilities.
None of that has anything to do with "full frame quality", though.

Cropping the 83MP R5s to match the 32MP R7 will give the same exact image quality.
 

tigers media

EOS M50
Mar 26, 2020
28
12
A great landscape camera my guess basic video this will be for the landscape fraternity. Sony proved high megapixels for video is a waste. Especially if they are making evf bigger video people dont care about that. Will be cool and i already know i can't afford it :)
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
765
834
Kentucky, USA
None of that has anything to do with "full frame quality", though.

Cropping the 83MP R5s to match the 32MP R7 will give the same exact image quality.
Regarding the ongoing posts of CanonNews and MichaelClark, I would like to add my 2 cents (which is about what it's worth ;) ). CanonNews made a (hopefully unintentional) typo in saying the 400mm f2.8 lens with a 1.6x crop in post becomes 640mm f4.0, when a calculator shows it becomes 640mm f4.48. As I think I understand what you've said, you are both correct in what you are saying, but you are both arguing about a different issue.

Michael is correct in that if you have a FF body, 400mm f2.8 FF lens and crop it in post by 1.6x then you will get the same (640mm f4.48) f# & IQ image as a 1.6x crop body using the same FF lens (assuming the same technology in both sensors) and thus neither of them will have "FF quality" as neither of them use all of the lens.

CanonNews is not arguing that but is saying that in addition to that, the FF camera has the "option" of also *not* cropping and then it will get a 400mm f2.8 image and full "FF quality" image. And in addition to that, you can crop in post by any value between 1.6 and 1x to get an image appropriately between those two ranges with the f# and IQ varying between them accordingly. So you have the option of zooming (in post) from 400 to 640mm (with the f# and IQ varying according), which you can't do with the crop body using the same FF lens. Using the FF 400mm f2.8 would be less expensive, smaller & lighter than a FF 400-600mm f2.8-4.48 (again: CanonNew mistakenly said f2.8-4.0) zoom lens which a typical person couldn't afford (but it would use less sensor pixels and have less IQ as you zoomed out towards 640mm and thus it would not be "FF quality" as it zoomed). But having something (a 400-640 zoom of varying quality in post) is better than having nothing.
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
765
834
Kentucky, USA
Keith, I strongly recommend DxO PL 4 that was released today. It handles RAW from the R5 really well.
I'll second this. I love using DXO Photolab4 and it handles R5 files great (I have a Mac). The new addition of "deep prime" seems quicker than regular prime which is a significant benefit although the IQ difference is debatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

Chig

Birds in Flight Nutter
Jul 26, 2020
101
89
Orewa , New Zealand
you are totally missing the point and making this way to complicated. I'm talking about ONE lens here.

A R5s (of 83mp) has the inherent benefit of cropping 83MP down to 32MP (1.6x) crop which effectively gives a "ZOOM" of 400mm to 640mm.

An R7 can only see the field of view equivalent of 640mm with the same 400mm lens. Since it can't go wider (not a full frame sensor) it can't give you a FOV of 400mm. Ever.

In conclusion ..

If you have a Canon EF 400mm F2.8L IS USM;

  • A R5s of 83mm will allow you to shoot down to a 1.6x crop of 32MP image size to effectively give you a FOV of 640mm - allowing essentially a 400-640mm F2.8-4.0 zoom. At no point is the lp/mm or lp/image height less than an R7. It's impossible.
  • An R7 will allow you to use that same 400mm F2.8 lens to get you an equivalent reach of 640mm F4. and that's it.
So when people quibble about the price of a R5s versus an R7 - they arent taking into account the abilities that a Full frame high MP sensor allows - because a Canon RF 400-640mm F2.8-4.0 wouldn't be cheap, or light. It would be an insane lens that would probably cost in excess of 20K.

That was my point. People that complain about a 4K USD camera body instead of a 2K camera body aren't thinking about all the possibilities.
Well an R5s and a EF400 f/2.8 lenses are far beyond my budget (and ridiculously heavy too) so I'd much prefer an R7 and EF100-400 ii plus 1.4x and 2x extenders
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
978
1,004
By far the best news for me are the improved EVF features.
If there is anything I dislike about the EOS R, it's the poor EVF resolution, color rendition and exaggerated contrast. The R5's EVF is already really good, but further improvements are always welcome, especially for macro, landscapes and using vintage lenses.

Finally, a silly question: will -could- it be possible to use the EOS Rs with 32MP sensor definition WITHOUT any cropping ??? (is there a way to "bundle" the sensor's pixels in order to lower the definition ?)
 

Dragon

EF 800L
May 29, 2019
347
304
actually a full frame camera is better IMO than simply a crop camera.

say you have a 300mm F2.8. at a 34MP APS-C image size you have essentially a 300mm to 480mm lens F2.8 zoom lens.

That is oh I don't know.. probably a 15K lens if Canon ever made it. You essentially have a built in .6x focal reducer every time you slap a lens on a camera. Even better at times for framing as well, because you can switch in between 1x and 1.6x

You may be changed 2K more for a camera body, but you gain far more versatility when it comes to lenses.

Say canon makes / re-makes the 200-400F4L for the RF mount. That becomes a 200mm to 560mm F4L. Pretty freaking nice. You basically turn a 2x 10K lens into a 3x 20K lens for 2K more and still have the premier optical quality of the 2x lens.

While reach is nice, don't forget the versatility that you lose with it as well.
Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful :).
 
  • Sad
Reactions: slclick

slclick

The Taj Mahal is DOMED
Dec 17, 2013
4,294
2,365
Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful :).
Why do you need to say that crap? Poking the bear? Lame.
 

zim

EOS 5D Mark IV
CR Pro
Oct 18, 2011
2,091
286
Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful :).
Well 7d user here and providing you're putting the same number of pixels/duck you'll get no argument from me. At the very least FF then gives you a much more flexible camera. For me the only thing APS-C has (or perhaps had) in it's favour was price. That is the question only Canon can answer, will Canon play hardball and decide that the price of admission for 7d users has just gone up or will they love us and introduce a price/spec equivalent mirrorless FF
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
964
1,243
Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful :).
No 7d2 user has a problem with a wider feild of view. What most 7d2 users want is the pixel density at a lower price than you can get a high MP FF at. You know. Like you got with a 7d2. Pixel density of a 5dsR at a much lower price.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Joules

EOS R
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,402
1,656
Hamburg, Germany
Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view.
In the end, it only matters if the value a user puts on the flexibility of a FF sensor with the same pixel density of an APS-C is great enough to compensate for the cost.

In absolute terms of flexibility with regards to image manipulation and quality, FF is better than any smaller format, as long as the pixel density is equal. But without global shutter, an actual APS-C body may still be at an advantage when it comes to real life performance. And it certainly has an advantage in terms of value per dollar for users caring primarily about reach.

I expect the high res R (R5s) to cost more than the R5. Significantly so if they put a shutter in it that's capable of matching what you would expect from a 7 series successor - Slightly less FPS than the 1 series offering from the Era, so between 16 and 18 FPS based on the 1DX III.

Does the market warrant the release of another such value oriented specialist camera? We will see. This is not politics, it's economics. It doesn't matter what you think about it, but there is a niche in the market that values paying just as much as necessary on the body to get access to the reach and speed required for certain types of photography. And that niche will be poorly served if Canon only release the high res R. Neither does it matter how the folks in that niche feel about that if no such camera is released because said niche is not big or lucrative enough to be supported under the modern market conditions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,285
1,948
Good luck. I have had this argument many times with the 7d2 crowd and they simply refuse to accept that there is any benefit in having a wider field of view. I would have predicted that you would go nowhere with this and following the parallel thread, that was precisely the outcome. It is almost as much fun as trying to convince a liberal that Trump did something useful :).
Some of us in the "7D2 crowd" use both FF and APS-C cameras, whichever is most appropriate for a specific task.

If I'm going to crop to APS-C angles of view anyway, why should I waste using up a $3,500 FF camera that handles slower when I can use a cheaper, faster handling APS-C body for the vast majority of my "high mileage" shooting scenarios?

At the same time, my wide and/or normal lenses are mounted and being used on the FF bodies. Shooting a typical American football game, I may take 2,000+ images using the "long" body while only taking 200-400 frames using the short body(s), and that's if I shoot the band at halftime. Otherwise I'll usually put well less than 200 frames on the odometer of the wider camera/lens combination(s). I'd much rather wear out a $1,500 APS-C "sports" specialty body when shooting 2,000+ frames per assignment than a $3,500 FF general purpose camera that I use for almost all of my other work when I rarely shoot more than a few hundred frames, and often only shoot a few dozen at those other assignments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Chig and Joules

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,285
1,948
Regarding the ongoing posts of CanonNews and MichaelClark, I would like to add my 2 cents (which is about what it's worth ;) ). CanonNews made a (hopefully unintentional) typo in saying the 400mm f2.8 lens with a 1.6x crop in post becomes 640mm f4.0, when a calculator shows it becomes 640mm f4.48. As I think I understand what you've said, you are both correct in what you are saying, but you are both arguing about a different issue.

Michael is correct in that if you have a FF body, 400mm f2.8 FF lens and crop it in post by 1.6x then you will get the same (640mm f4.48) f# & IQ image as a 1.6x crop body using the same FF lens (assuming the same technology in both sensors) and thus neither of them will have "FF quality" as neither of them use all of the lens.

CanonNews is not arguing that but is saying that in addition to that, the FF camera has the "option" of also *not* cropping and then it will get a 400mm f2.8 image and full "FF quality" image. And in addition to that, you can crop in post by any value between 1.6 and 1x to get an image appropriately between those two ranges with the f# and IQ varying between them accordingly. So you have the option of zooming (in post) from 400 to 640mm (with the f# and IQ varying according), which you can't do with the crop body using the same FF lens. Using the FF 400mm f2.8 would be less expensive, smaller & lighter than a FF 400-600mm f2.8-4.48 (again: CanonNew mistakenly said f2.8-4.0) zoom lens which a typical person couldn't afford (but it would use less sensor pixels and have less IQ as you zoomed out towards 640mm and thus it would not be "FF quality" as it zoomed). But having something (a 400-640 zoom of varying quality in post) is better than having nothing.
Flexibility with regard to angle of view does not equal "full frame quality", though. I've not been arguing that there is no increased flexibility (for an increased cost).

I've been arguing that using the same number of the same sized pixels that use the same technology will give the same image quality. Thus, a FF sensor cropped to APS-C dimensions will not have better image quality than an APS-C sensor with the same pixel density and same generation of technology.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
765
834
Kentucky, USA
Flexibility with regard to angle of view does not equal "full frame quality", though. I've not been arguing that there is no increased flexibility (for an increased cost).

I've been arguing that using the same number of the same sized pixels that use the same technology will give the same image quality. Thus, a FF sensor cropped to APS-C dimensions will not have better image quality than an APS-C sensor with the same pixel density and same generation of technology.
Yes, I'll second (again) what you've said. Cropping a FF lens and FF sensor to APS dimensions will be the same as the same lens on a APS sensor assuming the same per-pixel dimension & technology.