The Canon EOS R6 is still scheduled to be announced in May [CR2]

[Michael Clark]

“R5 - 5D Replacement”……
Wouldn’t the R5 accept EF lenses natively instead of using adapters if it were truly a 5D replacement?

The R5 accepts EF lenses with a native adapter. The RF lens protocol is the EF lens protocol on steroids.

EF lenses lose none of the functionality they have on EF bodies when they are used on RF bodies.

Zilch.

There are no communication translations that have to be made as when one is adapting Canon EF lenses to Sony E-mount cameras..

 

[definedphotography]

not interested in either R5 nor R6. stills only. and proud of it. f*ck "video in *every camera*".

You might be waiting a *very* long time for a stills only camera in this day & age

 

[Michael Clark]

I think they are going to wait and see what mirrorless adoption looks like prior to committing to a 5D Mark V. And if they do release one I think it would be with an RF mount so you get the best of both worlds...OVF with RF mount and EF backwards compatibility with the adapter. Of course they did just announce their latest Cinema camera and it is still just EF or PL mount so maybe there is a bit of EF life left.

Except there's not enough room in the RF mount for a FF size mirror between the sensor and the lens flange.

 

[Michael Clark]

A very short on-line press conf for the R5 and all they talked about for a few seconds are the R5 video specs and to be honest it sounded more like an ad for Red 8k cameras.

It was a press conference originally planned to be held at the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters) trade show, which is all about video.

 

[Michael Clark]

please explain. what? how exactly? i call it total BS.

Larger pixels give better sensitivity that allows for shorter AF sampling times. That's something Chuck Westfall said more than once.

 

[Michael Clark]

why should the R6 noise over a certain area on the sensor be better than the R5 noise over the same area?

Because the photosites (a/k/a pixel wells) for a 20 MP FF sensor are a lot larger than the photosites for a 45MP FF sensor?

 

[Richard CR]

We can safely assume that it is a slower sensor than the 1DXIII so it won't have the same capabilities.

I don't think that's a safe assumption at all.
but crop for 4k60 is always a possiblity.

the sensor still shoots at 20mp @ 20 fps - it's not exactly a slow sensor.

 

[Richard CR]

Because the photosites (a/k/a pixel wells) for a 20 MP FF sensor are a lot larger than the photosites for a 45MP FF sensor?

that's a good theory but it really depends on how many pixels canon samples for a "point". it may not make any difference in practicality. If they only sampled one pixel, that would seem odd, because it would be completely unusable at higher ISO's with random noise.

and if it's by sampling, then the difference between the two is negligible because both pixels are covered by 100% microlenses.

 

[-pekr-]

I agree with your comment about uneducated buyers wanting more megapixels.

Thankfully, I have just enough understanding to not want more I am happy with 20 with better noise and DR.

Uneducated buyers? Go and speak just for yourself. There is absolutly no freaking way, we would go back down to 20mpx, period. R6 be rather very specialised camera, like a video or high iso beast, or it once again smells fishy for Canon.

They imo just took 1DXIII sensor, maybe did some small modifications and were done with that. They should not call it R6 in the first place imo, because it will only confuse ppl, as some ppl will regard it being mostly a 6DII replacement, whereas for the first time in history with a successor going down by 6mpx.

So, R6 is either going to be a specialised camera, or Canon just took advantage of already existing tech. In both cases, they imo should skip the "6" assignment.

 

[yeahright]

Because the photosites (a/k/a pixel wells) for a 20 MP FF sensor are a lot larger than the photosites for a 45MP FF sensor?

Relevant for noise performance ist the sensor area and not the individual pixel area. So if you measure the noise in a portion of the image corresponding to a 1 mm x 1 mm area on the sensor, the noise in same-generation sensors will be essentially the same no matter if there are 20000 or 40000 pixels covering that area. You'll always be able to get the same noise performance out of the sensor with higher pixel density by simply downsampling (a process that reduces the number of pixels while increasing the signal to noise ratio).

 

[yeahright]

that's a good theory but it really depends on how many pixels canon samples for a "point". it may not make any difference in practicality. If they only sampled one pixel, that would seem odd, because it would be completely unusable at higher ISO's with random noise.

and if it's by sampling, then the difference between the two is negligible because both pixels are covered by 100% microlenses.

You can't do AF using a single pixel. The principle of phase-AF (as it is done in DPAF as well as in dedicated AF sensors in DSLRs) is to look at how many pixels an out-of-focus contrasty structure (e.g. a line) is shifted when comparing light coming from two sides of the lens. In DPAF that means comparing a small part of the image coming from the left of the lens to that image coming from the right of the lens. But you need a small portion of the image covering multiple pixels to determine the shift between these two for performing AF. A single pixel will not do. That is why e.g. the EOS R claims 5655 AF-points on its 30 MP sensor.

 

[Treyarnon]

Larger pixels give better sensitivity that allows for shorter AF sampling times. That's something Chuck Westfall said more than once.

Are we saying that DPAF is going to have focusing issues when used on sensors with a higher pixel density than 20MP FF?
Does this mean that for higher resolutions, the DSLR (with mirror and phase detect AF) will be superior??
Does the M6 mk2 have problems with focusing speed & accuracy?

 

[-pekr-]

I predicted a few days ago that it would be the 1D X Mark II sensor, which isn't half bad in low light.



The 5D IV sensor may be more expensive to produce than the 1D X II, or maybe they've already got a huge stock of the 1D X II sensors already lying around?

It also takes longer to read out and process the data from a 30+ MP sensor than from a 20 MP sensor.




The only apparent difference between the sensor in the 1D X Mark II and 1D X Mark III is the low pass/anti-aliasing filter in front of it. Maybe they've already got a bunch of the older filters?

Eh, what do you consider actually being a sensor? When e.g. one version might have on-chip ADC and the second one does not? For me, it it the ecosystem of a sensor, ADC, memory interface and cpu to say the least. Hence your statement is imo a big generalisation. My opinion is, that 1DXII and 1DXIII sensors are a complete different technology and even your 30+MP vs 20MP read out speed assumption might not be as easy as you suggest.

 

[Wikzo]

As someone planning to upgrade into fullframe and mirrorless (from T6i), I have a hard time figuring out whether EOS R or EOS R6 is the better option for me.

I don't care about video at all, so it's mostly about picture quality, ergonomics and price.

R5 is probably going to be way out of my budget, so what's the next-best option? Is this correctly understood:

R5 > R > R6 > RP

R:

• Has higher MP count
• Has top-screen
• Has touch bar
• Might have better/bigger build quality than R6?

R6:

• Has IBIS
• Has dual card slots
• Faster fps

I'm a bit new into Canon cameras, so which one do you think is the more "pro" version? And what about pricing? Are they even in the same category?

For me, a good EVF and ergonomics are important. If the R6 has a similar joystick as the R5 (instead of R's touch bar), that would be quite nice. But if the rumored 20MP are correct, it will feel quite strange for me to go from 24MP with my T6i and to 20MP. I know that R6's picture quality is way better, but still, I like to be able to crop in from time to time. The R's 30MP count seems better suited for this.

May can't come soon enough

 

[WelshTony]

I’m sure I am not the only “stills only” photographer who was disappointed with the “press conference” on Monday where the emphasis was the R5’s video capabilities. This has got me thinking whether I should start considering the R6 instead of the expensive R5 (I reckon £4K). However, I am very disappointed if the 20MP rumours are true, that would be a big drop from my 5D IV. Even the 6D Mk II has 26.2 full frame. It seems like a backward step from Canon. Also want to know what AF capabilities will be adopted from the R5 i.e. eye tracking (human and animal), or will the camera be “dumbed” down even more for the target audience it is rumoured to be aimed at?

 

[SecureGSM]

Uneducated buyers? Go and speak just for yourself. There is absolutly no freaking way, we would go back down to 20mpx, period. R6 be rather very specialised camera, like a video or high iso beast, or it once again smells fishy for Canon.

They imo just took 1DXIII sensor, maybe did some small modifications and were done with that. They should not call it R6 in the first place imo, because it will only confuse ppl, as some ppl will regard it being mostly a 6DII replacement, whereas for the first time in history with a successor going down by 6mpx.

So, R6 is either going to be a specialised camera, or Canon just took advantage of already existing tech. In both cases, they imo should skip the "6" assignment.

WE? Who are you referring to? speaking with such an authority... I understand that you are a photographer by trade and not a marketing pro..
You have made no sense from a commercial perspective. You are looking at a "stepping stone", a bridging product targeting market newcomers, phone camera converts and the x-brand ship jumping crowd.

it is not for you and not for me.

 

[jolyonralph]

Well if it isn't the 1DX III sensor, it has to be the 1DX II one, right?

No, it's far more likely to be a new one.

 

[-pekr-]

WE? Who are you referring to? speaking with such an authority... I understand that you are a photographer by trade and not a marketing pro..
You have made no sense from a commercial perspective. You a looking at a "stepping stone", a bridging product targeting market newcomers, phone camera converts and the x-brand ship jumping crowd.

it is not for you and not for me.

Look, it's not my business that some other users might speak for others, but that's not the case this time at least In terms of our studio, there is multiple ppl, hence "WE".

As for the argument itself, I might have it well funded. The single fact, that multiple users are confused about the R6, speaks for itself. If R6 is supposed to be a 6DII successor in a mirrorless form, 20mpx is a wrong message to those wishing to upgrade from 6DII or those wishing for a 5DIV counterpart in a mirrorless form.

And if Canon is trying to create a completly new category, e.g. some video/low-light stills hybrid camera, then the R6 name is wrong too, as it will interfere with a 6D mindset of an entry level FF camera, which it is not going to be, most probably due to guessed price so far.

 

[jolyonralph]

I’m sure I am not the only “stills only” photographer who was disappointed with the “press conference” on Monday where the emphasis was the R5’s video capabilities.

Well, the video was timed to coincide with what would have been the NAB show, so obviously this announcement was going to be a video-focused announcement.

It doesn't mean you can't take photos with it.

Remember, the technology put in the camera to allow 8K raw video recording is EXACTLY THE SAME that's required to make a still camera that shoots high-speed high resolution individual frames. There's no huge additional cost for adding video.

If Canon were to produce a model of the EOS R5 without video support it would cost MORE than it does with the video - because they insides would be virtually identical (they'd save a little money on testing time and maybe one less button) but they would lose one significant chunk of their market so they'd sell fewer and have to price it accordingly.

Every person who buys an R5 for the video functions helps subsidize the cost for those of you who will never use it.

Now, I don't want to hear anyone complain about "unnecessary video functions" again.

 

[Chris.Chapterten]

Well, the video was timed to coincide with what would have been the NAB show, so obviously this announcement was going to be a video-focused announcement.

It doesn't mean you can't take photos with it.

Remember, the technology put in the camera to allow 8K raw video recording is EXACTLY THE SAME that's required to make a still camera that shoots high-speed high resolution individual frames. There's no huge additional cost for adding video.

If Canon were to produce a model of the EOS R5 without video support it would cost MORE than it does with the video - because they insides would be virtually identical (they'd save a little money on testing time and maybe one less button) but they would lose one significant chunk of their market so they'd sell fewer and have to price it accordingly.

Every person who buys an R5 for the video functions helps subsidize the cost for those of you who will never use it.

Now, I don't want to hear anyone complain about "unnecessary video functions" again.

All true, but people will still complain unfortunately