The sensor in the upcoming Canon EOS R3 is designed and manufactured by Canon

And PS, it’s gonna cost 6999 euro. As we know from Canon. You’d expect it to be 4999 so Canon will add up a bit to make the price unreal and unfair, as we know Canon policy for years.
What you call "unreal and unfair" is known as Price Skimming, a standard pricing practice of many companies.

 
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
The new Ninja V+ will let the R5 record 8K RAW externally.
Atomos has not given any indication that the R5 will be able to record 4K 120 FPS externally but they have indicated that a few other cameras are able to.
Has the Ninja V+ been released/tested yet? I saw an announcement but not availability and the announcement didn't have details..
The limiting bandwidth is the HDMI 2.0 port in the R5. It can't handle the full 2600mb/s bit rate of the R5's 8K raw or 1300mb/s 8k all-i or 1440mb/s 4K/120. It might handle the raw lite compressed option though this will generate more processor heat due to the compression. Not sure if there is an option for 8 vs 10 bit 4:2:2 either via the HDMI port.

In comparison, the Sony A1's 8k oversampled 4:2:0 bit rate is only 400mb/s so CFe type A cards can handle it and record externally. No true "raw" footage per se compared to Canon's perfectly dimensioned 8k/4k scaling.
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,569
4,109
The Netherlands
Has the Ninja V+ been released/tested yet? I saw an announcement but not availability and the announcement didn't have details..
The limiting bandwidth is the HDMI 2.0 port in the R5. It can't handle the full 2600mb/s bit rate of the R5's 8K raw or 1300mb/s 8k all-i or 1440mb/s 4K/120. It might handle the raw lite compressed option though this will generate more processor heat due to the compression. Not sure if there is an option for 8 vs 10 bit 4:2:2 either via the HDMI port.

In comparison, the Sony A1's 8k oversampled 4:2:0 bit rate is only 400mb/s so CFe type A cards can handle it and record externally. No true "raw" footage per se compared to Canon's perfectly dimensioned 8k/4k scaling.
I haven't seen anything yet nor heard of the Canon firmware needed to make it work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I haven't seen anything yet nor heard of the Canon firmware needed to make it work.
Firmware 1.3 introduced:
"2. Added Low Bitrate recording option, allowing users to shoot smaller file size footage with lower image details. This is very useful for longer recordings that do not require the best possible image quality or when storage space is a concern."
https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-r5-canon-eos-r6-and-canon-eos-1d-x-mark-iii-firmware-released/
I haven't tested it yet though. Happy to hear from others who have used the feature....
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
Yes, in the past, Sony had a definite advantage over Canon when it came to noise. But for today's sensors, you couldn't be more incorrect. Prior to releasing the Canon 5D mark IV, Sony sensors had lower noise than Canon sensors due to their on chip ADC architecture which Canon was slow to move to. Since the change to on-chip ADC, Canon's sensors are essentially equal to Sony's when it comes to noise. So there has been a lot of improvement for Canon in the last 8 years.
There are noise comparison tools and if you for example compare the 1D X and the 1DX Mark III, there are eight years between them and you see some noise improvements, but not a lot. It is definitely much less than one stop in eight years. I would have expected at least two stops of improvement in that time frame. In the eight years before that 1D X, we easily had over two stops of improvement.

Here is a noise comparison tool to play around with:

 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,569
4,109
The Netherlands
Firmware 1.3 introduced:
"2. Added Low Bitrate recording option, allowing users to shoot smaller file size footage with lower image details. This is very useful for longer recordings that do not require the best possible image quality or when storage space is a concern."
https://www.canonrumors.com/canon-eos-r5-canon-eos-r6-and-canon-eos-1d-x-mark-iii-firmware-released/
I haven't tested it yet though. Happy to hear from others who have used the feature....
But the firmware to output some form of 8k to the HDMI port is still missing, unless Canon has been really sneaky and checks for a V+ to be connected to offer the option.
Canon has been know to include features for products years ahead of the launch, just look at new speedlite features that "Just Work" on 'old' cameras.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Does that explain the overheating?
No, the overheating isn't caused by the sensor. It is the processor that generates the "heat" and the insufficient heatsink that causes the "over".
Your are right.
But don't forget the CFexpress card and card slot chip. These two produce the head the camera can't handle for long time. I think the technology is there not ready for such high bitrates.
If you use an external recorder, there are no overheating problems.
The R5 camera outputs video data in HDMI format to the external recorder. I thinkt that reduces the load on the main processor greatly, because it doesn't have to compress that into h.265 format, that is done externally in the recorder. So the problem is the heat off the processor, not off the CFexpress chip or card.

If one looks at the thermal imaging test Roger Cicala did with an R5, it's most definitely the CFe card that is the hottest place in the camera when shooting 8K video and saving it internally.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
If Canon were to base all its cameras on Sony (say) sensors, it would be hard to imagine Canon could do as good a job making cameras around those sensors as Sony could. We'd expect the Canon to be a bit more expensive (due to more expensive troubleshooting with a different company's sensor department), and, probably always second to market with a given sensor.

Funny, Nikon seemed to get more out of the same Sony (fabrication division) sensors than Sony (camera division) did for quite a long time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
Agreed! $4300 seems too low to me but if they undercut the price of both the A1 and A9 I would be very impressed.

This would definitely be the price point where I would 100% pick up the R3 over a second R5. Would be roughly the same price as an R5 + the R5's battery grip, which would be a sweet deal.

Canon prices product in different markets differently. We hear complaints about Europe and Australia paying more than the equivalent exchange rate compared to North American prices.

How much was the R5 and the BG-R10 at introduction in Thailand?
 
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
There are noise comparison tools and if you for example compare the 1D X and the 1DX Mark III, there are eight years between them and you see some noise improvements, but not a lot. It is definitely much less than one stop in eight years. I would have expected at least two stops of improvement in that time frame. In the eight years before that 1D X, we easily had over two stops of improvement.

Here is a noise comparison tool to play around with:


Everyone had more improvement, noise wise, between 2004 and 2012 than they have between 2012 and 2020.

We've been approaching the theoretical limits of the random nature of photon distribution in a light field of given intensity over time (Poisson distribution noise, which is a property of light, not of cameras and sensors) for several years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
There are noise comparison tools and if you for example compare the 1D X and the 1DX Mark III, there are eight years between them and you see some noise improvements, but not a lot. It is definitely much less than one stop in eight years. I would have expected at least two stops of improvement in that time frame. In the eight years before that 1D X, we easily had over two stops of improvement.

Here is a noise comparison tool to play around with:

You would need to break the laws of physics to have a two-stop improvement in noise at the iso12800 in that comparison tool setting! At high isos, the limiting factor in noise is mainly statistical fluctuations in the low number of photons captured (photon shot noise rather than electronic noise) and the signal to noise is given by sqrt(number of photons captured). Modern sensors have been greater than 80% efficient at capturing photons for several years and so there is room for only a tiny improvement, a fraction of a stop, and which is why you have seen only some improvement.

Edit: Michael, your reply was posted while I was writing mine and so sorry to repeat what you said.
 
Upvote 0
Aug 7, 2018
598
549
What about the dark noise at ISO 100? For a long time Canon at a problem with underexposed areas that are pushed a few stops up. Unfortunately that can't be seen in those noise comparison tools. It was really shocking to me how noisy the dark areas get with a 18 megapixel full frame sensor from Canon. I hope at least that has improved somehow.

Also the pink light that was visible in long exposed high ISO shots looked really bad. My idea was to basically use my camera as a night vision tool and to a very long exposure in almost complete darkness. That was no problem at all with analogue cameras, but even with the 1D X the results were not usable.

I more and more come to the conclusion though that I might never need a new camera at all as long as my old one does not break. Noise did not improve much, I really don't need more than 3 fps and for architecture even the worst autofocus works fine. The only thing I like about the new cameras is the IBIS, but for that price I might be able to buy a very good gimbal that even beats IBIS.
 
Upvote 0

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
12,342
22,517
What about the dark noise at ISO 100? For a long time Canon at a problem with underexposed areas that are pushed a few stops up. Unfortunately that can't be seen in those noise comparison tools. It was really shocking to me how noisy the dark areas get with a 18 megapixel full frame sensor from Canon. I hope at least that has improved somehow.

Also the pink light that was visible in long exposed high ISO shots looked really bad. My idea was to basically use my camera as a night vision tool and to a very long exposure in almost complete darkness. That was no problem at all with analogue cameras, but even with the 1D X the results were not usable.

I more and more come to the conclusion though that I might never need a new camera at all as long as my old one does not break. Noise did not improve much, I really don't need more than 3 fps and for architecture even the worst autofocus works fine. The only thing I like about the new cameras is the IBIS, but for that price I might be able to buy a very good gimbal that even beats IBIS.
You complained about the lack of improvemet in noise at high iso, and that's what Michael and I explained to you. You wrote "for example compare the 1D X and the 1DX Mark III, there are eight years between them and you see some noise improvements, but not a lot." In fact, there is a huge improvement at low iso - you can see that in DR vs iso plots (and you can see the improvements using the DPR noise comparison tools if you know how to use them). At iso 100, the 1DXIII is over 2 stops improved and the R5 nearly 3 stops. Improvements at low iso reflect the improvement in circuit noise. The fact that the DR vs iso plots are nearly linear throughout shows there is now little improvement at low iso for the R5 etc.

 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0