Wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5 appears for certification

x4dow

EOS M50
May 16, 2020
32
34
The dynamic range is a little better on the Sony, but really not by much and with the latest Canon sensor like the 1DX III, the ISO is not better anymore,
dunno where you seeing those figures as last time i checked, some sony APSC cameras beat every single canon full frame on dynamic range. Even the old nikon 7200 beats full frame canons on dynamic range. Also regarding ISO, youre wrong. 7 out of the top8 full frame ISO performers are sony, and 4 out of the top8 have over 40MP, (and one of them is a sony). the one that isnt a sony is the S1R, which is also like 47MP.

That whole "less MP is better for HIGH iso" is mainly a myth based on how cameras VIDEO performance used to line skip on higher MP sensors (like the A7R2/A7II line skips , while the A7S2 and A7III read the whole sensor)
the 2 best performing Canons on DR are the 5div and R with around 13.6 DR, most sonys have 14.5-14.8 stops DR.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
dunno where you seeing those figures as last time i checked, some sony APSC cameras beat every single canon full frame on dynamic range. Even the old nikon 7200 beats full frame canons on dynamic range. Also regarding ISO, youre wrong. 7 out of the top8 full frame ISO performers are sony, and 4 out of the top8 have over 40MP, (and one of them is a sony). the one that isnt a sony is the S1R, which is also like 47MP.

That whole "less MP is better for HIGH iso" is mainly a myth based on how cameras VIDEO performance used to line skip on higher MP sensors (like the A7R2/A7II line skips , while the A7S2 and A7III read the whole sensor)
the 2 best performing Canons on DR are the 5div and R with around 13.6 DR, most sonys have 14.5-14.8 stops DR.
Well that depends on where you get your figures from.

https://www.photonstophotos.net/Cha... III,Nikon D7200,Sony ILCE-6600,Sony ILCE-9M2
 

x4dow

EOS M50
May 16, 2020
32
34
yeah charts that say nikons and sony to have 10 stops dynamic range... plenty of independent tests show results on 14-15 stops, That website makes no sense

Not to mention that scores THE SAME CAMERA 2 stops worse when in crop, when in fact images cropped have the exact same DR, they are just cropped, highlights/shadows dont clip faster by goingcrop
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
yeah charts that say nikons and sony to have 10 stops dynamic range... plenty of independent tests show results on 14-15 stops, That website makes no sense

Not to mention that scores THE SAME CAMERA 2 stops worse when in crop, when in fact images cropped have the exact same DR, they are just cropped, highlights/shadows dont clip faster by goingcrop
You clearly don’t understand what the graphs are or what the measurements are so there is no point in starting all that up again. Suffice to say anybody that thinks they are getting 14-15 stops of dr out of any crop sensor camera is drinking somebody else’s cool aid, enjoy it but it isn’t the truth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Richard Anthony

x4dow

EOS M50
May 16, 2020
32
34
You clearly don’t understand what the graphs are or what the measurements are so there is no point in starting all that up again. Suffice to say anybody that thinks they are getting 14-15 stops of dr out of any crop sensor camera is drinking somebody else’s cool aid, enjoy it but it isn’t the truth.
Sensor size doesnt affect dynamic range.
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
Sensor size doesnt affect dynamic range.
No but if you don’t normalize output then you are not comparing the IQ from different sized sensors, and that is what we actually want to do with cameras. Go back and read the last five or so years threads about this, it really has been done to death.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

Quarkcharmed

EOS R5
Feb 14, 2018
1,241
1,105
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
Sensor size doesnt affect dynamic range.

There's been heated debates on this forum on this matter, and actually it does. But Photostophotos (and DxO btw) use very specific methods of measurements where they normalise the whole image to a certain size viewed from a certain distance, and with their definition of DR - yes, the image size does affect the DR.

Per-pixel DR wouldn't be affected by cropping, but they don't measure the per-pixel DR.

In fact, their measurements only make sense when comparing sensors of the same size and only relative to the same method. I use them for comparison, but absolute DR values don't make much sense. The same applies to DxO metrics.
 

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,430
2,296
No but if you don’t normalize output then you are not comparing the IQ from different sized sensors, and that is what we actually want to do with cameras. Go back and read the last five or so years threads about this, it really has been done to death.

New guy. Probable Sony troll.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

SteveC

R5
CR Pro
Sep 3, 2019
2,430
2,296
  • Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)

This is at least somewhat a non-sequitur. An EF lens with the RF adapter is no worse optically than the EF lens native.

But, you're probably trying to compare the EF lens with an adapter (or for that matter, without one, since the adapter makes no optical difference) to an RF lens.

That of course may make a difference, but it's hard to say whether the RF is inherently optically superior to an EF + adapter, because the lenses themselves aren't identical; the RF lenses tend to be better constructed and designed in the first place (they are newer designs and much more expensive, presumably correlating with optical quality), and it has little to do with the mount. And the adapter itself does NOTHING optically to the lens.

So the adapter isn't the issue here. It won't do anything to make an EF lens optically/performance worse than it would be on an EF mount. If your real objection is that you just don't want to put EF-quality glass on an RF body...that's fine, but I have to wonder why you've been satisfied with EF optics on an EF body otherwise, and again...it's not the adapter's fault.

(Note: I don't address your other reasons, which at least make some degree of sense to me--I personally think you're overblowing the issues there, but that's really a personal judgment call, and you've made your judgment. It's just that this one reason for disliking adapters--a belief that EF+Adapter is optically/technically inferior to the RF--simply makes no sense to me because such is not the fault of the adapter.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

x4dow

EOS M50
May 16, 2020
32
34
New guy. Probable Sony troll.
i was warned though. Canon fanboys cannot accept that their camera is worse at some things than the competition. I though it was BS, but i see that is not. Every brand has them, but obviously canon users are more hardcore. I even seen reviews on youtube with the same ppl that trashed the sony for only having 1 sd card only, suddenly "its not an issue" when the R comes out. Fanboys all the way. I leave you to it.
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
This is at least somewhat a non-sequitur. An EF lens with the RF adapter is no worse optically than the EF lens native.

But, you're probably trying to compare the EF lens with an adapter (or for that matter, without one, since the adapter makes no optical difference) to an RF lens.

That of course may make a difference, but it's hard to say whether the RF is inherently optically superior to an EF + adapter, because the lenses themselves aren't identical; the RF lenses tend to be better constructed and designed in the first place (they are newer designs and much more expensive, presumably correlating with optical quality), and it has little to do with the mount. And the adapter itself does NOTHING optically to the lens.

So the adapter isn't the issue here. It won't do anything to make an EF lens optically/performance worse than it would be on an EF mount. If your real objection is that you just don't want to put EF-quality glass on an RF body...that's fine, but I have to wonder why you've been satisfied with EF optics on an EF body otherwise, and again...it's not the adapter's fault.

(Note: I don't address your other reasons, which at least make some degree of sense to me--I personally think you're overblowing the issues there, but that's really a personal judgment call, and you've made your judgment. It's just that this one reason for disliking adapters--a belief that EF+Adapter is optically/technically inferior to the RF--simply makes no sense to me because such is not the fault of the adapter.)

I am perfectly satisfied with EF optics on an EF mount, in fact I have no interest at all in the RF bodies for photography; the only reason I would get an RF mount body is for its video features which has nothing to do with optics; Canon does not make a single EF mount DSLR body that matches the features I get with the GH5 and if they did I would get that instead.

I was not comparing EF lenses with an adapter to RF lenses without an adapter; my point was Canon has a new RF mount with lenses that so far are proving to be optically superior to their EF equivalents (as it should be), the adapter has nothing to do with it; so if I were to get an RF mount camera I would also get the optically superior RF mount lenses that Canon made for it.

The larger context of the discussion was why I don't use adapted lenses; so my point still stands, adapted EF mount lenses simply by the nature of the fact that they are from a previous generation more than likely will be inferior to a current generation RF mount lens, so by mounting an EF mount lens on an RF mount camera which by the way can only be done with an adapter; you are using a lens that is optically inferior to the RF mount equivalent.
 

vjlex

EOS R5
Oct 15, 2011
414
314
Osaka, Japan
i was warned though. Canon fanboys cannot accept that their camera is worse at some things than the competition. I though it was BS, but i see that is not. Every brand has them, but obviously canon users are more hardcore. I even seen reviews on youtube with the same ppl that trashed the sony for only having 1 sd card only, suddenly "its not an issue" when the R comes out. Fanboys all the way. I leave you to it.
So... you sign up to a Canon rumors site a week ago, to post about how inferior to Sony cameras Canon's bodies are? Canon bodies whose full specs (let alone actual real world use) are not publicly known? And everyone else is the fanboy? Got it...
 

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,487
5,705
i was warned though. Canon fanboys cannot accept that their camera is worse at some things than the competition. I though it was BS, but i see that is not. Every brand has them, but obviously canon users are more hardcore. I even seen reviews on youtube with the same ppl that trashed the sony for only having 1 sd card only, suddenly "its not an issue" when the R comes out. Fanboys all the way. I leave you to it.
If you need two card slots you need two card slots, I have shot professionally since 1978 and never needed them, but I am in the minority here on that issue.

But I posted a link from an independent and highly respected tester who not only methodically lays out his methodology he also says where he gets his RAW files from so others can check his results and question anything he does, meanwhile you post laughably discredited and inaccurate dross with no references at all, that is the real problem you have, credibility.
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
i was warned though. Canon fanboys cannot accept that their camera is worse at some things than the competition. I though it was BS, but i see that is not. Every brand has them, but obviously canon users are more hardcore. I even seen reviews on youtube with the same ppl that trashed the sony for only having 1 sd card only, suddenly "its not an issue" when the R comes out. Fanboys all the way. I leave you to it.

I'm truly curious...why are you on a Canon site? If everything Canon makes is inferior to xyz brand why sign up to a Canon site? Name one constructive thing you've provided to the conversation so far.

I have never signed up to a Nikon site, Sony site, MFT site, or even a Panasonic site (even though I am a big fan of their cameras), want to know why? Because I simply have nothing constructive to say about those brands.

And you are wrong by the way, I have so much Canon gear that many may consider me a "fanboy" if that's the label you want to use; but the reality is I also have a Panasonic GH5 because of Canon's many shortcomings in video. I will be the first to admit Canon has been really disappointing in the video space for the last 5yrs or so and their complete inaction forced me to another brand to meet my video needs.

To me camera bodies are just tools, if I find a tool that meets my needs and gets the job done and the customer is happy then that's the tool I'm going to use. For photography in my book Canon is second to none; I don't care about specs, I care about reliability, ergonomics, accessories, color science, workflow optimization, total system integration (flashes, mounts, triggers, lenses, etc) and Canon has never once failed to deliver for me in these regards for photography. Video on the other hand has been one big disappointment and is why I went with the GH5 for years for my video needs.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,376
1,246
its a better sensor. whatever ergonomics, terrible menus and so on. the final image, its better on the sony, more likely to be taken on time/in focus, better DR/ISO/Colour depth etc. But i understand this is a canon forum and fanboys gonna be offended and start going on about colour science.
Better colour depth. As in 16bit colour on Sony or something?
We have no idea what the sensor used in R5 performance will be like however understand that you somehow have some solid info to share?
 

herein2020

Run | Gun Shooter
Mar 13, 2020
267
364
If you need two card slots you need two card slots, I have shot professionally since 1978 and never needed them, but I am in the minority here on that issue.

I am in the "need two card slots" camp, I didn't even take the EOS R seriously because it only has a single slot. I have only been shooting for 10yrs or so and I have had 3 cards get corrupted after a big shoot and the second card saved me every single time.

What I eventually figured out was that it was a bad card reader (not the cards or the cameras), but after that experience I won't even consider a camera if it does not have two slots. The only exception to that rule for me is with my drones and only because you can't get them with two card slots. I'm so paranoid now that even with the drones I put them in an SD adapter and turn on the write protection while downloading their footage if it's from an important shoot.