# Gordan Laing Review: The Canon EOS R5 for photography



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 4, 2020)

> Gordon Laing from Camera Labs has completed his review of the Canon EOS R5. Instead of reviewing the video performance of the camera, his review focuses on stills photography. The Canon EOS R5 looks to be a great one.
> From the autofocus to the competitive dynamic range, the Canon EOS R5 will likely find its way into a lot of photographers’ bags.



Continue reading...


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 4, 2020)

These reviews always make me want to spend money....

I was convinced the R6 would be the right entry point for me in to the mirrorless realm. But these R5 reviews are tempting. I need to see some more R6 reviews to change my mind back!  Its more financially my speed too.

-Brian


----------



## Mark3794 (Aug 4, 2020)

Rolling shutter "noticeably superior" to the R6. Well that's quite an accomplishment for a 45 mp camera


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 4, 2020)

That's a decent review, although I was surprised with noise comparison made on jpegs. It's basically useless.


----------



## KirkD (Aug 4, 2020)

Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 4, 2020)

KirkD said:


> Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


Yeah it beats even A7rIV, there was a discussion in another thread. There's a caveat though: the low-ISO metrics are coming from images with noise reduction applied. It looks like the R5 does some noise reduction on raw files in camera.


----------



## mrproxy (Aug 4, 2020)

KirkD said:


> Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


Why there is a jump around 400ISO?


----------



## This_That (Aug 4, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's a decent review, although I was surprised with noise comparison made on jpegs. It's basically useless.


Not really IMHO. I'm not interested in the amount of noise, I'm interested what I can get out of low light situations. And while actually seeing less noise in a comparison might be satisfying in some way, knowing that I can have an ISO 12.800 picture processed with no noise visible benefits me more.



mrproxy said:


> Why there is a jump around 400ISO?


I remember hearing that the algorithm changes at ISO 400



Quarkcharmed said:


> ...looks like the R5 does some noise reduction on raw files in camera.


Ehm, it's not RAW any longer then.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 4, 2020)

This_That said:


> Not really IMHO. I'm not interested in the amount of noise, I'm interested what I can get out of low light situations. And while actually seeing less noise in a comparison might be satisfying in some way, knowing that I can have an ISO 12.800 picture processed with no noise visible benefits me more.
> 
> 
> I remember hearing that the algorithm changes at ISO 400



You can apply arbitrary amount of NR on raw files depending on your taste and target image dimensions, so the noise comparison is most valuable if done on raw files before any noise reduction is applied.
Out of camera jpegs have some unknown amount of NR applied in camera, so noise comparison on jpegs actually shows how nice NR algorithms are in different cameras.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 4, 2020)

mrproxy said:


> Why there is a jump around 400ISO?


They think Canon used some kind of dual gain in this sensor and ISO 400 is where it kicks in.

I don't have the camera yet but I downloaded some raw samples and they really look fantastic in the shadows even at ISO 400-800, compared to 5DIV.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 4, 2020)

This_That said:


> Ehm, it's not RAW any longer then.



It may (and most likely is) very moderate amount of NR. Interestingly it's only applied up ISO 640. 

Sony also tamper with the raw files (see star eater effect).

Yes, raw sometimes isn't completely raw but slightly cooked.


----------



## mpmark (Aug 4, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes, raw sometimes isn't completely raw but slightly cooked.



that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok


----------



## mariosk1gr (Aug 4, 2020)

For those who were talking about R5's Dynamic Range...
Now add the specs (top AF, IBIS, 12/20fps, 8k Raw, 4k HQ), RF Glass and the colors Canon provides and then come and tell me that Canon has not the the best hybrid system out there!! Expect a few firmware updates that will extend record times and reduce cooldowns. Im telling this mostly to myself who cancelled the preorder and now I have to wait for sometime...


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok



It's as raw as you can get. Whatever processing the camera may or may not do is a black box to the user. Complaining that CR3 is not "raw" is just semantic masturbation as long as it's not possible to make the camera output anything more raw than what we already get.


----------



## David Hull (Aug 4, 2020)

mrproxy said:


> Why there is a jump around 400ISO?


They switch the gain on the pixels to improve the DR. Sony does this as well.


----------



## dorin (Aug 4, 2020)

Finally something about stills..


----------



## LDS (Aug 4, 2020)

This_That said:


> Ehm, it's not RAW any longer then.



Depends. If the camera can actually have a measure of actual sensor noise and subtract it from the data the image is still RAW, in many ways a better RAW.

Anything not based on real noise measurement but on algorithms trying to detect what is noise and what is not is a different thing.


----------



## This_That (Aug 4, 2020)

Why hasn't anyone mentioned the bulb-timer? That's handy stuff...

Set to Bulb, dial in your calculated exposure time, set self-timer and Bob's your uncle. No crappy IR remotes or cable remotes or mobile phone apps.


----------



## leadin2 (Aug 4, 2020)

dorin said:


> Finally something about stills..


Agree. Yet to read, but I’m more interested in photography than videos. Can’t wait for reviews on R6, though I get a feeling it will be the same as 1dx3?


----------



## degos (Aug 4, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> Complaining that CR3 is not "raw" is just semantic masturbation as long as it's not possible to make the camera output anything more raw than what we already get.



No, the measurebation is on Canon's part for messing with RAW in order to come out better than Sony in NR comparisons.


----------



## oaks (Aug 4, 2020)

I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.


----------



## 1D4 (Aug 4, 2020)

"Oh, and I never experienced any overheating on the R5 when shooting still photos, even during long bursts on a hot day". There you go. Another reviewer who didn't encounter overheating just shooting stills, like the trolls and Sony fanboys would want everyone to believe.


----------



## Deleted member 384473 (Aug 4, 2020)

oaks said:


> I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.


Give it a few months.


----------



## 1D4 (Aug 4, 2020)

oaks said:


> I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.


5D4 launched at $3499. The R5 should be that price in another 6 or so months.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

oaks said:


> I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.



I paid $3700 with no tax.

A 5D4 cost $3500 at launch. Factoring inflation, I paid less for my R5 that I did for my 5D4.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok



That's what Bill Claff says (creator of photonstophotos).





__





Canon EOS Noise Reduction (NR) for Different Drive/Shutter Modes: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## ericjon23 (Aug 4, 2020)

still better than the a7r4 and a7siii combined


----------



## mpmark (Aug 4, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's what Bill Claff says (creator of photonstophotos).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



that has absolutely nothing to do with the claim that a RAW file is not entirely a RAW file, you are confusing things. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 4, 2020)

Raw files are never completely raw. NR is applied to every pixel, and the charge readout is measured and converted to a tiff image file in a CR-2 or CR-3 wrapper. You are not seeing direct charge readings from each half of a sensor pixel.


----------



## nikkito (Aug 4, 2020)

Finally!!!
Still waiting for my pre-ordered camera


----------



## Kane Clements (Aug 4, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> These reviews always make me want to spend money....
> 
> I was convinced the R6 would be the right entry point for me in to the mirrorless realm. But these R5 reviews are tempting. I need to see some more R6 reviews to change my mind back!  Its more financially my speed too.
> 
> -Brian



I was pretty set on the R6. Looking at the comparison images testing IOS in Gordon Laing's review the R6 is somewhere about R and RP. The R5 produced better quality images. To my eyes anyway. I already have an RP so I would be paying for IBIS, eye detect and burst speed.

I think the R5 is a camera that people will keep longer than the R6.


----------



## leadin2 (Aug 4, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> I was pretty set on the R6. Looking at the comparison images testing IOS in Gordon Laing's review the R6 is somewhere about R and RP. The R5 produced better quality images. To my eyes anyway. I already have an RP so I would be paying for IBIS, eye detect and burst speed.
> 
> I think the R5 is a camera that people will keep longer than the R6.


I’m also set on R6 and I thought the image quality looks worse than R or RP in that video. R5 images really look good. Was hoping that R6 was around 20’ish megapixel before the announcement. Having said that, the features introduced in these 2 bodies are really what we are paying for, and they are what we have been waiting for, just a little longer.


----------



## bbasiaga (Aug 4, 2020)

leadin2 said:


> I’m also set on R6 and I thought the image quality looks worse than R or RP in that video. R5 images really look good. Was hoping that R6 was around 20’ish megapixel before the announcement. Having said that, the features introduced in these 2 bodies are really what we are paying for, and they are what we have been waiting for, just a little longer.


I'd be moving up to the R6 from a 5DIII, so there is significant improvement in DR, plus the burst speed and AF improvements and a bunch of video features I will only rarely use. And I'd only be losing 3MP. So it seems like its still a reasonable upgrade. Then maybe I could pick up a used 5DS for resolution. The prices on those are not too bad. I could get them both for just more than an R5....


----------



## Deleted member 384473 (Aug 4, 2020)

ericjon23 said:


> still better than the a7r4 and a7siii combined


For stills photography, without a doubt.


----------



## Deleted member 384473 (Aug 4, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> I'd be moving up to the R6 from a 5DIII, so there is significant improvement in DR, plus the burst speed and AF improvements and a bunch of video features I will only rarely use. And I'd only be losing 3MP. So it seems like its still a reasonable upgrade. Then maybe I could pick up a used 5DS for resolution. The prices on those are not too bad. I could get them both for just more than an R5....


Huge upgrade! The AF on these models is insane. RF glass, if you choose to invest, are fun to use. Hope you enjoy whatever you get!


----------



## deleteme (Aug 4, 2020)

KirkD said:


> Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm


Looks very nice in comparison to Sony and Nikon but in real life I have not seen a struggle with the DR of my R or mkIV.


----------



## deleteme (Aug 4, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> That's a decent review, although I was surprised with noise comparison made on jpegs. It's basically useless.


The real issue on noise at high ISOs is that fact of underexposure of the subject basically because the light is crap. 
I have shot noise free 3200 ISO images in good light and have noisy 200 ISO files that need a lot of shadow lifting.
Th NR that seems to be going on makes the demo pointless. I can also add NR in post.


----------



## quilatoo (Aug 4, 2020)

The perfect hit-rate at both 12fps and 20fps with AI Servo is genuinely amazing. Older and third party lenses hitting 8fps (saw another video suggesting they were actually getting 9-10fps from a 70-200 II) isn't as much of a concern if it can also guarantee 99% of shots still being in focus.



Bert63 said:


> I paid $3700 with no tax.
> 
> A 5D4 cost $3500 at launch. Factoring inflation, I paid less for my R5 that I did for my 5D4.


Read you loud and clear: wait until it's readily available for at least 5% off of the RRP.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

ericjon23 said:


> still better than the a7r4 and a7siii combined


you mean in terms of heat production?  that is for sure


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

degos said:


> No, the measurebation is on Canon's part for messing with RAW in order to come out better than Sony in NR comparisons.



You are assuming Sony does not do that. There is suspicion that Sony does the same. I am not denying the superiority of Sony sensors over Canon sensors in terms of dynamic range and noise performance (Except R5 which seems to be better than Sony) but whether Sony does NR or any kind of correction to their RAW file or not is an unknown. We can debate all day whether they do or don't and if they do is that true RAW or not.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

Yes, R5 sounds like a great stills camera, given the competition is that worth $3900? Not to me at least. Will wait for the price to drop below $3k mark.


----------



## chrisgibbs (Aug 4, 2020)

Gordon produces excellent reviews and the kind of analysis we can trust, there's no bias, or omission from his reports. #youcantakeittothebank


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

mariosk1gr said:


> For those who were talking about R5's Dynamic Range...
> Now add the specs (top AF, IBIS, 12/20fps, 8k Raw, 4k HQ), RF Glass and the colors Canon provides and then come and tell me that Canon has not the the best hybrid system out there!! Expect a few firmware updates that will extend record times and reduce cooldowns. Im telling this mostly to myself who cancelled the preorder and now I have to wait for sometime...



Except if you shoot 8k Raw or 4k HQ for 20 to 30 mins you need to forget the camera for next 2 hours and that is definitely sounds like the best hybrid camera at the $3900 price tag


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

1D4 said:


> "Oh, and I never experienced any overheating on the R5 when shooting still photos, even during long bursts on a hot day". There you go. Another reviewer who didn't encounter overheating just shooting stills, like the trolls and Sony fanboys would want everyone to believe.



So far I have not heard anyone saying the R5 overheated just shooting stills Vs I heard even if you mix 8k video and stills it overheats. Sure anyone points out the shortcoming of Canon are trolls and Sony fan boys. Keep that narrative going


----------



## marioslrzn (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Except if you shoot 8k Raw or 4k HQ for 20 to 30 mins you need to leave the camera for 2 hours you need to forget the camera for next 2 hours and that is definitely sounds like the best hybrid camera at the $3900 price tag


That would apply to every camera that shoots 8k, 4k120fps, or 4k60fps,,,,oh wait there’s none so your point is mute since it can do anything every camera out there without overheating, plus the added high bit rates


----------



## chrisgibbs (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> You are assuming Sony does not do that. There is suspicion that Sony does the same. I am not denying the superiority of Sony sensors over Canon sensors in terms of dynamic range and noise performance (Except R5 which seems to be better than Sony) but whether Sony does NR or any kind of correction to their RAW file or not is an unknown. We can debate all day whether they do or don't and if they do is that true RAW or not.



Until we can run those R5 RAW's through the image editor *of our choice* we really have no idea of its quality *for our usage.* BUT, looking to Gordon's review, the R5 looks like a monumental upgrade to my old 5D's. Colour me impressed by the R5-- as a photography tool.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

marioslrzn said:


> That would apply to every camera that shoots 8k, 4k120fps, or 4k60fps,,,,oh wait there’s none so your point is mute since it can do anything every camera out there without overheating, plus the added high bit rates



Unles you are living under a rcok by this time you know there is a7s3 and the Pansonics that does not over heat with 4k60. Each have their short comings. My reply is to your point because it has 8k, 4k120fps it is great hybrid camera. No it is not, if you use those modes either you have to buy 6 cameras to continue the shoot without interruption or you need to stop and wait for hours before you can use the camera again. Noone asked for 8k. Canon foolishly tried to pull 8k purely for marketing stunt and lost again on 4k too.


----------



## cornieleous (Aug 4, 2020)

mpmark said:


> that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok


How does it make zero sense? RAW is the sensor data untouched, unless the manufacturer decides to touch it with some processing like NR or pixel shift, etc. This is not the first camera to do that. Long exposure noise reduction has been applied to RAW across brands for a long time. It is as close to the RAW sensor information as you will get. RAW just means you are getting close enough to the original pixel readout that you can customize the final look and preserve as much detail as as possible. There isn't some rule of physics broken here if the manufacturer decides that some sensor data needs to be processed in some way prior to storing as a RAW.


----------



## cornieleous (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Unles you are living under a rcok by this time you know there is a7s3 and the Pansonics that does not over heat with 4k60. Each have their short comings. My reply is to your point because it has 8k, 4k120fps it is great hybrid camera. No it is not, if you use those modes either you have to buy 6 cameras to continue the shoot without interruption or you need to stop and wait for hours before you can use the camera again. Noone asked for 8k. Canon foolishly tried to pull 8k purely for marketing stunt and lost again on 4k too.


Just. One. Thread. 

Can we have just ONE without all this endless droning about the known VIDEO limitations.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

chrisgibbs said:


> Until we can run those R5 RAW's through the image editor *of our choice* we really have no idea of its quality *for our usage.* BUT, looking to Gordon's review, the R5 looks like a monumental upgrade to my old 5D's. Colour me impressed by the R5-- as a photography tool.



Agreed the R5 is definitely a great upgrade from any older 5 series camera in terms of stills. But for a stills camera given the competition it is way over priced.


----------



## cornieleous (Aug 4, 2020)

oaks said:


> I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.


5D4 was 3499 at launch. Add 4 years and some inflation, and way more advanced STILLS technology.


----------



## cornieleous (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Except if you shoot 8k Raw or 4k HQ for 20 to 30 mins you need to forget the camera for next 2 hours and that is definitely sounds like the best hybrid camera at the $3900 price tag



For VIDEO ONLY. You can immediately shoot 4K30 and stills all day the second after an overheat. When the Sony overheats, it is a brick for however many minutes it takes to cool. No stills. No video of any kind. Is that the best hybrid? Are its 12MP stills inspiring?

Enough already. The video limits have been beat to death. Can we not have yet another thread of people who do not even own this camera whining?

These are, from all brands, great cameras each built for a purpose. Only you broken record parrots cannot move on from complaining endlessly over the same ground. The R5 is a great camera and well worth the price for anyone shooting a 5D4- it is 4000 more than the 5D4 launched for and has IBIS, incredible focus, higher MP, great new lenses, a nice EVF, plus incredible quality video with some limitations. Even overheated, it can replace my Sony NXCAM professional video camera because the full frame basic 4k30 is as good or better, especially in low light.


----------



## chrisgibbs (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Agreed the R5 is definitely a great upgrade from any older 5 series camera in terms of stills. But for a stills camera given the competition it is way over priced.



Full disclosure, I've been waiting for a while for the R5, as a former 5D shooter. Been Sony A7R for some 7 years, just for the EVF and the early video functionality.

I was more than a little perturbed by the R5's overheating in video mode, but, *if the R5 is this good shooting stills* and handles like the old 5D, and is as responsive as the 5D, I could live with the video limitations (I'd buy a camcorder [again] for my *long-form recordings* at music gigs).

With SONY and the A7Slll, its the polar opposite, its a limited, weaker/occasional photography camera. But is it better for my long-form videography than a camcorder, probably not.....

In a lot of ways, the R5 makes more sense when we are being objective from a photographers perspective. I for one shoot a lot of video, but only at a couple of events, and to be completely candid, a proper camcorder, one with a decent zoom lens is always more useful. Those events are both outdoors in 90 degree heat and humidity, a camcorder **just works* with zero issues here.*

So for me, the choice isn't that black & white, either way, SONY OR CANON, neither camera does it all.


----------



## 1D4 (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> So far I have not heard anyone saying the R5 overheated just shooting stills Vs I heard even if you mix 8k video and stills it overheats. Sure anyone points out the shortcoming of Canon are trolls and Sony fan boys. Keep that narrative going


LOL, then you haven't read many threads here or elsewhere on the internet. Lots of people have been whining about reports of overheating just from stills. And they all tie back to two incidents, one of which wasn't even an incident. There is a difference between pointing out shortcomings and blatantly making up false narratives, which is what the trolls have been doing.


----------



## WriteLight (Aug 4, 2020)

Well, we made it to page 2 on this one before the trolls came out. Smashing that ignore button pretty hard lately.


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 4, 2020)

for some the overheating is a big deal, but I think a lot of it is their own expectations, maybe with a bit of the marketing team to blame. I was frustrated with several of the previous releases as they got close to what I wanted, but not close enough and the competition was ahead. 

This time I think Canon has basically done a good job, but unfortunately some folks really wanted the video end to be more than it is. This is a trade off and in my case I'm ok with it but others are not. For me the weather sealing is very important, but likely contributes to the heat retention frustrating other folks. I imagine Canon will see an opportunity and offer some variants or other models with better cooling, but less weather sealing. To be seen.

What I do find funny is that they're complaining here, where it's clearly a subject about stills and not video.. it's a fantastic stills camera that is capable of very good, but short video.


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 4, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> It's as raw as you can get. Whatever processing the camera may or may not do is a black box to the user. Complaining that CR3 is not "raw" is just semantic masturbation as long as it's not possible to make the camera output anything more raw than what we already get.


You mean shooting in a nudist colony would not be more RAW?  Sorry, could not help myself.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Yes, R5 sounds like a great stills camera, given the competition is that worth $3900? Not to me at least. Will wait for the price to drop below $3k mark.



You will have a long wait. If the 5D4 is any indication you're looking at years.

5D4 debuted @ $3500. In today's dollars that's $3750. I paid $3700 out the door.

It's a bargain.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

cornieleous said:


> Can we not have yet another thread of people who do not even own this camera whining?



Evidently not. Sign of the times. Whining and victims everywhere. If there were a way for people to have an online protest with virtual looting I think we'd be there already.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

cornieleous said:


> 5D4 was 3499 at launch. Add 4 years and some inflation, and way more advanced STILLS technology.




Been saying this for days. People don't math. Complain yes. Math no.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

oaks said:


> I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.



5D4 launched at $3500. That's $3750 today. Given the advancement the R5 has over the 5D4 I'd say it's a steal.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 4, 2020)

What a nice measured review, and far more informative than the histrionics of the unmentionables.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> What a nice measured review, and far more informative than the histrionics of the unmentionables.




I agree - I enjoyed it and he stayed on subject without getting bogged down in the hysteria of the masses.


----------



## woodman411 (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Except if you shoot 8k Raw or 4k HQ for 20 to 30 mins you need to forget the camera for next 2 hours and that is definitely sounds like the best hybrid camera at the $3900 price tag



Please make it stop (moderators?). I don't when DPReview users started posting here en masse, the same group of users, the same anti-R5/anti-Canon rhetoric, with no clue of perspective. It is ruining these forums, crowding out legit criticism from real photographers and R5 users.


----------



## quilatoo (Aug 4, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 5D4 launched at $3500. That's $3750 today. Given the advancement the R5 has over the 5D4 I'd say it's a steal.


Surely you'd expect those advancements as a minimum anyway, rather than a 5D IV re-released at a higher cost because it's 2020? A better comparison might even be the R ($2,299 on release) come to think of it, since that really was a repackaged 5D IV. Is the R5 worth the 70% increase in cost to that due to IBIS, great AF, better ISO performance, better frame rate, better 4K, better resolution etc.? Many may well say yes, that's naturally a lot of improvements over something released less than two years ago but it's still fair to have the ticket price stop you in your tracks.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Been saying this for days. People don't math. Complain yes. Math no.



People like you are the ones who cannot do math not the ones who is calling the R5 overpriced. Compare this with price of EOS R which is basically the mirroless 5D4, then look at competition. The main justification for the price of this camera is the video specs which turned out to be BS so do your math now. If you still cannot do the math I very well understand you.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

quilatoo said:


> Surely you'd expect those advancements as a minimum anyway, rather than a 5D IV re-released at a higher cost because it's 2020? A better comparison might even be the R ($2,299 on release) come to think of it, since that really was a repackaged 5D IV. Is the R5 worth the 70% increase in cost to that due to IBIS, great AF, better ISO performance, better frame rate, better 4K, better resolution etc.? Many may well say yes, that's naturally a lot of improvements over something released less than two years ago but it's still fair to have the ticket price stop you in your tracks.



The EOS-R, aside from the sensor, is not a 5D4 replacement in any regard in my book and I own both cameras. It's a nice camera but it's no 5D4, and the 5D4 is no R5.

If you're asking me if the R5 @ $3700 is worth $1700 more than the R my answer is absolutely. Ditto if you had to pay $3899 retail. If you're asking me if the R5 is worth the same money as the 5D4 at launch my answer is absolutely and without hesitation.

I bought the 5D4 at launch and wasn't "stopped in my tracks" by the price nor was I "stopped in my tracks" to pay the same money for a drastically improved camera four years later.

If people just "can't afford it" I can understand that, but I don't agree with the idea that the camera is overpriced. Even if you remove all the video features you're paying 5D4 money for a camera that outperforms it in every single way.

It isn't "at a higher cost..." Given inflation it's roughly the same price, and it's a bargain considering there isn't a camera that comes close to its feature set and execution at any price.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

cornieleous said:


> Just. One. Thread.
> 
> Can we have just ONE without all this endless droning about the known VIDEO limitations.



If you follow the thread I responded to a Canon fanboy who said R5 with it's great video features like 8k RAW and 4k HQ is the best hybrid camera ever. I am simply saying it is not. I do not shoot that much video and I do not need 8k at all. Sharp 4k60 without overheating would be good enough. I am one among those made fun of Sony for overheating. To me it does not matter Canon, Nikon or Sony. I need a product that works as it should not just some marketing non sense and demand high $. I will give credit for Canon for being honest enough to put the information upfront. Sony never did that. That does not mean only Canon fanboys get to talk and anyone who not a fanboy of any company have to shut up.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 4, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> People like you are the ones who cannot do math not the ones who is calling the R5 overpriced. Compare this with price of EOS R which is basically the mirroless 5D4, then look at competition. The main justification for the price of this camera is the video specs which turned out to be BS so do your math now. If you still cannot do the math I very well understand you.



Do you really speak to people like this in real life? Really?

Do you own the 5D4 and the EOS-R? I'm guessing no. I own both and I can tell you that the EOS-R, aside from the shared sensor, lags the 5D4 in almost every parameter. The autofocus does not compare. The FPS does not compare. The weather sealing and construction do not compare. I could go on but given your post history in this thread I'd have more luck talking to a real golden husky than trying to have a legitimate conversation with you.

If you truly believe that the EOS-R is a 5D4 replacement then that says more about you than it does about the value of the R5. I'll leave it at that.

Keep your next round of insults and trash talk to yourself please.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 4, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> You will have a long wait. If the 5D4 is any indication you're looking at years.
> 
> 5D4 debuted @ $3500. In today's dollars that's $3750. I paid $3700 out the door.
> 
> It's a bargain.



No I don't think so. Given the economic climate, unless Canon choose to artificially hold the price like they did for 5DsR this will be under $3k mark by 2021 thanksgiving (if it can hold that long). That may not be the advertised price but if you know where to get and I am not even talking grey market.


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 5, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Do you really speak to people like this in real life? Really?
> 
> Do you own the 5D4 and the EOS-R? I'm guessing no. I own both and I can tell you that the EOS-R, aside from the shared sensor, lags the 5D4 in almost every parameter. The autofocus does not compare. The FPS does not compare. The weather sealing and construction do not compare. I could go on but given your post history in this thread I'd have more luck talking to a real golden husky than trying to have a legitimate conversation with you.
> 
> ...



Yes I had 5D4 and EOS R. I sold them both. I sold the EOS R to buy the R5 only to be disappointed. If you keep it to yourself and I don't have to come in your way.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 5, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Yes I had 5D4 and EOS R. I sold them both. I sold the EOS R to buy the R5 only to be disappointed. If you keep it to yourself and I don't have to come in your way.



You had the 5D4 and EOS-R side by side and actually believe that the EOS-R was a suitable replacement for the 5D4?

Wow. Say no more. We obviously exist in different worlds.

Next time you "come in my way" please remember to bring your reality clue with you or don't bother.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 5, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> No I don't think so. Given the economic climate, unless Canon choose to artificially hold the price like they did for 5DsR this will be under $3k mark by 2021 thanksgiving (if it can hold that long). That may not be the advertised price but if you know where to get and I am not even talking grey market.



Economic climate?

How much has the 1Dx III dropped since launch?

If you "know where to get:" why are you complaining about the retail ask for the R5? I'm nobody and I got mine for $3700 out the door.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 5, 2020)

mpmark said:


> that makes zero sense, a raw file is not completely raw? sure, ok



This has been discussed a little over the years and hopefully you'll get an answer from more technically-minded people but the short answer is it's not as simple as 'raw=no processing'. The data coming from the sensor has to be preprocessed to produce a raw image. However, I gather from discussions on astrophotography that NR being applied to the raw files will be unpopular with some; it can obscure very faint data and lead to artifacts down the line when stacking multiple exposures.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 5, 2020)

oaks said:


> I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.



So it has a higher resolution sensor, IBIS, a better AF system, and faster frame rate than the 5D4, for which it is essentially the replacement, and you think they should charge _less_ than the release price of that camera? Justify it to yourself however you like, you're just being cheap.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 5, 2020)

scyrene said:


> So it has a higher resolution sensor, IBIS, a better AF system, and faster frame rate than the 5D4, for which it is essentially the replacement, and you think they should charge _less_ than the release price of that camera? Justify it to yourself however you like, you're just being cheap.



Clearly Sony isn't paying its trolls enough, if they have to be this cheap.


----------



## reefroamer (Aug 5, 2020)

So, if not the R5, what IS the best hybrid camera for +/- $4,000? They all seem to tilt one way or another, stills or video. I imagine the answer to this varies according to what is most important to each of us. So it’s good to have choices.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 5, 2020)

reefroamer said:


> So, if not the R5, what IS the best hybrid camera for +/- $4,000? They all seem to tilt one way or another, stills or video. I imagine the answer to this varies according to what is most important to each of us. So it’s good to have choices.



Personally I think it is the R5 but I'm a 95/5 stills shooter. Everyone has such different needs and ideas of what 'best' means that I don't think you can point at one and say 'that's the one' anymore.

For my taste the R5 is closer than anything else.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 5, 2020)

scyrene said:


> This has been discussed a little over the years and hopefully you'll get an answer from more technically-minded people but the short answer is it's not as simple as 'raw=no processing'. The data coming from the sensor has to be preprocessed to produce a raw image. However, I gather from discussions on astrophotography that NR being applied to the raw files will be unpopular with some; it can obscure very faint data and lead to artifacts down the line when stacking multiple exposures.



Normally it's not really pre-processing but formatting - the data need to be arranged, potentially compressed, headers & meta-data added etc. Raw comes even without de-bayering. The viewing/editing software will know how to interpret the raw data through the metadata. Still we can call it 'unprocessed raw'.

Noise reduction is not expected to be done on raw files.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 5, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Raw files are never completely raw. NR is applied to every pixel, and the charge readout is measured and converted to a tiff image file in a CR-2 or CR-3 wrapper. You are not seeing direct charge readings from each half of a sensor pixel.



NR is not normally expected to be applied in raw files. And no, PTP conclusion was that there was correlation between all neighbour pixels, not just left-right.
Check this thread till the end: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4509197


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Aug 5, 2020)

It is a review of the Canon R5 but at the same time make me feel I bet on the wrong horse by pre-ordering the R6. I have real difficulty to believe that the R6 compares to the rp in terms of quality of image. The pixels are bigger. Can you explain more? In the video presented here it did not convince me of that.


----------



## AccipiterQ (Aug 5, 2020)

KirkD said:


> Here's a chart showing the dynamic range compared to other cameras. The R5 is excellent. https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm



WOW it's right there with the A7r IV, A9, etc.....thanks!


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 5, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Yes I had 5D4 and EOS R. I sold them both. I sold the EOS R to buy the R5 only to be disappointed.


I have come from 7D/5Diii/5Div and now R5 and I am really impressed with the improvements. Yes, it is expensive to some - and even to me as the first time that I have pre-ordered. I (and my wife/family) are happy with what Canon delivered and the specifications and limitations they published. I am only one satisfied customer and lucky in some ways to even get my hands on it in the initial batch. 
I can appreciate that you could be disappointed with the R5 but there are lots of people still waiting for theirs if you want to return it. No one camera can do it all. Get the best camera(s) that meet your individual needs.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I have come from 7D/5Diii/5Div and now R5 and I am really impressed with the improvements. Yes, it is expensive to some - and even to me as the first time that I have pre-ordered. I (and my wife/family) are happy with what Canon delivered and the specifications and limitations they published. I am only one satisfied customer and lucky in some ways to even get my hands on it in the initial batch.
> I can appreciate that you could be disappointed with the R5 but there are lots of people still waiting for theirs if you want to return it. No one camera can do it all. Get the best camera(s) that meet your individual needs.



Congrats on the R5! Mine is due to arrive any day now and getting excited.

How are you liking the improved high ISO performance compared to the Mark IV? Is it a noticeable difference in real world use?


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 5, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Congrats on the R5! Mine is due to arrive any day now and getting excited.
> 
> How are you liking the improved high ISO performance compared to the Mark IV? Is it a noticeable difference in real world use?


I haven't done any pixel peeping on astro shots but I certainly will be. 
That said, the simplicity of eye AF at ISO12800 @5m away (@20mm focal length) was amazing. Airdropping a SOOC jpeg to my wife earned kudos from my wife. Pleasing skin tones and no apparent banding is a thumbs up from me.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 5, 2020)

David - Sydney said:


> I haven't done any pixel peeping on astro shots but I certainly will be.
> That said, the simplicity of eye AF at ISO12800 @5m away (@20mm focal length) was amazing. Airdropping a SOOC jpeg to my wife earned kudos from my wife. Pleasing skin tones and no apparent banding is a thumbs up from me.


The AF sounds incredible. Good news about the skin tones too. I actually really like the skin tones on the 5D IV, has it improved or stayed about the same?


----------



## quilatoo (Aug 5, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Use the ignore feature - aka idiot
> 
> 
> The EOS-R, aside from the sensor, is not a 5D4 replacement in any regard in my book and I own both cameras. It's a nice camera but it's no 5D4, and the 5D4 is no R5.
> ...


It's not about it being something I can't afford it's purely a question of whether it's worth the extra in the current market. I also have to consider the fact that it's £4,200 in the UK, which is a decent whack above the launch price of the 5D IV, even taking inflation into account.

Compared even to the £2,500 R6, which has many of the same improvements I mentioned the R5 has over the 5D IV, I have to question what exactly I would be getting for spending £1,700 more: much greater resolution and high end video specs. £1,700 could net me... well not one of the higher end RF lenses but at least the 24-105 f4 and 85 f2.

There's a difference between paying for features I know I won't use (that others might) and paying for features that aren't useful anyway. The latter is always going to feel like more of a rip off than the former.

I want all those juicy megapixels and will stump up the money eventually but I don't want to feel like I'm also paying extra for a developmental misstep.


----------



## David - Sydney (Aug 5, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> The AF sounds incredible. Good news about the skin tones too. I actually really like the skin tones on the 5D IV, has it improved or stayed about the same?


I didn't have any complaints with the 5Div but I wasn't taking portraits at ISO12800 to compare


----------



## degos (Aug 5, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> It isn't "at a higher cost..." Given inflation it's roughly the same price, and it's a bargain considering there isn't a camera that comes close to its feature set and execution at any price.



Has your income gone up by inflation over the same period? For most people the answer is no.


----------



## Firillu (Aug 5, 2020)

In my ideal word there would be the Canon EOS RP5P, with P standing for photography and will be stripped of all video capability. It will significantly cheaper.

I just hate buying a camera like this, knowing I am paying a lot of money for its video component, which I will never use. I have a 5DIV which is great but at some point have to get an RP, and the the best upgrade.


----------



## tron (Aug 5, 2020)

It seems that R5 is excellent for my needs (stills only) maybe for birding* but mostly for low light interior shooting in combination with the IS 2.8 RF zooms or for astro….. Now when is BlackFriday … 2021 or … 2022 ... 

EDIT:
*Add a NIKON F (at least for E series) to Canon EOS RF converter and birding is covered too


----------



## Fran Decatta (Aug 5, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> Rolling shutter "noticeably superior" to the R6. Well that's quite an accomplishment for a 45 mp camera



Would love to see a comparison between those two cameras shotting with silent mode and see those differences. Im sure that I will use the R6, but, working mainly in weddings, I hope this rolling shutter doesn't make the pictures unusable if there's any movement.


----------



## Deleted member 378664 (Aug 5, 2020)

Firillu said:


> In my ideal word there would be the Canon EOS RP5P, with P standing for photography and will be stripped of all video capability. It will significantly cheaper.
> 
> I just hate buying a camera like this, knowing I am paying a lot of money for its video component, which I will never use. I have a 5DIV which is great but at some point have to get an RP, and the the best upgrade.


It is already cheaper. Video components on this level don't make the camera significantly more expensive.
Imagine what this camera would cost if the video component would be implemented such that there won't be an overheating limit.

Frank


----------



## londonxt (Aug 5, 2020)

Photography? Staring at a still frame for 10 minutes, No microphone required? What is this witchcraft


----------



## londonxt (Aug 5, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Unles you are living under a rcok by this time you know there is a7s3 and the Pansonics that does not over heat with 4k60. Each have their short comings. My reply is to your point because it has 8k, 4k120fps it is great hybrid camera. No it is not, if you use those modes either you have to buy 6 cameras to continue the shoot without interruption or you need to stop and wait for hours before you can use the camera again. Noone asked for 8k. Canon foolishly tried to pull 8k purely for marketing stunt and lost again on 4k too.



Gawd give it a break. Read the title of this thread. You are spamming.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 5, 2020)

degos said:


> Has your income gone up by inflation over the same period? For most people the answer is no.



Good thing it didn’t go up much then. $200 over four years.


----------



## tron (Aug 5, 2020)

quilatoo said:


> It's not about it being something I can't afford it's purely a question of whether it's worth the extra in the current market. I also have to consider the fact that it's £4,200 in the UK, which is a decent whack above the launch price of the 5D IV, even taking inflation into account.
> 
> Compared even to the £2,500 R6, which has many of the same improvements I mentioned the R5 has over the 5D IV, I have to question what exactly I would be getting for spending £1,700 more: much greater resolution and high end video specs. £1,700 could net me... well not one of the higher end RF lenses but at least the 24-105 f4 and 85 f2.
> 
> ...


Well actually that amount and actually 50 and 100 pounds less was the price I paid for RF15-35 and RF24-70 respectively (or vice versa sorry!) from a very reputable UK based grey importer back in January!


----------



## Fast351 (Aug 5, 2020)

vrpanorama.ca said:


> It is a review of the Canon R5 but at the same time make me feel I bet on the wrong horse by pre-ordering the R6. I have real difficulty to believe that the R6 compares to the rp in terms of quality of image. The pixels are bigger. Can you explain more? In the video presented here it did not convince me of that.



I preordered the R6 as well. If you're talking pixel count it may be similar to the RP, but I have my doubts that the repurposed 1DX3 sensor and the RP sensor are even in the same league IQ wise. As a matter of fact, looking at DPreviews studio test setup comparison, it shows the RP significantly worse:


----------



## mpmark (Aug 6, 2020)

cornieleous said:


> How does it make zero sense? RAW is the sensor data untouched, unless the manufacturer decides to touch it with some processing like NR or pixel shift, etc. This is not the first camera to do that. Long exposure noise reduction has been applied to RAW across brands for a long time. It is as close to the RAW sensor information as you will get. RAW just means you are getting close enough to the original pixel readout that you can customize the final look and preserve as much detail as as possible. There isn't some rule of physics broken here if the manufacturer decides that some sensor data needs to be processed in some way prior to storing as a RAW.



exactly what I am saying, its still a RAW file, the comment "its not completely raw" that I was responding too is whats laughable.


----------



## vrpanorama.ca (Aug 6, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> I preordered the R6 as well. If you're talking pixel count it may be similar to the RP, but I have my doubts that the repurposed 1DX3 sensor and the RP sensor are even in the same league IQ wise. As a matter of fact, looking at DPreviews studio test setup comparison, it shows the RP significantly worse:
> 
> View attachment 191890


Thanks for this, I consider the R6 in my bubble the true successor of the original canon 6D for the pixel quality


----------



## SteveC (Aug 6, 2020)

mpmark said:


> exactly what I am saying, its still a RAW file, the comment "its not completely raw" that I was responding too is whats laughable.



It's blood rare then.


----------



## Joules (Aug 7, 2020)

oaks said:


> I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.


Here's a thought I haven't seen mentioned yet:

How much does replacing a shutter cost? Because at thr insane rating of 500,000 actuations, you'll likely never pay for it with an R5.

I just find it interesting how the costs get blamed to video functions when clearly the R5 is just such an impressive camera with regards to all aspects of stills.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 7, 2020)

mpmark said:


> exactly what I am saying, its still a RAW file, the comment "its not completely raw" that I was responding too is whats laughable.


it's still a RAW file from a format perspective with *an unknown amount of post processing* (noise reduction) applied to it. so RAW vs Cooked RAW.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Aug 7, 2020)

oaks said:


> I believe the $3899 price reflects the 8k and 4k 120 video features. Both of these have turned out to be a failure in the eyes of videographers as far as I can tell. Canons only hope is that photographers, like myself, will buy the camera to replace there 5D mk4's. I feel the camera should be price more around $3299 like the 5D mk4 was.



Nah the camera is priced where it is due it basically being the flagship until the R1 comes out. Once you price it up with a network grip it is way up there in 1-series pricing and it's AF is arguably better. Ether Canon are moving the 1-series even further up market or they are gonna drop the R5 a bit when the R1 comes out.


----------



## koenkooi (Aug 7, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> it's still a RAW file from a format perspective with *an unknown amount of post processing* (noise reduction) applied to it. so RAW vs Cooked RAW.



There are a few threads on dpreview where people are analyzing the RAW files to find out what Canon is actually doing and it seems to be incredibly subtle. It might not even be NR as we know it, but an optimization in the readout that causes a stronger correlation between neighbouring pixels.
But something new is going on, I'm undecided on what to think of it. This version seems subtle, but Canon could crank it up to 11 on the R50 or M7.






Some Technical Details on the Canon EOS R5 Low ISO Noise Reduction: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com









R5 Low ISO Noise Reduction (cont.): Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 7, 2020)

still think this is the best of the initial reviews. And for a camera that 'has serious video issues'.. can't find one to buy anywhere.. heck several local shops won't list it anymore on their websites (guess the ETA is too unknown).


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 7, 2020)

goldenhusky said:


> Yes, R5 sounds like a great stills camera, given the competition is that worth $3900? Not to me at least. Will wait for the price to drop below $3k mark.



That is a fair statement.. to you it isn't worth that, so don't buy it  .. I need inventory to go up! Everyone has different needs, you seem to need video more.

For me, I've saved the $ for it and I think it's totally worth it for what I do. I occasionally will do video, but weather sealing, robustness are oth likely the cause of the over heating, but essential for how I treat my cameras. In addition the ease of use, a high FPS, backward compatible lenses with a cheap adapter, excellent low light, IBIS and an autofocus that's fantastic.. I'm sold.

Photography is my focus and I tend to be all over with it, this is a great all rounder from a photography point of view and some video.

I also know canon over time tends to smooth out some of the initial roughness, so wouldn't surprise me to see some features improve later. They're still getting their feet wet with mirrorless RP and R were very lukewarm entries and I didn't bite, but this.. this hits everything I want so far.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> The EOS-R, aside from the sensor, is not a 5D4 replacement in any regard in my book and I own both cameras. It's a nice camera but it's no 5D4, and the 5D4 is no R5.
> 
> If you're asking me if the R5 @ $3700 is worth $1700 more than the R my answer is absolutely. Ditto if you had to pay $3899 retail. If you're asking me if the R5 is worth the same money as the 5D4 at launch my answer is absolutely and without hesitation.
> 
> ...


I agree 100% on the pricing but I don't understand why you say _"It's a nice camera but it's no 5D4, and the 5D4 is no R5."_ Could you elaborate a bit from your perspective because never having owned a 5 series and looking to get a R5 I am interested in where you see the distinctions.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I agree 100% on the pricing but I don't understand why you say _"It's a nice camera but it's no 5D4, and the 5D4 is no R5."_ Could you elaborate a bit from your perspective because never having owned a 5 series and looking to get a R5 I am interested in where you see the distinctions.



Between the EOS-R and the 5D4, or the 5D4 and the R5?

I can give you my perspective on whichever you’re asking about, but I’m a little slow on the uptake and don’t want to waste your time.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Between the EOS-R and the 5D4, or the 5D4 and the R5?
> 
> I can give you my perspective on whichever you’re asking about, but I’m a little slow on the uptake and don’t want to waste your time.


5D IV and R5.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> 5D IV and R5.




Specifically what appeals to me about R5 over 5D4:

Higher FPS
EVF
Tilty Flippy
FV
Video
Sensor Size
Better ISO
IBIS
Buffer Size
Animal/Eye AF
WiFi
RF Glass (specifically 100-500L for me, and possibly the 600 and 800mm)
Fv mode
Touch and Drag
Auto Focus System as a whole

I like my 5D4 but got used to a few things on my EOS-R that won my heart. The R5 seems to capture the best of both while also improving on both. I won’t know for sure until it’s in my hands but it doesn’t look to disappoint.

I a bit upset that I won’t be able to film Gladiator II in one take in 8K, but I got over it.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Specifically what appeals to me about R5 over 5D4:
> 
> Higher FPS
> EVF
> ...


I think I misunderstood your initial comment, that is a list of things that make the R5 more appealing than a 5D IV, I thought you were fans of both and the 5D IV did things the R5 didn't. Given that list I don't see how anybody can say the R5 isn't a 5D IV replacement, and a very worthy and complete one at that.

The sensor size is the same.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I a bit upset that I won’t be able to film Gladiator II in one take in 8K, but I got over it.


No but if you'd taken the cards out and used a $599 Atomos you could have filmed 1917 in 8k in one shot...


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> No but if you'd taken the cards out and used a $599 Atamos you could have filmed 1917 in 8k in one shot...



No, you couldn't have because the damn actors would have flubbed their lines too much.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> No, you couldn't have because the damn actors would have flubbed their lines too much.


The hilarious part about all this is in the much discussed Armando 'production' scenario he was actually using an Atomos, the only mistake he made that impacted his ability to shoot 8k 100% reliably was he should have removed the CFexpress card, so where is the equal time and energetic correction?


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I think I misunderstood your initial comment, that is a list of things that make the R5 more appealing than a 5D IV, I thought you were fans of both and the 5D IV did things the R5 didn't. Given that list I don't see how anybody can say the R5 isn't a 5D IV replacement, and a very worthy and complete one at that.
> 
> The sensor size is the same.




Yes, it is the same SIZE.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Yes, it is the same SIZE.


So I don't understand why you list that as a positive of the R5 over the 5D IV.....

But more to the point, is there anything that you prefer in the 5D IV, that was really the heart of the original question, being as how you have listed what you prefer in the R5 over the 5D IV.


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Yes, it is the same SIZE.



Heh, heh, heh!


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The hilarious part about all this is in the much discussed Armando 'production' scenario he was actually using an Atomos, the only mistake he made that impacted his ability to shoot 8k 100% reliably was he should have removed the CFexpress card, so where is the equal time and energetic correction?



Sony would have to ask for a refund.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Heh, heh, heh!




Did it again didn’t I.

Old dog. Will do mo’ betta.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> SteveC said:
> 
> 
> > Bert63 said:
> ...


I don't understand this exchange at all. Sarcasm? Humor? I pointed out the sensors are the same size, you listed sensor size as an advantage the R5 has over the 5D IV, your reply was to capitalize (shout) size. What gives?


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I don't understand this exchange at all. Sarcasm? Humor? I pointed out the sensors are the same size, you listed sensor size as an advantage the R5 has over the 5D IV, your reply was to capitalize (shout) size. What gives?



There was some sort of discussion about "size" being used sloppily to mean resolution rather than physical size of the sensor, somewhere else, a few days ago and I don't remember who was correcting whom. When I first responded I thought you had corrected him, and now you had made the same mistake you had admonished him for. I then realized I couldn't remember who was involved in that, at all. (There has been a LOT going on here for the last two weeks!)


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> So I don't understand why you list that as a positive of the R5 over the 5D IV.....
> 
> But more to the point, is there anything that you prefer in the 5D IV, that was really the heart of the original question, being as how you have listed what you prefer in the R5 over the 5D IV.



R5 sight unseen possibly the ergo/construction. I doubt it because I don’t have a problem with the R, but I could prefer the feel of the 5D4.

Otherwise, I foresee nothing.

I will continue shooting the 5D4 as well though.


----------



## Bert63 (Aug 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> There was some sort of discussion about "size" being used sloppily to mean resolution rather than physical size of the sensor, somewhere else, a few days ago and I don't remember who was correcting whom. When I first responded I thought you had corrected him, and now you had made the same mistake you had admonished him for. I then realized I couldn't remember who was involved in that, at all. (There has been a LOT going on here for the last two weeks!)




I was the one corrected but can’t remember who was correcting thus my grin and acknowledgement that I’d screwed it up AGAIN.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 8, 2020)

SteveC said:


> There was some sort of discussion about "size" being used sloppily to mean resolution rather than physical size of the sensor, somewhere else, a few days ago and I don't remember who was correcting whom. When I first responded I thought you had corrected him, and now you had made the same mistake you had admonished him for. I then realized I couldn't remember who was involved in that, at all. (There has been a LOT going on here for the last two weeks!)


I might be getting senile but by the time I confuse size and resolution I hope my wife will have taken the batteries out of my keyboard!  I wasn't involved in that previous exchange.

I do like it when people are precise as it certainly cuts through a lot of confusion, but I also appreciate there are a lot of people here for whom English is not their first language, including a lot of Americans!


----------



## SteveC (Aug 8, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I might be getting senile but by the time I confuse size and resolution I hope my wife will have taken the batteries out of my keyboard!  I wasn't involved in that previous exchange.
> 
> I do like it when people are precise as it certainly cuts through a lot of confusion, but I also appreciate there are a lot of people here for whom English is not their first language, including a lot of Americans!



LOL to the latter.

Many, many many years ago I saw a clip of some Canadian comedian saying he could understand US frustration with people coming over the southern border unable to speak the language. And he just let that lie there, and I had to laugh.

I tend to understand the frustration with lack of preciseness, especially when it really does correspond to sloppy thinking. (And remember I'm the one with the peeve about people saying "standard time" all year round...)


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2020)

SteveC said:


> LOL to the latter.
> 
> Many, many many years ago I saw a clip of some Canadian comedian saying he could understand US frustration with people coming over the southern border unable to speak the language. And he just let that lie there, and I had to laugh.
> 
> I tend to understand the frustration with lack of preciseness, especially when it really does correspond to sloppy thinking. (And remember I'm the one with the peeve about people saying "standard time" all year round...)


Coming from a marine background time is another thing I have been taught to be accurate about! Arriving at a port and running aground because you got your tide tables and time wrong......


----------



## SteveC (Aug 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Coming from a marine background time is another thing I have been taught to be accurate about! Arriving at a port and running aground because you got your tide tables and time wrong......



Yeah, that would be...bad.


----------



## SecureGSM (Aug 9, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> The hilarious part about all this is in the much discussed Armando 'production' scenario he was actually using an Atomos, the only mistake he made that impacted his ability to shoot 8k 100% reliably was he should have removed the CFexpress card, so where is the equal time and energetic correction?


there is no external 8K recording on R5 due to HDMI bandwidth limitations AFAIK..


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Aug 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> there is no external 8K recording on R5 due to HDMI bandwidth limitations AFAIK..


Definitely no 8k external recording unfortunately..


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 9, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> there is no external 8K recording on R5 due to HDMI bandwidth limitations AFAIK..


No I know, it was slightly tongue in cheek, I believe the Atomos and R5 tops out at 4k60 via HDMI. So both the 4k60 and 4kHQ, which is downsampled 8k are external options.


----------

