# Canon EOS R5 impressions by a Canon EOS 5Ds shooter



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 29, 2020)

> Keith Cooper from Northlight Images gives his impressions of the Canon EOS R5. Keith shoots a ton of architectural photography and uses tilt-shifts for a lot of his work.
> Keith gives many positives about the Canon EOS R5, but his conclusion may surprise you.
> I really like the clear viewfinder and image stabilisation of the R5. The image quality is a step up from the 5Ds – not massive, but it’s there.
> The handling is good, and autofocus seems to meet any needs I’d have. Exposure seems accurate and unphased by shift, tilt, or any old optics I might attach. Those RF lenses were rather nice.
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## marathonman (Sep 29, 2020)

According to Keith, EOSHD is *******.....


----------



## SteveC (Sep 29, 2020)

Not a compelling enough upgrade _for him_ and _what he does. _

Which is a perfectly valid assessment, and he was very careful to qualify it.

I'd say as a reviewer he has the right attitude, he tells you up front he has a very particular use case and doesn't trash the camera without qualification, just because it isn't exactly right for him. And he thinks its a good camera, just not enough of a leap upwards. He is comparing it to a somewhat "niche" 5Ds, though. Comparing a general use camera to a niche one, in reality the 5R came out pretty well. I get the impression he might go for it, if he had to choose one of the two today--it's just that it's not worth the cost to buy as a second camera, having already paid for the other one.

The (rumored) high res version coming out will probably be worth his while, as he says.

If I were Canon, I could live with a nominally "negative" review like this!


----------



## Rocksthaman (Sep 29, 2020)

This is accurate for many photographers. Usability it is a huge jump for most dslr, with Evf and smaller size , but the IQ is not game changing. This is why Canon leaned in on the 8k. There is just much more artistic frontier in video than stills at this point.

Love my Canons, I’m interested to see the difference whenever my R5 ships.


----------



## keithcooper (Sep 29, 2020)

Thanks for mentioning this! - I was very aware that I'm not looking at what a lot of reviews cover for this camera, but then again I know that people who do work like I do (architecture/industrial and landscape) often feel that reviews are full of tons of stuff they're not so bothered with (video overheating ;-) )

If I didn't have the 5Ds I would indeed be very happy with the R5. Add in the option of a polariser in the adapter (which I also tested) and I'm looking forward to a full time move to mirrorless (next year?)


----------



## melgross (Sep 29, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Thanks for mentioning this! - I was very aware that I'm not looking at what a lot of reviews cover for this camera, but then again I know that people who do work like I do (architecture/industrial and landscape) often feel that reviews are full of tons of stuff they're not so bothered with (video overheating ;-) )
> 
> If I didn't have the 5Ds I would indeed be very happy with the R5. Add in the option of a polariser in the adapter (which I also tested) and I'm looking forward to a full time move to mirrorless (next year?)


When you get to know a system and its lenses well, you can get more out of it that those who don’t bother to study what their system can do. So a newer camera, and lenses, may feel good, but slightly uncomfortable. The extra effort to accommodate oneself to the new system may seem to be more than worthwhile. As you say, to you, the increase in IQ is good, but not drastic. Possibly the hi rez version we keep reading about might make that extra effort worthwhile. Canon has stated that their new R lenses will resolve to over 100MP.


----------



## sanj (Sep 29, 2020)

If I bumped into him in a semi-dark street in the UK, I would think he is Paul McCartney.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 30, 2020)

sanj said:


> If I bumped into him in a semi-dark street in the UK, I would think he is Paul McCartney.


Is that wearing or not wearing your high strength glasses?

Jack


----------



## masterpix (Sep 30, 2020)

There are two main advantages of the R5 over the 5Ds, that, in some ways, are not relevant to this review: 1) the AF system which got a huge upgrade in terms of folowing live moving objects and 2) much faster shooting speed up to 20fps, (I can also add that the ISO range of the R5 is exceeding that of the 5Ds). Hoever, for still objects I don't see a huge difference as Keith have noted. But when you deal with moving objects, the advnaced AF system is vrey important.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2020)

masterpix said:


> There are two main advantages of the R5 over the 5Ds, that, in some ways, are not relevant to this review: 1) the AF system which got a huge upgrade in terms of folowing live moving objects and 2) much faster shooting speed up to 20fps, (I can also add that the ISO range of the R5 is exceeding that of the 5Ds). Hoever, for still objects I don't see a huge difference as Keith have noted. But when you deal with moving objects, the advnaced AF system is vrey important.


Precisely. I can do most of what I want to do using my old 5DSR, and I am keeping it as a back up. But, the R5 allows me to some action shots I couldn’t get of birds and insects in flight or tracking them, and using the eyeAF is a real plus for focussing live subjects.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 30, 2020)

If I'm right (please correct me if not !!!), a small R5 advantage is the ability for home-sensor -cleaning.
I forget where I've read it, but it seems the 5Dds sensor can only be cleaned by Canon, due to its fragile protective-glass.
Is that really so? Please comment. Thank you.
PS: this witheld me from buying a used 5 Dsr (still prefer OVFs...).


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Sep 30, 2020)

A nice review Keith. Much more trust worthy than a professional camera reviwere's opinions. I hear what you are saying about battery life. The ability to use ND or Polarisers with a TS-e 17 or fisheye is a game changer for my landscape work. The EVF does offer what you see is what you get DOF...DSLR's optical VF are DOF limited to f4 (due to the microlenses on the viewfinder screen). Flare, ghosting and sunstars are more reliably seen in mirrorless than DSLR's too. So I see mirrorless has a few serious advantages over their mirror box equipped cousins. However...the R5 with all it's new tech and R&D burden is nudging £4K and as you said...there isn't a lot of image quality difference between it and a 5 year old 5DSR. I can still buy a 5DSR (new) for about £1K and in the cut and thrust of making money from photography...that's a massive price difference. As I come u to my 5 year renewal of my current camera bodies, I can swap out all three of my DSLR bodies for a pair of mk4's and a single 5DSR and it'll cost me about the same as a single R5. A bit like the electric car situation...at the moment the maths doesn't work for me. 
I could easily pickup a mk4, a 5DSR and a S/H EOS R (although I really don't like the handling of that camera) for about the same price point and get the added value of using the new RF mount and adapters.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 30, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> If I'm right (please correct me if not !!!), a small R5 advantage is the ability for home-sensor -cleaning.
> I forget where I've read it, but it seems the 5Dds sensor can only be cleaned by Canon, due to its fragile protective-glass.
> Is that really so? Please comment. Thank you.
> PS: this witheld me from buying a used 5 Dsr (still prefer OVFs...).



Not correct at all. 5DS/R sensor is exactly like cleaning any other sensor.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 30, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Not correct at all. 5DS/R sensor is exactly like cleaning any other sensor.


Yes exactly. Just don't bother


----------



## Fischer (Sep 30, 2020)

masterpix said:


> I can also add that the ISO range of the R5 is exceeding that of the 5Ds.



Not really. You can just underexpose (either of them actually) to the same high ISO setting. 5R however does retains some advantage in Dynamic Range also at high iso settings.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 30, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Yes exactly. Just don't bother


I agree that today its hardly necessary any longer due to the better coatings and the vibration function. However, I did have to do one deep wet cleaning after I something "sticky" on the sensor (oil?).


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 30, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> If I'm right (please correct me if not !!!), a small R5 advantage is the ability for home-sensor -cleaning.
> I forget where I've read it, but it seems the 5Dds sensor can only be cleaned by Canon, due to its fragile protective-glass.
> [..]


I think the opposite is true, the R5 has the sensor in a floating IBIS cradle, so a lot more care is needed when trying to clean it at home.


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 30, 2020)

Fischer said:


> I agree that today its hardly necessary any longer due to the better coatings and the vibration function. However, I did have to do one deep wet cleaning after I something "sticky" on the sensor (oil?).


You use Nikon then ?


----------



## ozturert (Sep 30, 2020)

I think EOS 5R's DR is quite a big advantage over 5DsR but if you are happy with what you have from 5SsR then it isn't an advantage.


----------



## Treyarnon (Sep 30, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> If I'm right (please correct me if not !!!), a small R5 advantage is the ability for home-sensor -cleaning.
> I forget where I've read it, but it seems the 5Dds sensor can only be cleaned by Canon, due to its fragile protective-glass.
> Is that really so? Please comment. Thank you.
> PS: this witheld me from buying a used 5 Dsr (still prefer OVFs...).


I have been using my 5Ds about 4.5 years - never needed a sensor clean so far. 
The self cleaning function seems to do a good job


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Yes exactly. Just don't bother


I have never ever needed to clean a sensor, and I am changing lenses, putting on and taking off TCs constantly, inside and outdoors. What am I doing wrong?


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Not really. You can just underexpose (either of them actually) to the same high ISO setting. 5R however does retains some advantage in Dynamic Range also at high iso settings.


That's correct about high iso range. I've occasionally underexposed at iso 6400 and pushed through 2 or more stops with good results as high iso is in the "iso independent" region. However, that won't work as well for the 5DS at low iso as the DR flattens out with iso in the 100 region.


----------



## masterpix (Sep 30, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Not really. You can just underexpose (either of them actually) to the same high ISO setting. 5R however does retains some advantage in Dynamic Range also at high iso settings.


I somehwat dissagree: the 5Ds (not the 5D) Iso is: 100–6400; Expanded: 50–12,800 while the R5 ISO range of 100-51200 Expaneed 50 - 102400


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 30, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I have never ever needed to clean a sensor, and I am changing lenses, putting on and taking off TCs constantly, inside and outdoors. What am I doing wrong?


That's easy - you're not doing like Artie did when he complained about his 1DX2 and tried to get a new one from Canon.  

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2020)

masterpix said:


> I somehwat dissagree: the 5Ds (not the 5D) Iso is: 100–6400; Expanded: 50–12,800 while the R5 ISO range of 100-51200 Expaneed 50 - 102400


Don't fall for that marketing iso trick. This is what Bryan from TDP writes:

_"The marketing department is always quick to state a camera's ISO range, but reality is that the usable settings within that range are what really matter. I immediately dismiss the highest stops as having a too-low SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio)"
"As the ISO setting increases from 100 through 800, noise levels grow. But, they remain very low, as usual, showing the impressive capabilities of a modern, high-resolution full-frame imaging sensor. At ISO 1600 through ISO 3200, noise levels become noticeable though images still look very good at these settings. By ISO 6400, images begin to show noticeable impact from noise, and by ISO 12800, noise is strong. ISO 25600 through 51200 results look bad unless downsized significantly, and ISO 102400 results are terrible, seemingly good enough for only marketing purposes. "_








Canon EOS R5 Review


Is the Canon EOS R5 Digital Mirrorless Camera right for you? Learn all you need to know about the Canon EOS R5 in The-Digital-Picture.com's review!




www.the-digital-picture.com





There's not much difference between my R5 and 5DSR in the iso ranges where I work (320 - 6400).


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 30, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I have never ever needed to clean a sensor, and I am changing lenses, putting on and taking off TCs constantly, inside and outdoors. What am I doing wrong?


Exactly. I'm the same, and I use pretty well primes all the time and 'am constantly changing them ! I did have to get the sensors on my original 5D's (not 5DS !!) cleaned occasionally as they got so there were more dust spots than pixels, but now, with the latest in-built ultrasonic cleaning I just don't worry about it.

However in our case it may be something to do with our climate here in the U.K. and Europe. To be fair I've seen some pretty heavily dust contaminated sensors from the dry and arid parts of the 'States.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 30, 2020)

masterpix said:


> I somehwat dissagree: the 5Ds (not the 5D) Iso is: 100–6400; Expanded: 50–12,800 while the R5 ISO range of 100-51200 Expaneed 50 - 102400


Think you do not understand how high iso works on digital cameras. The sensor is iso invariant from around 800 iso on most sensors. So if you underexpose from there its just like cranking up the iso setting. No iso dail needed.


----------



## melgross (Sep 30, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Think you do not understand how high iso works on digital cameras. The sensor is iso invariant from around 800 iso on most sensors. So if you underexpose from there its just like cranking up the iso setting. No iso dail needed.


The problem is that the Canon sensors weren’t very invariant. They would show large differences. The new sensors are much better.


----------



## AlanF (Sep 30, 2020)

melgross said:


> The problem is that the Canon sensors weren’t very invariant. They would show large differences. The new sensors are much better.


Fischer is correct that they tend to be iso invariant at greater than 800, which is where noise is dominated by the statistics of photon flux. The older Canon sensors were not so good at low iso where they failed to suppress the electrical noise where the photon noise is low.


----------



## Del Paso (Sep 30, 2020)

In 6 years using 5D II & IV, I did not even have a speck of dust on a sensor, despite frequent lens changes.
But my Leica is a different story, dust every now and then, but never any wet cleaning.
I thank you all for your answers, the 5 Dsr is on my "buy list" now!


----------



## Sporgon (Sep 30, 2020)

ozturert said:


> I think EOS 5R's DR is quite a big advantage over 5DsR but if you are happy with what you have from 5SsR then it isn't an advantage.


Without wanting to start a DR debate, the 5DS/SR 's low ISO dynamic range, or to put it in practical terms, shadow raising ability, is closer to the "new" Canon on-chip ADC sensors than it is to the older 5DII / III / 6D / II etc.


----------



## Joules (Oct 1, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Without wanting to start a DR debate, the 5DS/SR 's low ISO dynamic range, or to put it in practical terms, shadow raising ability, is closer to the "new" Canon on-chip ADC sensors than it is to the older 5DII / III / 6D / II etc.


It is definitely a good bit behind the 5D IV and a lot behind the R5 in terms of measured DR:





__





Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting






photonstophotos.net





I don't know about fixed pattern noise and banding, but the latter can even be found on the 5D IV when pushed to the absolute extremes and is were the 90D, M6 II, 1DX III, R6 and R5 sensors really show that they are from a different generation.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 1, 2020)

Joules said:


> It is definitely a good bit behind the 5D IV and a lot behind the R5 in terms of measured DR:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If you want to push to those extremes always update to the very latest tech you can get your hands on.

Somewhere in Keith’s review he has an example of what that “a lot behind” really means.


----------



## ozturert (Oct 1, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> Without wanting to start a DR debate, the 5DS/SR 's low ISO dynamic range, or to put it in practical terms, shadow raising ability, is closer to the "new" Canon on-chip ADC sensors than it is to the older 5DII / III / 6D / II etc.


I agree that 5Ds's ADC is better than the others but even 5D Mark IV has a noticeable advantage in terms of DR compared to 5Ds series. I compared them myself. 5D IV has noticeably cleaner shadows. I assume R5 has even better DR.
But again, I was not too unhappy with 5Ds when I had it. As long as I don't open shadows by more than 2-3 stops, things were fine at base ISO. Definitely better than 6D and 5D II.


----------



## AaronT (Oct 1, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> In 6 years using 5D II & IV, I did not even have a speck of dust on a sensor, despite frequent lens changes.
> But my Leica is a different story, dust every now and then, but never any wet cleaning.
> I thank you all for your answers, the 5 Dsr is on my "buy list" now!


I have had my 5 Dsr for about 3 and a half years and no dust. My original classic 5D was a dust magnet, my 5DII just a bit. Have no fear.


----------



## gregster (Oct 1, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The EVF does offer what you see is what you get DOF...DSLR's optical VF are DOF limited to f4 (due to the microlenses on the viewfinder screen).



Can this actually be done with the R5? It seems to function wide open and only displays DOF when pressing the DOF preview button. And then when pressed one can't actually change focus, which is extremely frustrating for fine tuning focus for something like a landscape using the minimum aperture.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 1, 2020)

Fischer said:


> Think you do not understand how high iso works on digital cameras. The sensor is iso invariant from around 800 iso on most sensors. So if you underexpose from there its just like cranking up the iso setting. No iso dail needed.


The sensor have pixels, each collect as many photons during the time in which the picture is taken, the number/concentration of colelcted photons are converted to electric signal and that is amplified by another circuit to generate the "image" as we see it. While the amount of photones and the conversion into electic siglan is fixed, the amlification is not (as well as the amplificaion noise reduction). But you need to do all this within a limited time (the processor), so if you take the same sensor, the better the processos, the faster you can collect the iamge and more noise reduction algorithms can be used which relates in "higher ISO".


----------



## tron (Oct 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I have never ever needed to clean a sensor, and I am changing lenses, putting on and taking off TCs constantly, inside and outdoors. What am I doing wrong?


Using DSLRs maybe?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2020)

tron said:


> Using DSLRs maybe?


One very neat feature that Canon introduced with the R is the shutter that guards the sensor when the camera is turned off. I've been very careful in turning off the R5 when changing lenses.


----------



## melgross (Oct 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Fischer is correct that they tend to be iso invariant at greater than 800, which is where noise is dominated by the statistics of photon flux. The older Canon sensors were not so good at low iso where they failed to suppress the electrical noise where the photon noise is low.


My experience that they weren’t invariant at 800 either. They couldn’t hold much shadow.


----------



## tron (Oct 1, 2020)

AlanF said:


> One very neat feature that Canon introduced with the R is the shutter that guards the sensor when the camera is turned off. I've been very careful in turning off the R5 when changing lenses.


I agree! I am doing it anyway most of the time (if not all) when I change lenses in DSLRs too, so it is a habit. This is an important advantage of EOS R over EOS RP in my opinion (in addition to the better sensor, the top LCD and the battery).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 1, 2020)

melgross said:


> My experience that they weren’t invariant at 800 either. They couldn’t hold much shadow.


Photonstophotos have the measurements of DR versus iso, which corresponds to what we are talking about. 


Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting



You can see that the 5DIV, 5DSR and 5DIII are all getting close to linear, ie iso invariant, above iso 800. The newer 5DIV wins at the lower iso, being relatively invariant down to iso 200. You can also look at the plots of the Photodynamic range shadow improvement chart for these and the slopes for the range 800-12800 iso are ~ parallel for the 5DSR and 5DIV showing that the newer and 5DSR sensors "hold as much shadow".


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 1, 2020)

Tony and Chelsea now have a thoughts between 5D MkIV and R5 video. Pretty positive


----------



## Bishop80 (Oct 2, 2020)

GMCPhotographics said:


> The EVF does offer what you see is what you get DOF...DSLR's optical VF are DOF limited to f4 (due to the microlenses on the viewfinder screen).



Interesting! Could you recommend a resource where I could learn more about this?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 2, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> Tony and Chelsea now have a thoughts between 5D MkIV and R5 video. Pretty positive


Thanks for telling us this, and no disrespects intended in any way to you whatsoever, but I, for one, have found that the average CR member's thoughts are more reliable than those of Tony and Chelsea.


----------



## snappy604 (Oct 2, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Thanks for telling us this, and no disrespects intended in any way to you whatsoever, but I, for one, have found that the average CR member's thoughts are more reliable than those of Tony and Chelsea.


no disrespect taken. They are trying to make a living from this after all. But nice to see now that everyone's come to terms that it's not a video camera, people are figuring out it has improved things a fair bit.


----------



## TAF (Oct 2, 2020)

Very nice presentation. I look forward to upgrading from the 5D3 to the R5.

I note his observation that the R5 is thinner than the 5Ds. Perhaps if they had kept the same body thickness as the 5D series, they could have found room for enough heatsink to avoid the issues we've read about...

Oh well; perhaps the R5 MkII will correct that.


----------



## melgross (Oct 3, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Photonstophotos have the measurements of DR versus iso, which corresponds to what we are talking about.
> 
> 
> Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting
> ...


These charts aren’t as helpful, or accurate as people assume. Going by my own testing, I disagree.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 3, 2020)

melgross said:


> These charts aren’t as helpful, or accurate as people assume. Going by my own testing, I disagree.


If you disagree with the photonstophoto site, please show your evidence.


----------



## Fischer (Oct 4, 2020)

AlanF said:


> If you disagree with the photonstophoto site, please show your evidence.


I admire your patience.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 4, 2020)

Fischer said:


> I admire your patience.


There are lots of good articles on iso invariance eg https://photographylife.com/iso-invariance-explained and sites like DPR have been pushing it for years. If you know that your sensor is in an iso invariant region, then you don’t worry about underexposing In RAW because you can increase the exposure post processing with no loss of IQ. It‘s very useful in nature photography because you can avoid bleaching highlights. For much of the time I use manual and underexpose deliberately or simply know I don’t have to worry about underexposure. You and many others here know that, and it’s useful information to share.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 4, 2020)

I don't worry about any of it and somehow seem to muddle along; the magic of modern technology. The average viewer doesn't seem to notice the difference, based on the comments I receive. Of course I'm not advocating for deliberate ignorance/carelessness but ... 

Sometimes too little attention is paid to composition when it comes to viewer appreciation and striking photos and for me personally that's where I must improve the most, as opposed to getting perfect exposure and other technical things. I envy those who have a great artistic eye. I don't think I have ever perfectly exposed a photo since arriving on the scene with my first DSLR. How's that for airing dirty laundry?

Jack


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 5, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> I don't worry about any of it and somehow seem to muddle along; the magic of modern technology. The average viewer doesn't seem to notice the difference, based on the comments I receive. Of course I'm not advocating for deliberate ignorance/carelessness but ...
> 
> Sometimes too little attention is paid to composition when it comes to viewer appreciation and striking photos and for me personally that's where I must improve the most, as opposed to getting perfect exposure and other technical things. I envy those who have a great artistic eye. I don't think I have ever perfectly exposed a photo since arriving on the scene with my first DSLR. How's that for airing dirty laundry?
> 
> Jack


 Very true - the more I test printers and cameras the more I realise that the technical capabilities have long since passed the photographic abilities of many people using them_ (myself included sometimes ;-)_

This entire site* is bolstered by the widely held (even if rarely admitted) belief that a new camera/lens/printer/paper/ink will improve your photography, and all too often as a way of ignoring the fundamental issues of getting round to taking 'better' photos in the first place. New kit can encourage you to expand and explore your photography, or it's 'failings' provide an excuse as to why the next model is what is really needed ;-)

_*yes, I am aware that my own site depends on this to some extent as well ;-) I'm lucky enough to get all this kit to experiment with and explore the technical, so I can't really complain too much, it's helped my own work no end ;-)_


----------



## Fischer (Oct 5, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> This entire site* is bolstered by the widely held (even if rarely admitted) belief that a new camera/lens/printer/paper/ink will improve your photography, and all too often as a way of ignoring the fundamental issues of getting round to taking 'better' photos in the first place. New kit can encourage you to expand and explore your photography, or it's 'failings' provide an excuse as to why the next model is what is really needed ;-)


I am no fan of this kind of attitude towards those who want better tools to work with.

So it does nothing for people's photography to get a true wide-angle lens or a 400mm lens or simply a fast prime lens in stead of a standard zoom? Of course it does. Look at your own work. Better gear opens for new photographic opportunities, visual expressions and allows for new subject perspectives and choices.

Think most people looking for better camera equipment are hoping it will enable them to realize more of the photographic ideas they have - rather than improving their photographic ideas. 

Also, getting new equipment motivates many people to try out new stuff and shoot more - testing the limits and new options of their new gear - an excellent thing in itself.

I got along very well with a range finder, guessing the distance and having to set the light manually. However, better Camera and lens options are working together to allow me to take a much, much wider range of pictures and subjects today and esspecially using natural light in a way impossible back then.


----------



## keithcooper (Oct 5, 2020)

Fischer said:


> I am no fan of this kind of attitude towards those who want better tools to work with.
> 
> So it does nothing for people's photography to get a true wide-angle lens or a 400mm lens or simply a fast prime lens in stead of a standard zoom? Of course it does. Look at your own work. Better gear opens for new photographic opportunities, visual expressions and allows for new subject perspectives and choices.
> 
> ...


That's not really all I said is it?

You perhaps gloss over my mention of:
"New kit can encourage you to expand and explore your photography, or it's 'failings' provide an excuse as to why the next model is what is really needed ;-)"

I would be the last to say new kit is a waste of time...


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2020)

What better gear can do is to expand what you can do. For my interests, a longer and/or sharper lens enables me to take shots of birds that are further away, as does a higher resolution sensor. Reliable eyeAF means I can quickly focus on a bird or a animal that is surrounded by focus-distracting branches. Fast focus acquisition and reliable tracking makes it easier to capture birds and insects in flight. I have had a great time in the past with my gear and taken tens of thousands of images that are very satisfying for me. And, with each generation of lens and camera, I have been able to do a bit more. I just wish I could go back in time with some of my current gear and retake some shots.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> What better gear can do is to expand what you can do. For my interests, a longer and/or sharper lens enables me to take shots of birds that are further away, as does a higher resolution sensor. Reliable eyeAF means I can quickly focus on a bird or a animal that is surrounded by focus-distracting branches. Fast focus acquisition and reliable tracking makes it easier to capture birds and insects in flight. I have had a great time in the past with my gear and taken tens of thousands of images that are very satisfying for me. And, with each generation of lens and camera, I have been able to do a bit more. I just wish I could go back in time with some of my current gear and retake some shots.


WOW, that's not Keith's or my point. Everyone knows that the best scientific photos will come from the best scientific gear. Some bird photos will be artistically appealing to non bird lovers and others will be fantastically sharp and technically perfect and really appealing mainly to bird lovers and of little interest to non-bird lovers. 
All things being equal, better gear contributes to better photos a little or a lot it all depends. I often see photos that blow me away and then expecting to see the gear is top notch I find it isn't. I want the R5 for precisely the same reasons you do and I am sure there will be some improvement in my photos at least technically and due to the enthusiasm factor maybe aesthetically too. However, it remains a challenge for me to produce really compelling photos.

And, for me and most folk, we are not interested in defining the views of others. This is just my opinion.

Jack


----------



## AlanF (Oct 5, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> WOW, that's not Keith's or my point. Everyone knows that the best scientific photos will come from the best scientific gear. Some bird photos will be artistically appealing to non bird lovers and others will be fantastically sharp and technically perfect and really appealing mainly to bird lovers and of little interest to non-bird lovers.
> All things being equal, better gear contributes to better photos a little or a lot it all depends. I often see photos that blow me away and then expecting to see the gear is top notch I find it isn't. I want the R5 for precisely the same reasons you do and I am sure there will be some improvement in my photos at least technically and due to the enthusiasm factor maybe aesthetically too. However, it remains a challenge for me to produce really compelling photos.
> 
> And, for me and most folk, we are not interested in defining the views of others. This is just my opinion.
> ...


I am not arguing with yours or Keith's point - if I were, I would do it as a reply to yours or his post, not as a new post. I am simply stating that what more advanced equipment does is to expand the range of what you can do with it. What we do is to work within the constraints of our equipment, and if our equipment has fewer constraints then we can attempt more, be it artistic or scientific.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 5, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I am not arguing with yours or Keith's point - if I were, I would do it as a reply to yours or his post, not as a new post. I am simply stating that what more advanced equipment does is to expand the range of what you can do with it. What we do is to work within the constraints of our equipment, and if our equipment has fewer constraints then we can attempt more, be it artistic or scientific.


Of course and I couldn't agree more.

Jack


----------



## Joules (Oct 5, 2020)

Jack Douglas said:


> However, it remains a challenge for me to produce really compelling photos.


I think this new type of gear may prove to provide a greater improvement in the process of capturing images, rather than the results. Especially with birds, there is often not much one can do to take control of the situation, perspective or composition when the action is happening. Ofcourse experience, preparation, technique and not least of all luck play a part. Those are the skills one can hone. The actual proces of taking the picture though is something that I can see being greatly improved with the AF and other advancements the latest generation of cameras provide. I can imagine not just getting more keepers from a purely technical aspect (blurry du to slow AF, bad wing position due to too few FPS) but also getting less frustrating moments were the intent was not properly carried out by the camera, be it due to user error or an actual limitation of the equipment.

As a tech enthusiast, I am just saying that I absolutely agree that you do not need the latest and greatest and should not expect it to improve your results if there are other aspects about your shooting you can work on. But it also is not like there aren't things one can appreciate about new tech even if they often don't directly contribute to the end results in a significant way.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 5, 2020)

Joules said:


> I think this new type of gear may prove to provide a greater improvement in the process of capturing images, rather than the results. Especially with birds, there is often not much one can do to take control of the situation, perspective or composition when the action is happening. Ofcourse experience, preparation, technique and not least of all luck play a part. Those are the skills one can hone. The actual proces of taking the picture though is something that I can see being greatly improved with the AF and other advancements the latest generation of cameras provide. I can imagine not just getting more keepers from a purely technical aspect (blurry du to slow AF, bad wing position due to too few FPS) but also getting less frustrating moments were the intent was not properly carried out by the camera, be it due to user error or an actual limitation of the equipment.
> 
> As a tech enthusiast, I am just saying that I absolutely agree that you do not need the latest and greatest and should not expect it to improve your results if there are other aspects about your shooting you can work on. But it also is not like there aren't things one can appreciate about new tech even if they often don't directly contribute to the end results in a significant way.



Nothing I can fault in your comments. It's personal, and for me coming from no formal training in photography it's been easy as an engineer and very handy person for me to master my gear in theory (I still get excited and forget basic things in the moment) but it wasn't until PBD (Scott) suggested a book, The Photographer's Eye, that my eyes really were opened up and I came to realize I was pretty pathetic in spite of the odd lucky photo. The reasons I have any photos I can be proud of are: good equipment, reasonable technical understanding of my equipment, patience/perseverance, preparedness and LUCK. Mostly the latter, but I'll take it and pretend I'm good! 

Jack


----------



## Fischer (Oct 6, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> That's not really all I said is it?
> 
> You perhaps gloss over my mention of:
> "New kit can encourage you to expand and explore your photography, or it's 'failings' provide an excuse as to why the next model is what is really needed ;-)"
> ...



No, I read it carefully.

You clearly shared that _you _think _you _know what the majority of _others _at this forum think and that _your _approach to photography is somehow _better/superio_r: "This entire site* is bolstered by the widely held (even if rarely admitted) belief that a new camera/lens/printer/paper/ink will improve your photography" followed by: "as a way of ignoring the fundamental issues of getting round to taking 'better' photos in the first place" to underline your point.

As I said - I am no fan of that.

I am closing here.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 22, 2020)

AlanF said:


> Don't fall for that marketing iso trick. This is what Bryan from TDP writes:
> 
> _"The marketing department is always quick to state a camera's ISO range, but reality is that the usable settings within that range are what really matter. I immediately dismiss the highest stops as having a too-low SNR (Signal-to-Noise Ratio)"
> "As the ISO setting increases from 100 through 800, noise levels grow. But, they remain very low, as usual, showing the impressive capabilities of a modern, high-resolution full-frame imaging sensor. At ISO 1600 through ISO 3200, noise levels become noticeable though images still look very good at these settings. By ISO 6400, images begin to show noticeable impact from noise, and by ISO 12800, noise is strong. ISO 25600 through 51200 results look bad unless downsized significantly, and ISO 102400 results are terrible, seemingly good enough for only marketing purposes. "_
> ...



Wow, that’s admittedly disappointing, especially given the 5-year gap.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Oct 22, 2020)

Act444 said:


> Wow, that’s admittedly disappointing, especially given the 5-year gap.


We don't always realize the physical limitations behind what we'd like to see happening. What if we expect that each year a car comes out that it will have significantly better breaking distances and then we find out that it is actually a little worse. We'd probably say, well it's a heavier car or the tires were changed or ... and accept it as normal.

Jack


----------



## YuengLinger (Nov 10, 2020)

keithcooper said:


> Very true - the more I test printers and cameras the more I realise that the technical capabilities have long since passed the photographic abilities of many people using them_ (myself included sometimes ;-)_
> 
> This entire site* is bolstered by the widely held (even if rarely admitted) belief that a new camera/lens/printer/paper/ink will improve your photography, and all too often as a way of ignoring the fundamental issues of getting round to taking 'better' photos in the first place. New kit can encourage you to expand and explore your photography, or it's 'failings' provide an excuse as to why the next model is what is really needed ;-)
> 
> _*yes, I am aware that my own site depends on this to some extent as well ;-) I'm lucky enough to get all this kit to experiment with and explore the technical, so I can't really complain too much, it's helped my own work no end ;-)_


IBIS and lens IS measurably improve my photography. More precise AF in Canon's mirrorless FF also significantly improve my photography.

But I still have to learn a new camera inside-out, and I have to practice all the time, and I have to have projects and goals and gigs! If I just buy a camera, put it on a shelf, and wait for the next generation, of course nothing changes. And no photos get taken.

But, Keith, I might understand some of what you are saying about what regulars want from this site and what we share. Sometimes I get frustrated that a long anticipated lens, say, finally gets released after months or even years of talking about it, and then it is almost immediately forgotten unless a firmware update is announced. (But that doesn't mean we aren't out using it!) And just general advice is not always shared patiently, completely, or compassionately. I'm guilty of impatience; and, l'm not the only one, but I get tired of an endless train of complaints about perceived shortcomings of this or that, and silly arguments about things that will never affect images...And then when we don't have actual gear to argue about, there's always industry news.

I do wish more of us shared images, but now there is such concern about identity issues, about our privacy and the privacy of our subjects...(It isn't only this site. I believe digital images and the Internet have forever altered street photography. Before 2000, people would see somebody with a camera and think few others would ever see photos from that camera. Now, in a moment, the world can see them.)

But there is help here for those who have real questions, help that cannot easily be found anywhere else--not even from a tech-support staff, and there is strong evidence of caring about this online community (though I sometimes get a little rude or highhanded myself!).

All in all, having dipped into and frequented various online forums for longer than I like to say, this one is a gem. Just because we talk a lot about gear doesn't mean we don't care deeply about photography, about great images and improving our skills, and helping others. This forum more often than not does focus on a specific aspect of our personalities. It allows us to talk about our greatest passion apart from our families and other personal relationships--gear! Talking about the tools that enable us to TAKE PICTURES. In a world saturated with smartphone cameras, here we are, just as nuts and in love with photography as ever!

And thank you, Keith, for _being such an important teacher._ Your site, along with Jeff Schewe's _The Digital Print_, made it possible for me to understand printing and produce consistently strong prints. I should have written a thanks to you years ago. You are one of the lighthouses in this crazy worldwide web. Thank you!

And thank you to the creators and all the moderators of this site!


----------



## stevelee (Nov 10, 2020)

masterpix said:


> 1) the AF system which got a huge upgrade in terms of folowing live moving objects and 2) much faster shooting speed up to 20fps, (I can also add that the ISO range of the R5 is exceeding that of the 5Ds).



Yes, if those things become an issue in architectural photography, *you need to evacuate from the building immediately. *There is an earthquake.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Nov 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> IBIS and lens IS measurably improve my photography. More precise AF in Canon's mirrorless FF also significantly improve my photography.
> 
> But I still have to learn a new camera inside-out, and I have to practice all the time, and I have to have projects and goals and gigs! If I just buy a camera, put it on a shelf, and wait for the next generation, of course nothing changes. And no photos get taken.
> 
> ...



I also have great admiration for those who go to great lengths to share and those who have been around the longest tend to be great contributors while some fly by nighters or trolls are great irritants. I share what little I know. I would dearly miss this site because there is so much collective knowledge. The bird threads in particular keep me striving for more opportunities in that realm. I also have enjoyed some of the "fireworks" that have erupted on occasion; nothing quite like a good friendly brawl. However, I hate it when people stoop to personal attacks that typically are driven by their own egos.

And yes, without GAS the site would certainly be diminished.

Jack


----------



## Joules (Nov 10, 2020)

YuengLinger said:


> IBIS and lens IS measurably improve my photography. More precise AF in Canon's mirrorless FF also significantly improve my photography.


Honestly, also thanks to you for sharing so many of your thoughts. It's been nice reading about how your experiences with the gear shaped your thoughts and the results you get from it. Your journey from your original stand point regarding the R system to where you are now has been a fun read and I enjoy the little bits about the R6 you post - a camera that seems somewhat underrepresented in this forum.


----------



## keithcooper (Nov 10, 2020)

Lest it be thought otherwise - one of the reason I do my reviews etc really is 'just' to get new kit to play with - The Laowa 15mm shift lens turned up yesterday, for example ;-)
That and writing about it is my way of forcing myself to do more and put more effort into expanding my skills.

The 'new gear will cure my problems' attitude does intrude on any technical-ish forum, but there are more than enough people who also want to know how and why it might do so. 

The step changes in my own photography were mostly technically driven (at first) - full frame digital (1Ds) - big prints (Epson 9600) - lens movements (TS-E24) - wide angle (EF14mm) - Profiling (eye-one pro) - Gigapan (a 47 foot print) - macro (MP-E65) - image re-sizing (various, recently Gigapixel AI)


----------



## masterpix (Nov 10, 2020)

stevelee said:


> Yes, if those things become an issue in architectural photography, *you need to evacuate from the building immediately. *There is an earthquake.


Well, there is a camera for every situation, that is why 20MP is for news and fast action, and 50MP for architectual, crop sensor for birds more than FF etc... Fast AF for naimals and stable tripod for long exposures... As said, the R5 has a leap jump as far its AF system is, the fact it means almost nothing to architectual jut means that people who take areal photography will not find upgrading to the R5 (they also don't need anything above one shot, so what 20FPS will give any benefit as well?) worth while.


----------



## stevelee (Nov 10, 2020)

I found this video quite helpful in several ways. I'm not in the market for new gear. If I buy something in the next year or so, it could be the 5D IV next time the price drops enough. But even with it, I would miss the articulating screen and would wind up using my 6D2 a lot anyway. The R5 sounds like a great camera, but I don't think it would solve anything for me that I need solving. The same things that annoy Keith would also annoy me.

Those of you who chase around flying birds have very different needs from mine. And that's fine: I don't mind reading about them. When I get a new telephoto lens, I shoot birds at and around the feeders next door. They are beautiful and abundant and no challenge to catch, unlike the deer who duck behind trees when you point something at them. I almost never have an issue with autofocus, but then I don't try to use it in obvious situations for manual focusing, like most macros with a tripod.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 5, 2021)

masterpix said:


> Well, there is a camera for every situation, that is why 20MP is for news and fast action, and 50MP for architectual, crop sensor for birds more than FF etc... Fast AF for naimals and stable tripod for long exposures... As said, the R5 has a leap jump as far its AF system is, the fact it means almost nothing to architectual jut means that people who take areal photography will not find upgrading to the R5 (they also don't need anything above one shot, so what 20FPS will give any benefit as well?) worth while.


Yes but we've had this issue with 1 series being "flagship" and having *features *that the others don't so you have to choose between some helpful/great features with low MPs and the others that are not "flagship". I don't understand why Canon has, and I don't like this word, "crippled" the other cameras. The only explanation to me might be price point.

Jack


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Yes but we've had this issue with 1 series being "flagship" and having *features *that the others don't so you have to choose between some helpful/great features with low MPs and the others that are not "flagship". I don't understand why Canon has, and I don't like this word, "crippled" the other cameras. The only explanation to me might be price point.
> 
> Jack


Just look back a little. When we just put the appropriate film into a camera the measure of a body was how many features it had, but whatever we needed that body to do we put in the appropriate film. Now we can’t do that and there is direct conflict on what some professionals need, do you need more mp and lower frames per second or the other way around? Is bit depth and color reproduction key to your work or are you more interested in the quality of ooc jpegs? These requirements are in direct contrast with each other so no single body can ever be a “flagship” body for all ever again.

Ever since the 1DX Canon have felt the 1 series body and functionality can be served in a single body. Sales of the 5D IV and R5 would suggest they are probably correct.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Just look back a little. When we just put the appropriate film into a camera the measure of a body was how many features it had, but whatever we needed that body to do we put in the appropriate film. Now we can’t do that and there is direct conflict on what some professionals need, do you need more mp and lower frames per second or the other way around? Is bit depth and color reproduction key to your work or are you more interested in the quality of ooc jpegs? These requirements are in direct contrast with each other so no single body can ever be a “flagship” body for all ever again.
> 
> Ever since the 1DX Canon have felt the 1 series body and functionality can be served in a single body. Sales of the 5D IV and R5 would suggest they are probably correct.


Yes, no problem with your comments but let's say for example my 1DX2 has the two front buttons and I want that in my next non-1 series camera, why can't I have that, or focus point tied exposure, etc.? These things are not conflicting with anything other than perhaps body size.

Jack


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 6, 2021)

Jack Douglas said:


> Yes, no problem with your comments but let's say for example my 1DX2 has the two front buttons and I want that in my next non-1 series camera, why can't I have that, or focus point tied exposure, etc.? These things are not conflicting with anything other than perhaps body size.
> 
> Jack


Marketing, product differentiation, "crippling"; call it what you want Canon are good at this, and looking at their commercial success in cameras it's difficult to argue against them. If you really want those two buttons on the front then buy the 1 series. One of the recent things I had a wry smile about: notice how on the original 5D and the 5DII the card door didn't have a rubberised grip covering, it was just plastic and became shiny with use. On the 5DIII/s/sr the rubber finish appeared, as well as on the later 5DIV, finishing the side of the camera off nicely. On the very expensive R5 it's gone again. No doubt on the R5II or maybe III it will come back as a visual indication of the superiority of the new camera


----------



## Fischer (Mar 6, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> On the 5DIII/s/sr the rubber finish appeared, as well as on the later 5DIV, finishing the side of the camera off nicely. On the very expensive R5 it's gone again. No doubt on the R5II or maybe III it will come back as a visual indication of the superiority of the new camera


Was already used on the 5DII. They probably got rid of it because it would sometimes wear down and fall off which - even if rare - is unacceptable for such expensive hardware. So unlikely to return imho.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 6, 2021)

Fischer said:


> Was already used on the 5DII.




No, maybe that’s why you thought it had fallen off


----------



## Fischer (Mar 6, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> No, maybe that’s why you thought it had fallen off


I had several 5DII's. So maybe you thought of another body? https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000524928748.html and how to get off/on https://petapixel.com/2015/01/05/replaced-shutter-canon-5d-mark-ii-saved-400/


----------



## Jack Douglas (Mar 6, 2021)

Canon does as Canon wishes but it seems there was some outside influence in creating the R5, so maybe there is hope that in the future this leaving off of features will decrease. I guess my/our hope lies in the competition which is clearly as strong as it's ever been.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 6, 2021)

Fischer said:


> I had several 5DII's. So maybe you thought of another body? https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000524928748.html and how to get off/on https://petapixel.com/2015/01/05/replaced-shutter-canon-5d-mark-ii-saved-400/





Fischer said:


> I had several 5DII's. So maybe you thought of another body? https://www.aliexpress.com/item/4000524928748.html and how to get off/on https://petapixel.com/2015/01/05/replaced-shutter-canon-5d-mark-ii-saved-400/


Thanks for the links. It's not really worth arguing about, but I'm attaching a shot of one of my old 5DII cameras and you can see quite clearly that the card door doesn't have a rubberised finish. Or maybe it fell off .


The AliExpress link with the new rubber kit for the 5DII doesn't include anything for the card door. In the shutter replacement video you can see that the card door is just bare plastic. I looked because you got me wondering if maybe late versions of the 5DII did have the nicely finished door !! Are you sure you don't mean the 5DIII ? That and the IV do have the rubber finish and I'm betting that the R5II or III will have it too


----------



## Fischer (Mar 7, 2021)

Sporgon said:


> The AliExpress link with the new rubber kit for the 5DII doesn't include anything for the card door. In the shutter replacement video you can see that the card door is just bare plastic. I looked because you got me wondering if maybe late versions of the 5DII did have the nicely finished door !! Are you sure you don't mean the 5DIII ? That and the IV do have the rubber finish and I'm betting that the R5II or III will have it too


I'm sure I thought about the rubber grip part...  So yes, we do in fact agree.


----------

