# Full-resolution sample images from the EOS R5, EOS R6, and the new lenses



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 23, 2020)

> A member of the Fred Miranda Forums did some digging on Canon Japan’s web site and dug up full resolution sample images from the Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6, and all of the new lenses.
> The sample images are a mix of shots using the Canon EOS R5, Canon EOS R6, RF 600mm f/11 IS STM, RF 800mm f/11 IS STM and the RF 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS USM along with current RF lenses such as the RF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and others.
> 
> *Canon EOS R5 Sample Images:*...



Continue reading...


----------



## frjmacias (Jul 23, 2020)

Both of these cameras produce amazing photos. I’m more excited than I’ve been in a long while.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 23, 2020)

I would like to see how DXOMark rank RF85 F1.2, etc., on R5, especially comparing to Otus lenses.


----------



## Mark3794 (Jul 23, 2020)

Rolling shutter, probably he is trolling us with a powered off fan


----------



## RMac (Jul 23, 2020)

S/O to everyone saying that you couldn't blur backgrounds at f/11...


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

DP Review has already added the R6 to their test scene footage, it was interested to me to compare it to the 5DIV









Canon EOS R6 added to studio test scene


We've put our full-production Canon EOS R6 in front of our studio scene to see what's what – check it out for yourself.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 23, 2020)

How long do we think it will be before Bill @ PtP posts dynamic range info?

- A


----------



## Mark3794 (Jul 23, 2020)

ahsanford said:


> How long do we think it will be before Bill @ PtP posts dynamic range info?
> 
> - A


He wrote on the Dpreview forum that he started some measurements. He said he got the exactly same read noise as the 1DXmarkIII


----------



## chaos2k (Jul 23, 2020)

I've been waiting the R5 but that shot of the R6 at 102K ISO is insane. it;s as clean as my 5d2 at 3200 lol


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 23, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> He wrote on the Dpreview forum that he started some measurements. He said he got the exactly same read noise as the 1DXmarkIII




This is going to be such a nice bump in dynamic range over my 5D3 -- can't wait to see how it comes out, but this is a rough idea of what we'll find:




- A


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jul 23, 2020)

RMac said:


> S/O to everyone saying that you couldn't blur backgrounds at f/11...


Did anyone actually say that?

It's a fact that a blurred background requires more separation at f/11 than say, f/2.8, but it's also a fact that if you can get the separation, you'll get blur.


----------



## Colorado (Jul 23, 2020)

For those that don't read the fred miranda forums as soon as these images were posted they decided most of them were crap. Not because of the hardware--though they weren't big fans of the 600/800mm lenses--but because they thought there were tons of photographer errors. To the point that they wondered if Canon specifically hired people to take the worst photos possible for samples.

Just curious what the CR crowd evaluation is.


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2020)

Colorado said:


> For those that don't read the fred miranda forums as soon as these images were posted they decided most of them were crap. Not because of the hardware--though they weren't big fans of the 600/800mm lenses--but because they thought there were tons of photographer errors. To the point that they wondered if Canon specifically hired people to take the worst photos possible for samples.
> 
> Just curious what the CR crowd evaluation is.



Canon is quite (in)famous for having the most crappy sample pictures, so it isn't really surprising that people would say it about these as well.


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 23, 2020)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Did anyone actually say that?
> 
> It's a fact that a blurred background requires more separation at f/11 than say, f/2.8, but it's also a fact that if you can get the separation, you'll get blur.



I think the point was that some people may have underestimated how much the focal length matters. At 600mm or 800mm you're going to get blurred backgrounds no matter what. A 800mm f/2.8 would be a sight to behold, btw


----------



## koenkooi (Jul 23, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I think the point was that some people may have underestimated how much the focal length matters. At 600mm or 800mm you're going to get blurred backgrounds no matter what. A 800mm f/2.8 would be a sight to behold, btw



Does it come equipped with its own truck?


----------



## mpmark (Jul 23, 2020)

I know canon has been pushing a better less intrusive aa filter with the 1dxIII and what now seems like the R5 and R6, this is promising.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 23, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I think the point was that some people may have underestimated how much the focal length matters. At 600mm or 800mm you're going to get blurred backgrounds no matter what. A 800mm f/2.8 would be a sight to behold, btw


Even more a weight to hold btw.


----------



## chasingrealness (Jul 23, 2020)

I really don’t like the lack of high ISO R5 images in this batch myself. Really looking forward to real reviews. Either way I’m very excited to purchase this camera early next year when the prices come down.


----------



## StevenA (Jul 23, 2020)

REALLY excited for these bodies and lenses. I went with the R5 kit with the 24-105 and the 100-500 on release day. Just ordered the 15-35 yesterday. I sold my 5dmiv a couple days ago and didn't even weep putting it in the mail. Although I am completely camera-less at the moment and only have the EF 16-35 iii to look at and hold, but it's up for sale also. 

I'm all in on the new system and I couldn't be happier, and I don't think I will be disappointed either. 

Those samples of the 100-500 are so sweet. Too bad that lens isn't slated for release until the end of September.


----------



## amorse (Jul 23, 2020)

Honestly, the 800 and 600 look better than I expected - very interesting!


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

Colorado said:


> For those that don't read the fred miranda forums as soon as these images were posted they decided most of them were crap. Not because of the hardware--though they weren't big fans of the 600/800mm lenses--but because they thought there were tons of photographer errors. To the point that they wondered if Canon specifically hired people to take the worst photos possible for samples.
> 
> Just curious what the CR crowd evaluation is.



When I saw them I felt like they could have been taken by any modern camera and any decent photographer.....so Canon does not hire world class photographers to shoot their sample footage...IMO it does not matter, few people are world class photographers anyway. I just enjoyed the pictures for what they were...nice pictures. All modern cameras are within a few degrees of each other and being in the right place at the right time to capture a moment that will never occur again is way more important than pixel peeping specs; it is just pictures, people take this stuff way too seriously sometimes.

To me the ecosystem, and supporting features such as redundant card slots, ergonomics, menu system, etc is way more important than the DR and ISO performance. No client is going to care what your camera's DR or ISO performance is...they will care if you miss a shot due to ergonomics or lose their footage because your memory card got corrupted.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

RMac said:


> S/O to everyone saying that you couldn't blur backgrounds at f/11...




Of course you can - but not as easily as f/4.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

amorse said:


> Honestly, the 800 and 600 look better than I expected - very interesting!




800 looks soft in the eyes to me but that could be a matter of technique. 600 looks amazing.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

chaos2k said:


> I've been waiting the R5 but that shot of the R6 at 102K ISO is insane. it;s as clean as my 5d2 at 3200 lol




And no high ISO examples of the R5. I was hoping there would be...


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

Colorado said:


> For those that don't read the fred miranda forums as soon as these images were posted they decided most of them were crap. Not because of the hardware--though they weren't big fans of the 600/800mm lenses--but because they thought there were tons of photographer errors. To the point that they wondered if Canon specifically hired people to take the worst photos possible for samples.
> 
> Just curious what the CR crowd evaluation is.



I'm a rube, but of the photos I reviewed the only disappointment I found was that the 800mm ape example was soft around the eyes - but that probably isn't the lens because his teeth are more what I would hope for.

Missed focus?


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Does it come equipped with its own truck?



Sherpa.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> I really don’t like the lack of high ISO R5 images in this batch myself. Really looking forward to real reviews. Either way I’m very excited to purchase this camera early next year when the prices come down.




I noted the same thing, but my pre-order is still refreshing in the other tab..

backordered...

backordered...

backordered...

backordered...

backordered...

backordered...


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> And no high ISO examples of the R5. I was hoping there would be...



That is really off putting when it comes to the R5. But I think they are saying you should buy the lesser built R6 if you want high ISO. Honestly, if they had just made the R5 and R6 have the same body it would be a lot easier for people to pick the tool for the situation and not try to to make the R6 a lesser body.. especially when sports and wildlife folks might be more interested in the higher ISO.


----------



## Fast351 (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I'm a rube, but of the photos I reviewed the only disappointment I found was that the 800mm ape example was soft around the eyes - but that probably isn't the lens because his teeth are more what I would hope for.
> 
> Missed focus?



Almost looks like motion. Nothing in that picture is really razor sharp....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2020)

chaos2k said:


> I've been waiting the R5 but that shot of the R6 at 102K ISO is insane. it;s as clean as my 5d2 at 3200 lol


No, it isn’t.






__





Studio shot comparison: 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


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I'm a rube, but of the photos I reviewed the only disappointment I found was that the 800mm ape example was soft around the eyes - but that probably isn't the lens because his teeth are more what I would hope for.
> 
> Missed focus?



It's shot with an R so of course it's out of focus--no Animal Eye AF available


----------



## snappy604 (Jul 23, 2020)

dpreview and FroPhoto both have R5 samples too. Think Fro converted to dng though

definitely some banding when going over 12800 ISO in some of the shots of the comet (and before any snark, it's just an observation, pretty amazed really)


----------



## Diltiazem (Jul 23, 2020)

Gordon has posted some R5 images including 3/4 ISO12800. Looks pretty clean. 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/with/50128952933/


----------



## Sharlin (Jul 23, 2020)

Diltiazem said:


> Gordon has posted some R5 images including 3/4 ISO12800. Looks pretty clean.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/with/50128952933/



Pretty crazy. Of course those are JPEGs SOOC so heavy noise reduction, but still it seems there's more detail preserved than with Canon's traditional mushy JPEG NR.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

Fast351 said:


> Almost looks like motion. Nothing in that picture is really razor sharp....




That is true, but some parts are less not razor sharp than others.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

Diltiazem said:


> Gordon has posted some R5 images including 3/4 ISO12800. Looks pretty clean.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/with/50128952933/



I'm impressed. Also a wee bit overjoyed. Walking through the forests up here in northern Washington that is going to come in very handy. It's quite often that anything over 3200 out of my R or 5D4 is salvageable, but not anything worth raving about.


----------



## chaos2k (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> And no high ISO examples of the R5. I was hoping there would be...


Hopefully they start coming out soon


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 23, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> When I saw them I felt like they could have been taken by any modern camera and any decent photographer.....so Canon does not hire world class photographers to shoot their sample footage...IMO it does not matter, few people are world class photographers anyway. I just enjoyed the pictures for what they were...nice pictures. All modern cameras are within a few degrees of each other and being in the right place at the right time to capture a moment that will never occur again is way more important than pixel peeping specs; it is just pictures, people take this stuff way too seriously sometimes.
> 
> To me the ecosystem, and supporting features such as redundant card slots, ergonomics, menu system, etc is way more important than the DR and ISO performance. No client is going to care what your camera's DR or ISO performance is...they will care if you miss a shot due to ergonomics or lose their footage because your memory card got corrupted.


Canon has the “Ambassadors” running around taking photos. You would think they could use some of those pro images in promotional material. Give me a loaner and I will be happy to provide images.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I'm impressed. Also a wee bit overjoyed. Walking through the forests up here in northern Washington that is going to come in very handy. It's quite often that anything over 3200 out of my R or 5D4 is salvageable, but not anything worth raving about.


I'm sure its slightly better than the 5DIV but I'd be careful to get your hopes up too much. In good lighting high ISO can look good but in bad lighting not so good. I've the 1DX III which (who knows really) may be even better than the 5DR but high ISO still looks high ISO even if it is better than some other camera. I'm sure your will really enjoy the 5DR but don't get your hopes too high on ISO performance. It will be visually marginal. The camera will be great for many other reasons.
Those samples from the Canon Website are no advert for the camera. A camera phone would be as good.
I'm sure there will be much better samples from their explorers of light.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 23, 2020)

Just after the train track, and for a number of photos after it, it states:

"Camera: Canon EOS R"

Is that the R or a typo for the R6?


----------



## Colorado (Jul 23, 2020)

Baron_Karza said:


> Just after the train track, and for a number of photos after it, it states:
> 
> "Camera: Canon EOS R"
> 
> Is that the R or a typo for the R6?


Not a typo. A lot of of those images are showing off the new lenses but taken with the R (and not R5 or R6).


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I'm impressed. Also a wee bit overjoyed. Walking through the forests up here in northern Washington that is going to come in very handy. It's quite often that anything over 3200 out of my R or 5D4 is salvageable, but not anything worth raving about.





Hector1970 said:


> I'm sure its slightly better than the 5DIV but I'd be careful to get your hopes up too much. In good lighting high ISO can look good but in bad lighting not so good. I've the 1DX III which (who knows really) may be even better than the 5DR but high ISO still looks high ISO even if it is better than some other camera. I'm sure your will really enjoy the 5DR but don't get your hopes too high on ISO performance. It will be visually marginal. The camera will be great for many other reasons.
> Those samples from the Canon Website are no advert for the camera. A camera phone would be as good.
> I'm sure there will be much better samples from their explorers of light.



I'm with Hector.....don't get too excited, camera sensors are pretty much at the top end of what they can do for now. When I looked at the dpreview studio scene and compared it to my 5DIV I saw slight noise pattern improvement but that's about it. Do I think the improvement based solely on the sensor alone is enough to upgrade to the R6.....no. But that's why I don't purchase based on pixel peeping, I make my buying decisions based on almost everything but the sensor.









Canon EOS R6 added to studio test scene


We've put our full-production Canon EOS R6 in front of our studio scene to see what's what – check it out for yourself.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> I'm sure its slightly better than the 5DIV but I'd be careful to get your hopes up too much. In good lighting high ISO can look good but in bad lighting not so good. I've the 1DX III which (who knows really) may be even better than the 5DR but high ISO still looks high ISO even if it is better than some other camera. I'm sure your will really enjoy the 5DR but don't get your hopes too high on ISO performance. It will be visually marginal. The camera will be great for many other reasons.
> Those samples from the Canon Website are no advert for the camera. A camera phone would be as good.
> I'm sure there will be much better samples from their explorers of light.




I get that.

I also know that if I walked outside right now and took a picture at ISO 12,800 (it's another crap gray day in the low 60s in the PNW) I could groom it to hell and back and it wouldn't result in something I'd be proud of.

I'm bored. Maybe I'll try it.


----------



## herein2020 (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I get that.
> 
> I also know that if I walked outside right now and took a picture at ISO 12,800 (it's another crap gray day in the low 60s in the PNW) I could groom it to hell and back and it wouldn't result in something I'd be proud of.
> 
> I'm bored. Maybe I'll try it.


----------



## StevenA (Jul 23, 2020)

Diltiazem said:


> Gordon has posted some R5 images including 3/4 ISO12800. Looks pretty clean.
> 
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/cameralabs/with/50128952933/



Thanks for this. The comet photo at 6400 iso and a 1 second exposure - I wonder if he hand-held it?


----------



## hoodlum (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> 800 looks soft in the eyes to me but that could be a matter of technique. 600 looks amazing.



I think it is related to poor contrast which was to be expected from cheaper DO lenses.


----------



## MiJax (Jul 23, 2020)

For anyone interested, Bryan over at TDP posted some Noise/Dynamic range tests. Both over and underexposed crops. Interestingly, the overexposed crops tend to shift color. I couldn't care less, but still something to note.









Canon EOS R5 Noise Test Results


Review camera noise test results for the Canon EOS R5 and compare the performance of this camera with other Cameras.




www.the-digital-picture.com


----------



## docsmith (Jul 23, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> DP Review has already added the R6 to their test scene footage, it was interested to me to compare it to the 5DIV
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am already pleased with the noise from the 5DIV. That is a nice improvement.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 23, 2020)

StevenA said:


> Thanks for this. The comet photo at 6400 iso and a 1 second exposure - I wonder if he hand-held it?



This was what I'd like to know - if any of the longer exposures (except the 20 second one!) are handheld.


----------



## Baron_Karza (Jul 23, 2020)

Colorado said:


> Not a typo. A lot of of those images are showing off the new lenses but taken with the R (and not R5 or R6).


Thanks. Not sure if I missed it or CR edited it afterward but I didn't notice any indications at first which ones were the R6. At first I was only able to find R5 and R indications. Now I see the R6. Thanks again.


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 23, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> I get that.
> 
> I also know that if I walked outside right now and took a picture at ISO 12,800 (it's another crap gray day in the low 60s in the PNW) I could groom it to hell and back and it wouldn't result in something I'd be proud of.
> 
> I'm bored. Maybe I'll try it.


PNW I'm assuming is pacific northwest. What a great playground to have. Never been but would love to someday. Embrace the gloom - lots of moody images to be had. Enjoy the R5 when you get it.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 23, 2020)

Put that high iso file from the R6 through some good noise reduction software like topaz labs denoise and it’ll be absolutely insane!

Here’s me binning shots of my daughter because I had to use iso 1000 with my 80D.. I know what I want for Christmas.


----------



## StevenA (Jul 23, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> PNW I'm assuming is pacific northwest. What a great playground to have. Never been but would love to someday. Embrace the gloom - lots of moody images to be had. Enjoy the R5 when you get it.



I've lived in this area practically my whole life. Nothing like it. Beach, mountains, and high desert all just a 2-3 hour drive from me. Four definite seasons also .


----------



## Frodo (Jul 23, 2020)

DPReview posted studio images from the R6 https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7423978032/canon-eos-r6-added-to-studio-test-scene
This allowed me to download full size raw and jpg files for 100, 1600 and 6400 ISO. I opened these up in Lightroom, well I couldn't open the R6 files yet. So I resized the R6 jpgs to the same resolution as the R files to allow a comparison in compare screen mode in LR.

First observation, when comparing jpg vs jpg I was surprised with the shadow noise on the people's faces under their chins with the R files at 160 and 6400 ISO. The Asian woman had colour blotches (colour noise) that I haven't experienced with the R. So then I compared the RAW R files with the R6 jpgs. This showed that the shadow blotches largely disappeared. Very disappointed in the quality of the DPReview jpgs for the R.

Anyway, when comparing the images:
- The R6 images were noticeably more pink when looking at the people's faces, even after I set the colour picker at the central grey square to neutralise colour casts. In my view, the pink was unpleasant I would normally correct this.
- At 100 ISO the R images are noticeably sharper than the upsized R6 files. No surprise here. I didn't see any improvement in dynamic range with the R6, but this would be best comparing RAW with RAW.
- At 1600 ISO, the R6 files are slightly cleaner when comparing jpgs, but the R is better when I compare the CR3 file. I prefer the rendering of the R on the faces.
- At 6400 ISO, the R has noticeably more colour noise, but when I compare the CR3 file, the R colour noise largely disappears. Although there is more grain in the R CR3 file, I far prefer this to the R6 jpg which has more colour noise.

This showed that there is only limited value of comparing the DPReview jpg files, so I will have to wait until LR / ACR are updated to allow the processing of R6 RAWs.
Nevertheless at 100 ISO, the R files are sharper - no surprise.
I expect quality differences to be less at 1600 ISO and the R6 to be better at 6400 ISO.

I shot an event last night with the R (and 5DsR) often using the R at 6400 ISO so this is a critical value for me. The R is substantially better than the 5DsR at 6400 ISO even when downsized, so I prefer to shoot with the RAW (also better AF). I do not find myself limited by the R files at events, but expect the R6 to be better. I look forward to comparing RAWs.


----------



## RMac (Jul 23, 2020)

None of these 600/800 images have strongly OOF point-source highlights. I'd like to see an image like that to get an idea of how well Canon has or hasn't controlled the onion-ring bokeh from DO on these lenses.


----------



## Bert63 (Jul 23, 2020)

Hector1970 said:


> PNW I'm assuming is pacific northwest. What a great playground to have. Never been but would love to someday. Embrace the gloom - lots of moody images to be had. Enjoy the R5 when you get it.




What a nice thing to say! Yep - I live on a little Island north of Seattle. It is an amazing place to live.


----------



## fox40phil (Jul 24, 2020)

They have many ambassadors...and always those example images are crappy like the hell  

11F and....1/125s for a animal? no way.... maybe for turtles


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jul 24, 2020)

The official 800 f/11 shots I saw were pretty ordinary, even taking into account the missed focus on the monkey, it was soft at the focus point. Looked worse than a 100-400 with 2x TC.


----------



## MiJax (Jul 24, 2020)

Mr Majestyk said:


> The official 800 f/11 shots I saw were pretty ordinary, even taking into account the missed focus on the monkey, it was soft at the focus point. Looked worse than a 100-400 with 2x TC.


I couldn't believe they used those to sell products. IMO, they should take those down.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jul 24, 2020)

Frodo said:


> DPReview posted studio images from the R6 https://www.dpreview.com/articles/7423978032/canon-eos-r6-added-to-studio-test-scene
> This allowed me to download full size raw and jpg files for 100, 1600 and 6400 ISO. I opened these up in Lightroom, well I couldn't open the R6 files yet. So I resized the R6 jpgs to the same resolution as the R files to allow a comparison in compare screen mode in LR.
> 
> First observation, when comparing jpg vs jpg I was surprised with the shadow noise on the people's faces under their chins with the R files at 160 and 6400 ISO. The Asian woman had colour blotches (colour noise) that I haven't experienced with the R. So then I compared the RAW R files with the R6 jpgs. This showed that the shadow blotches largely disappeared. Very disappointed in the quality of the DPReview jpgs for the R.
> ...


I find most Canon cameras are much too pink in any picture style except for 'Camera Neutral' which gets rid of that colour cast. If the R6 files were JPEGS the pink tint is most likely the result of the picture style selected.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 24, 2020)

I know most of you guys are all Canon and we’re all Canon fans here. But I still have to ask for someone able to understand the samples, is the R5 markably better than the Nikon d850 at ISO 3200 and 6400?


There is this little niggle in my head saying buy the 500mm prime and ride it out till everyone is on mark 2/3 mirrorless bodies. And the mirrorless lenses I actually want are out and not the one that’ll feel like a stopgap till primes (100-500). Crickey I still want to be stupid and buy the 200-400 and 1dx for my 35 even if I am now being encouraged to buy a house(mother in law is paying deposit). 

I just want “a” long prime or similar IQ and ideally mirrorless. Or wait it out five years with that 500 and buy the big white on my 40th.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 24, 2020)

MiJax said:


> Interestingly, the overexposed crops tend to shift color. I couldn't care less, but still something to note.


Why wouldn't they? How could one compensate for the information loss in a blown out color channel?


----------



## melgross (Jul 24, 2020)

6degrees said:


> I would like to see how DXOMark rank RF85 F1.2, etc., on R5, especially comparing to Otus lenses.


Don't care. DXOMark is controversial. I don't regard it as particularly useful.


----------



## melgross (Jul 24, 2020)

chasingrealness said:


> I really don’t like the lack of high ISO R5 images in this batch myself. Really looking forward to real reviews. Either way I’m very excited to purchase this camera early next year when the prices come down.


If it’s as popular early next year as it seems to be, you won’t see a price drop until the end of next year, maybe later. I seem to remember the prices of the 5D series only dropping two years after the introduction, by more than maybe $100, or so, which is negligibl.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jul 24, 2020)

Well, I'm not sure what images tell me, they are not that impressive but viewed on a small screen, they never will be. 

I'm still waiting for some in depth reviews as the only one's online so far are the R6 DP review and Tony Northrop who concentrated on the video performance and getting them to overheat. It wasn't a negative review but he was filming in 90degrees outside and in a non ventilated basement that he admitted gets very warm. I suppose with all the hype around that aspect he's bound to focus on this but a shame he didn't spend more time and do a review of stills as well. He was very complimentary about the animal AF and even said it was better than Sony. That's a turn up for the books lol.

I've just had an e-mail from my retailer to say they will have my R5 on Thursday ready to deliver on the 30th. Guess I'll find out what it's like for myself.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 24, 2020)

Sharlin said:


> I think the point was that some people may have underestimated how much the focal length matters. At 600mm or 800mm you're going to get blurred backgrounds no matter what. A 800mm f/2.8 would be a sight to behold, btw


The lens would be about a foot in diameter. Once your team of sherpas mounted it on a stand, you would have 9/16" depth of field to play with for a subject 30 feet away. Eye autofocus would be really important.


----------



## BeenThere (Jul 24, 2020)

Starting out EOS R said:


> Well, I'm not sure what images tell me, they are not that impressive but viewed on a small screen, they never will be.
> 
> I'm still waiting for some in depth reviews as the only one's online so far are the R6 DP review and Tony Northrop who concentrated on the video performance and getting them to overheat. It wasn't a negative review but he was filming in 90degrees outside and in a non ventilated basement that he admitted gets very warm. I suppose with all the hype around that aspect he's bound to focus on this but a shame he didn't spend more time and do a review of stills as well. He was very complimentary about the animal AF and even said it was better than Sony. That's a turn up for the books lol.
> 
> I've just had an e-mail from my retailer to say they will have my R5 on Thursday ready to deliver on the 30th. Guess I'll find out what it's like for myself.


Your retailer may just be trying to keep you from jumping ship to another retailer with better promises. Color me cynical.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 24, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Why wouldn't they? How could one compensate for the information loss in a blown out color channel?


The Highlight slider in Lightroom and ACR uses information from the other two channels to try highlight recovery. Judicious use of SpitToning can even out highlight color casts.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 24, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I know most of you guys are all Canon and we’re all Canon fans here. But I still have to ask for someone able to understand the samples, is the R5 markably better than the Nikon d850 at ISO 3200 and 6400?
> 
> 
> There is this little niggle in my head saying buy the 500mm prime and ride it out till everyone is on mark 2/3 mirrorless bodies. And the mirrorless lenses I actually want are out and not the one that’ll feel like a stopgap till primes (100-500). Crickey I still want to be stupid and buy the 200-400 and 1dx for my 35 even if I am now being encouraged to buy a house(mother in law is paying deposit).
> ...


A few of us here are shooting with the D850 and 500PF as well as with Canon. I'll eat my hat if the EOS R5 with an AA filter outresolves the the D850. I find for myself and there are measurements made to show it, the D850 outresolves the 5DSR (and I am a public relations rep for the 5DSR). The D850 is good enough at iso 3200 and 6400.


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jul 24, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Your retailer may just be trying to keep you from jumping ship to another retailer with better promises. Color me cynical.


You could be right but in this case, I don't think so as they have been really honest about other orders I have made and I know I was 5th in the list so fingers crossed, I can get my sticky little fingers on it in about a week.


----------



## Kit. (Jul 24, 2020)

stevelee said:


> The Highlight slider in Lightroom and ACR uses information from the other two channels to try highlight recovery. Judicious use of SpitToning can even out highlight color casts.


I doubt the assumption it uses hold true for the image of uniform square color patches.

Unless it knows that particular image, that is. Which by now cannot be ruled out.


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 24, 2020)

I've seen the photos and some downloads of them, but don't feel that they tell enough about what the lenses really can do to be truly useful.

I'm getting the RF 15-35 f2.8 for wide angle, and the RF 70-200 f2.8 and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for portrait & telephoto. It's hard to decide about the mid-range zooms or primes and I wanted to ask for advice on which 1 (or 2) of these do you think would be best to fill the mid-range with the R5?
RF 24-105 f4
RF 24-70 f2.8
RF 28-70 f2
RF 50 f1.2

I know it's hard for anyone to know what's best for me, but I'd appreciate your suggestions on these lenses anyway, as it would help me decide.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 24, 2020)

AlanF said:


> A few of us here are shooting with the D850 and 500PF as well as with Canon. I'll eat my hat if the EOS R5 with an AA filter outresolves the the D850. I find for myself and there are measurements made to show it, the D850 outresolves the 5DSR (and I am a public relations rep for the 5DSR). The D850 is good enough at iso 3200 and 6400.



Thanks for the response, it is good to hear from some one I have a growing trust of. I am really thinking of waiting out mirrorless on the wildlife side for the mark 2 cameras and a lens I actually want.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 24, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Does it come equipped with its own truck?


No, you'd need at least a "Jagdtiger"...


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jul 25, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I've seen the photos and some downloads of them, but don't feel that they tell enough about what the lenses really can do to be truly useful.
> 
> I'm getting the RF 15-35 f2.8 for wide angle, and the RF 70-200 f2.8 and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for portrait & telephoto. It's hard to decide about the mid-range zooms or primes and I wanted to ask for advice on which 1 (or 2) of these do you think would be best to fill the mid-range with the R5?
> RF 24-105 f4
> ...


Personally, I'm not a fan of overlapping focal lengths in my lens collection so I would go for the RF 50mm 1.2L. It's quite nice to have a faster prime in the collection and the RF 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has ever made IMO


----------



## Starting out EOS R (Jul 25, 2020)

Chris.Chapterten said:


> Personally, I'm not a fan of overlapping focal lengths in my lens collection so I would go for the RF 50mm 1.2L. It's quite nice to have a faster prime in the collection and the RF 50mm is the best 50mm Canon has ever made IMO





usern4cr said:


> I've seen the photos and some downloads of them, but don't feel that they tell enough about what the lenses really can do to be truly useful.
> 
> I'm getting the RF 15-35 f2.8 for wide angle, and the RF 70-200 f2.8 and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for portrait & telephoto. It's hard to decide about the mid-range zooms or primes and I wanted to ask for advice on which 1 (or 2) of these do you think would be best to fill the mid-range with the R5?
> RF 24-105 f4
> ...


I have been wondering the very same thing. I have the RF 24-105MM F4 that was part of the kit when I purchased the R and I found it to be great as a general walk around lens. I'm not a pro but as I started to be more adventurous with the types of images I take, I found I wanted more focal length so purchased the 70-200mm F2.8 and since then it's the only lens I've used, you won't be disappointed. Maybe I haven't used the 24-105mm as I'm still in the honeymoon period for the 70-200mm. 

I did start to wonder if one of the 24/28-70mm lenses would be a better option than the 24-105mm so there is no overlap and I would then have faster lenses for most situations but I've decided to keep the 24-105mm as I don't do portraits or low light photography so whilst the 24/28-70mm F2.2.8 lenses look amazing, boy are they expensive and they are heavy as well. The 24-105mm along with the 70-200mm will do just fine for the city breaks and holidays we do.

Not much help I'm afraid. I suppose if you do low light or portrait, then I would go for either the 24-70 or 28-70 over the 24-105. As Chris said, the 50mm is also a great option and from seeing numerous You tube photography videos, most of them use it a lot for doing street photography.

If I had the money, I'd have all of them except maybe only one out of the 24-70 & 28-70.

Confused, I am lol


----------



## tron (Jul 25, 2020)

usern4cr said:


> I've seen the photos and some downloads of them, but don't feel that they tell enough about what the lenses really can do to be truly useful.
> 
> I'm getting the RF 15-35 f2.8 for wide angle, and the RF 70-200 f2.8 and RF 100-500 f4.5-7.1 for portrait & telephoto. It's hard to decide about the mid-range zooms or primes and I wanted to ask for advice on which 1 (or 2) of these do you think would be best to fill the mid-range with the R5?
> RF 24-105 f4
> ...


Unless you plan of getting 2 R5 cameras I would suggest a mid range zoom like 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 4 to avoid changing lenses all the time (between 15-35 and 70-200).


----------



## usern4cr (Jul 25, 2020)

tron said:


> Unless you plan of getting 2 R5 cameras I would suggest a mid range zoom like 24-70 2.8 or 24-105 4 to avoid changing lenses all the time (between 15-35 and 70-200).


Thanks Chris, StartingOut and Tron for your suggestions. Initially, I will just have 1 R5 body with my lenses. But as soon as Canon comes out with their 85?MPixel body I will get one of those as a 2nd body. So long term I plan to have 2 (and only 2) bodies. But it may be a year or so before the 85?MP body comes out, so that's why I feel such pressure to get the 24-105 f4 now as a single walk around lens with good enough IQ and reach for the times I don't want to carry another lens or swap them so often. But I hate feeling pressure to get a lens with lesser IQ than the other options. In the times I could use just 1 lens, the 24-70 f2.8 is close in weight & size but I'd miss the extra 105mm reach. The 28-70 f2 might be too heavy or "scary to others" to use as the only walk around lens, and if I did use it as the only lens then I'd miss the 24mm and 105mm reach.

In a year or so after I can get the 85?MP 2nd body it'd be different, as I wouldn't feel the need for the 24-105 since the 2nd body could be the 70-200 or 100-500.

But since I'm looking at a year probably with 1 body, I guess it's prudent to get the 24-105 f4 for the times (which are frequent) when I prefer to walk around with a single body & lens. Whether I get other primes (50, 85 etc) could be just in addition to it.


----------



## highdesertmesa (Jul 26, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> I know most of you guys are all Canon and we’re all Canon fans here. But I still have to ask for someone able to understand the samples, is the R5 markably better than the Nikon d850 at ISO 3200 and 6400?
> 
> 
> There is this little niggle in my head saying buy the 500mm prime and ride it out till everyone is on mark 2/3 mirrorless bodies. And the mirrorless lenses I actually want are out and not the one that’ll feel like a stopgap till primes (100-500). Crickey I still want to be stupid and buy the 200-400 and 1dx for my 35 even if I am now being encouraged to buy a house(mother in law is paying deposit).
> ...



Resolution & ISO between D850 and R5 would seem to be less of a motivation to switch than the animal/people eye-AF and IBIS.

IMO, the 100-500 IQ and AF ability in samples/reviews makes it look like less of a stopgap to the primes and more like a permanent, lightweight alternative, provided you're not addicted to wide-aperture bokeh of something like the EF 500 f/4.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 26, 2020)

highdesertmesa said:


> Resolution & ISO between D850 and R5 would seem to be less of a motivation to switch than the animal/people eye-AF and IBIS.
> 
> IMO, the 100-500 IQ and AF ability in samples/reviews makes it look like less of a stopgap to the primes and more like a permanent, lightweight alternative, provided you're not addicted to wide-aperture bokeh of something like the EF 500 f/4.



Oh it won’t necessarily be for switching. It’ll be for that one lens. Animal Eye AF is tempting but I have lived with the one AF point of the 5dII and it still had the animal in focus. IBIS is good but that lens has 5 stops. 

But on to the main thing with the 100-500. It is really tempting but it will have to prove itself on quality and personally it isn’t whispering to me like a big prime or that big prime mini is. There is still about six months before I buy. So I’ll see if a 500mm f/4 RF gets any traction now that the stable of standard lenses is filled up. Or maybe even a new 300 f2.8, I love my current 300 2.8 but it weights as much as the 600 and is held together with hope and luck after all these decades.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 26, 2020)

Codebunny said:


> Oh it won’t necessarily be for switching. It’ll be for that one lens. Animal Eye AF is tempting but I have lived with the one AF point of the 5dII and it still had the animal in focus. IBIS is good but that lens has 5 stops.
> 
> But on to the main thing with the 100-500. It is really tempting but it will have to prove itself on quality and personally it isn’t whispering to me like a big prime or that big prime mini is. There is still about six months before I buy. So I’ll see if a 500mm f/4 RF gets any traction now that the stable of standard lenses is filled up. Or maybe even a new 300 f2.8, I love my current 300 2.8 but it weights as much as the 600 and is held together with hope and luck after all these decades.


I do like Canon zooms. The 100-400mm II has given me so many great shots, from dragonflies to bird portraits to BIF, that I would cheerfully use the R5 and 100-500mm for many purposes and the 500PF/Nikon for a prime. On our last three major birding trips (Florida, Galapagos/Ecuador and Israel), we took just the two 100-400mm IIs for the versatility and light weight and never regretted it. I know it sounds a bit wimpish, but the 400mm DO II was just above the weight I can comfortably carry on a single shoulder strap and I had to carry from straps across two shoulders. For opportunistic bird photographers who like walking with a camera over a shoulder, these light zooms and primes are godsends. The high resolution sensor cameras are part of the revolution - my 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC had better IQ than my 400mm II + 2xTC on the 5DIV, and the 500PF on the 45 Mpx D850 is a clear winner. So, the 45 Mpx on the R5 looks just right for me. With restricted travel and so few birds down here, there is no point in me buying now. But, I am really waiting for the real reviews from the knowledgeable enthusiasts on forums. If we ever get the chance to travel again, I'd take one Canon zoom and the D850/500PF.


----------



## Deleted member 381342 (Jul 26, 2020)

AlanF said:


> I do like Canon zooms. The 100-400mm II has given me so many great shots, from dragonflies to bird portraits to BIF, that I would cheerfully use the R5 and 100-500mm for many purposes and the 500PF/Nikon for a prime. On our last three major birding trips (Florida, Galapagos/Ecuador and Israel), we took just the two 100-400mm IIs for the versatility and light weight and never regretted it. I know it sounds a bit wimpish, but the 400mm DO II was just above the weight I can comfortably carry on a single shoulder strap and I had to carry from straps across two shoulders. For opportunistic bird photographers who like walking with a camera over a shoulder, these light zooms and primes are godsends. The high resolution sensor cameras are part of the revolution - my 100-400mm II + 1.4xTC had better IQ than my 400mm II + 2xTC on the 5DIV, and the 500PF on the 45 Mpx D850 is a clear winner. So, the 45 Mpx on the R5 looks just right for me. With restricted travel and so few birds down here, there is no point in me buying now. But, I am really waiting for the real reviews from the knowledgeable enthusiasts on forums. If we ever get the chance to travel again, I'd take one Canon zoom and the D850/500PF.



I 'need' a light setup for my daily walk which is 3-8 KM and partially though the woods. Then I need a bigger setup for the days I know there is a good chance of foxes or there is some other animal I am after just now. I think I am also thinking both, not in the same year but on most times I have 2-3 cameras with me.


----------

