# Wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5 appears for certification



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 19, 2020)

> According to Nokishita, Canon has received certification for a wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5.
> Canon camera accessory “DS58622 1/2/3/4/5” was registered at the Taiwan NCC. The wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5 is compatible with Wi-Fi (IEEE802.11a / b / g / n / ac).



Continue reading...


----------



## Mark3794 (May 19, 2020)

A WFT transmitter like the one for the 1DX mark III?


----------



## cerealito (May 19, 2020)




----------



## koenkooi (May 19, 2020)

So: 

R5
Grip
Extra LP-E6NH batteries
2x CFExpress cards
WFT
This R5 thing is going from "Maybe within toy budget this year" to "You can survive on one kidney, right?".


----------



## analoggrotto (May 19, 2020)

I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?


----------



## ordinaryfilmmaker (May 19, 2020)

I'm going a little crazy... announce already... or at least give us another tease.... no announce


----------



## Architect1776 (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So:
> 
> R5
> Grip
> ...



If this is the 5 series replacement I wonder what the 1 series will be like?


----------



## BillB (May 19, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?


Well if it has a wireless file transmitter, that may be a clue that it produces still photograph files to transmit wirelessly.


----------



## H. Jones (May 19, 2020)

Sounds like it'll be another brick like the 7D Mark II's WFT-E7, since it lists a LAN cable implying ports like the WFT-E7 has. Wonder if Canon will make it look any sexier and more like a camera grip, or if it'll remain the same blocky form factor.

I don't see myself picking one of these up considering the camera already has wi-fi built in, but maybe if a job requires me to use ethernet tethering. That's only happened for me once with my 1DX2, so not hugely concerned.


----------



## BillB (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So:
> 
> R5
> Grip
> ...


Think about how you would feel if you could only buy the camera bundled with all that stuff.


----------



## edoorn (May 19, 2020)

2x CFExpress? What am I missing here?


----------



## vjlex (May 19, 2020)

yay! news... oh, wireless transmitter. 

in all seriousness though, i'm glad for every little tidbit. i'm guessing (hoping?) we get some more official information before the end of the month. February and March announcements were on the 13th; April was on the 21st; will May's update be on the 21st too?


----------



## koenkooi (May 19, 2020)

edoorn said:


> 2x CFExpress? What am I missing here?



One for in the camera, one for in the bag as spare.


----------



## edoorn (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> One for in the camera, one for in the bag as spare.


aah yes of course. And I plan to get two R5's; and large cards too. Guess I need to live without any kidneys at all..


----------



## koenkooi (May 19, 2020)

H. Jones said:


> Sounds like it'll be another brick like the 7D Mark II's WFT-E7, since it lists a LAN cable implying ports like the WFT-E7 has. Wonder if Canon will make it look any sexier and more like a camera grip, or if it'll remain the same blocky form factor.



I hope it's styled like a WFT-E5 (grip style) or WFT-E8 (1dx side attachment).


----------



## Mark3794 (May 19, 2020)

shunsai said:


> yay! news... oh, wireless transmitter.
> 
> in all seriousness though, i'm glad for every little tidbit. i'm guessing (hoping?) we get some more official information before the end of the month. February and March announcements were on the 13th; April was on the 21st; will May's update be on the 21st too?


The last will be the official announcement on May the 27th


----------



## UlricWolf (May 19, 2020)

edoorn said:


> aah yes of course. And I plan to get two R5's; and large cards too. Guess I need to live without any kidneys at all..


Don't worry, they are useless anyway


----------



## Jstnelson (May 19, 2020)

edoorn said:


> aah yes of course. And I plan to get two R5's; and large cards too. Guess I need to live without any kidneys at all..


My advice is to sell the testicles. None of us will need them when the wife finds out how much this camera costs.


----------



## edoorn (May 19, 2020)

Jstnelson said:


> My advice is to sell the testicles. None of us will need them when the wife finds out how much this camera costs.



LOL 

Well, if the formal announcement is indeed May 27th it would be brilliant, since it's our 10 year anniversary. Would go something like this "well honey, I didn't get you anything, that's true..BUT: I just pre-ordered a couple of R5's!'


----------



## Maximilian (May 19, 2020)

That salami slices informations on the R5 makes me yawn


----------



## herein2020 (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So:
> 
> R5
> Grip
> ...



Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.


----------



## H. Jones (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.



I'm picking up the RF 35mm as soon as I get the R5. I'd love to have that lens just to use the R5 like a suped-up full frame Fuji X100 to keep on me all the time when I'm not using it for work.

Outside of when I want the camera be as light and small as possible, I don't see myself having a problem with my EF glass and an adapter on the R5, but I'll be interested to see if using RF glass quickly changes my mind on that


----------



## koenkooi (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.



My most used lenses are the MP-E65mm and 100mm L macro, I see no need to rush and replace those if an RF equivalent becomes available.

Having said that, the R5 pricing will impact which lens I'll get next:

R5 too expensive: RF100-500 + RF85mm, no R5
R5 expensive: R5 + RF100-500, keep shooting with SD cards, sell RP
R5 cheap: R5 + RF100-500mm + accesories, keep RP
And if the R5 is available too late, e.g. September, I'll postpone all buying decisions to spring 2021.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So:
> 
> R5
> Grip
> ...



The WFT will probably be like the one for the 1D X Mark III. You'll only need it if you need nominal data rates at extended range.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 19, 2020)

ordinaryfilmmaker said:


> I'm going a little crazy... announce already... or at least give us another tease.... no announce






shunsai said:


> yay! news... oh, wireless transmitter.
> 
> in all seriousness though, i'm glad for every little tidbit. i'm guessing (hoping?) we get some more official information before the end of the month. February and March announcements were on the 13th; April was on the 21st; will May's update be on the 21st too?




Stop asking, "Are we there yet?"

Announcement was planned for Photokina, which was scheduled for 27-30 May, 2020. That's when they're going to announce it. Everyone has prety much known this for at least six months.


----------



## Pixel (May 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The WFT will probably be like the one for the 1D X Mark III. You'll only need it if you need nominal data rates at extended range.


Or if you require FTP transfer as that’s not available in-camera only with the WFT


----------



## Fran Decatta (May 19, 2020)

Architect1776 said:


> If this is the 5 series replacement I wonder what the 1 series will be like?


 
I was thinking exactly the same....


----------



## dancan (May 19, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?


I feel the same but I keep my spirit high with the already existing R5


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 19, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> Does it even shoot stills at this point?



My point is, when shooting, stay still.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 19, 2020)

> The wireless file transmitter for the Canon EOS R5 is compatible with Wi-Fi (IEEE802.11a / b / g / n / ac).



But how many megapixels?


----------



## vjlex (May 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Stop asking, "Are we there yet?"
> 
> Announcement was planned for Photokina, which was scheduled for 27-30 May, 2020. That's when they're going to announce it. Everyone has prety much known this for at least six months.


sure, but tell me just this one thing... are we there yet?


----------



## herein2020 (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> My most used lenses are the MP-E65mm and 100mm L macro, I see no need to rush and replace those if an RF equivalent becomes available.
> 
> Having said that, the R5 pricing will impact which lens I'll get next:
> 
> ...




They are out to hook every fish they can get; so it will be expensive but not so expensive that you go elsewhere, and it will not be available until Dec but they will accept preorders in July. Lets not forget the few they will trickle out to the YouTube "influencers" to convince the ones on the fence to jump on the preorders with no shipping date in sight.


----------



## Whowe (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.


Unless that is all you can afford for a while...


----------



## Whowe (May 19, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The WFT will probably be like the one for the 1D X Mark III. You'll only need it if you need nominal data rates at extended range.


The one for the 1Dx Mark III does not include Ethernet, since it is built in to the camera. It may offer extended range since it is extenal antenna, but, unlike the 1DX, the R5 should have the faster wifi (5gHz) built in, so it should already be fast. 

As Pixel said, I think this is more for the extended professional functions such as FTP, better remote control, etc.


----------



## Kit. (May 19, 2020)

LAN cable? Very good.



herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.


Why so? There are currently no RF lenses I'm interested in.


----------



## rbielefeld (May 19, 2020)

Kit. said:


> LAN cable? Very good.
> 
> 
> Why so? There are currently no RF lenses I'm interested in.


Exactly, did I miss the announcement of the RF 600mm f/4, RF 400mm f/2.8, and the RF 100-400mm?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2020)

dancan said:


> I feel the same but I keep my spirit high with the already existing R5
> View attachment 190489


That’s not an R5, this is an R5


----------



## Whowe (May 19, 2020)

rbielefeld said:


> Exactly, did I miss the announcement of the RF 600mm f/4, RF 400mm f/2.8, and the RF 100-400mm?


Is there really any chance of an RF 100-400? Even with the RF 100-500?


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.



I'm using a Zeiss 135mm Apo Sonnar with the EOS R .. and there's no 135mm I've seen that can fully match that Zeiss. So the RF bodies will be nice for EF or RF, or even adapted Pentacon mount like a Zeiss Flektogon 50mm I'm enjoying

.


----------



## wickedac (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.



That's ridiculous, the lenses I have work fine. The ROI on selling them for RF replacements is non-existent for me anyway. Not until prices come WAY down. And it's not new glass I'm after anyway. I want a 5D-level body with in-viewfinder eye-AF, full-frame AF points, in-viewfinder exposure preview, etc to make my job easier. I don't need new lenses for any of that.


----------



## Go Wild (May 19, 2020)

wickedac said:


> That's ridiculous, the lenses I have work fine.



I second this! I do have the RF 35mm 1.8 and love it, but all the lenses I have EF including the 500mm F4 IS L II works without any problem in the EOS R. So I do believe that with the R5 would work perfectly! You don´t need the new RF lenses. But of course, with the RF lenses you have the new control rings and probably s slight gain in image quality due to the short distance to the sensor. So you can do a soft transition to RF, buying lets say...1 lens a year and gradually replacing the EF lenses to RF. I am looking forward to use the R5 with the 500mm! 

Saying that...Canon Come on!!! There is no photokina just announce the camera and release it ASAP!!!


----------



## usern4cr (May 19, 2020)

Oh boy, a new R5 thread!  

Oh wait, it's just a WFT! 

I think they meant WTF!


----------



## ColinJR (May 19, 2020)

I doubt it will, but it’d be nice if this could replace the need for a CamRanger for me (in order to remotely control the camera, see live view & preview shots from greater distances than the built in wifi allows).


----------



## privatebydesign (May 19, 2020)

ColinJR said:


> I doubt it will, but it’d be nice if this could replace the need for a CamRanger for me (in order to remotely control the camera, see live view & preview shots from greater distances than the built in wifi allows).


I have the WFT for the 1DX II but I still prefer the CamRanger as it is a lot more stable, it has a lot more control and is quicker. I recently sold my original CamRanger and now use a CamRanger Mini as It has the functionality I need at half the size and 1/4 the cost.

Canon software for WFT remote control is clunky at best and hasn’t received a decent upgrade since the 1D IV and it still blocks out logical control in a limited interface.

I keep the WFT for the rare occasions I want weatherproofed simple communication with the camera but will take the CamRanger over the WFT every time it’s practical.


----------



## Jack Jian (May 19, 2020)

With the


analoggrotto said:


> I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?


With the current trend, stills side of things goes without saying. The present generation of cameras are no longer about stills.


----------



## David the street guy (May 19, 2020)

Kit. said:


> LAN cable? Very good.
> 
> 
> Why so? There are currently no RF lenses I'm interested in.



No problem. Haven't you heard? It is going to be a lensless camera!


----------



## herein2020 (May 19, 2020)

wickedac said:


> That's ridiculous, the lenses I have work fine. The ROI on selling them for RF replacements is non-existent for me anyway. Not until prices come WAY down. And it's not new glass I'm after anyway. I want a 5D-level body with in-viewfinder eye-AF, full-frame AF points, in-viewfinder exposure preview, etc to make my job easier. I don't need new lenses for any of that.



It was a bit of a joke, I'm sure the EF glass is perfectly fine for this body, Canon is the one that wants you to switch to RF glass.

Personally I'm perfectly happy with my 5D4 and I have no plans to own this body or lenses for it. If Canon had stuck with the EF mount for their mirrorless system I would be slightly more interested, but my EF glass and 5D4 body does everything I need for photography.

I don't believe in adapters even if it's from the vendor and if I were to switch to the mirrorless system I'd go all in and get all RF glass; that will probably never happen so I'll stick with my 5D4 and EF mount. For photography there is nothing my current gear does not do that I wish it did.

Video is a different story and I may get the R6 and a few RF lenses for video.


----------



## Adelino (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So:
> 
> R5
> Grip
> ...


Yeah but you need another one for the lenses.


----------



## Richard Anthony (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.


Got them already , I just want a decent macro lens and the 100-500 now


----------



## PureClassA (May 19, 2020)

I'm twitching waiting for this announcement. I've been debating back and forth, but the obvious thing to hit ebay for me would be the 5DSR. I just can't see myself selling the EOS R, at least not yet. That 30MP sensor is just too perfect for routine or volume photography uses. I think between the 5DSR and 6D I should wind up with about half the price of the EOS R5. Part of me still wants to hang back a year and see what the 1RX brings to the table. And I just last week got the RF 24-70 L 2.8 IS ... Damn what a FINE lens that is


----------



## Del Paso (May 19, 2020)

edoorn said:


> aah yes of course. And I plan to get two R5's; and large cards too. Guess I need to live without any kidneys at all..


You don't need kidneys, just don't drink!


----------



## Del Paso (May 19, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That’s not an R5, this is an R5
> View attachment 190490


And even one with a turbo!
Fantastic car.


----------



## herein2020 (May 19, 2020)

Richard Anthony said:


> Got them already , I just want a decent macro lens and the 100-500 now



That's a serious investment and I applaud you for it. I'm thinking that's going to be over $10K once you buy the body and storage media. Lets not forget the Adobe subscription which is like death by a thousand cuts.


----------



## Richard Anthony (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> That's a serious investment and I applaud you for it. I'm thinking that's going to be over $10K once you buy the body and storage media. Lets not forget the Adobe subscription which is like death by a thousand cuts.


Not that bad when you consider a decent medium format camera can cost that on its own .


----------



## BadHorse (May 19, 2020)

I find the Wireless File Transmitter a baffling accessory; even my vintage 70D has WiFi support -- either the R5 won't have 802.11 on-board or this carbuncle is redundant. What am I missing?


----------



## Danglin52 (May 19, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So:
> 
> R5
> Grip
> ...



Don't forget the EF - R adaptor AND the card reader! It gets even worse if you add the RF 24-105, & RF 100-500. Basically, you are moving to a new system with some carryover of lenses (maybe) from the old.

Do you really need a kidney? As long as you don't take long trip, you can shoot between dialysis treatments!


----------



## Danglin52 (May 19, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?



Canon is fast moving from building anticipation to annoyance and disdain!


----------



## SteveC (May 19, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I don't believe in adapters even if it's from the vendor and if I were to switch to the mirrorless system I'd go all in and get all RF glass; that will probably never happen so I'll stick with my 5D4 and EF mount. For photography there is nothing my current gear does not do that I wish it did.



Some people seem to be under the impression that the adapters have optics in them (which of course would be a downside, albeit minor if the glass is very well made). Maybe you were already aware these adapters are simply empty tubes (basically extension tubes), in which case disregard; but if you weren't...does it make a difference?


----------



## rmkunihiro (May 20, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> And even one with a turbo!
> Fantastic car.


Yes they did the regular R5 and a regular R5 turbo but then they also did two versions of the mid engined four wheel drive R5 turbo for rally homologation. Ah the days of our youth of unrestricted Group B real mens rally cars, that innocence lost in a moment the day Henri Toivonen had his tragic accident in the Lancia.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2020)

Richard Anthony said:


> Got them already , I just want a decent macro lens and the 100-500 now


So as soon as they release an RF 11-24, RF TS-E 17, RF 15mm f2.8 fisheye, RF 100 macro, RF TS-E 50, RF 1.4 and RF 2x TC's, some RF extension tubes and an RF 300mm f2.8 I'll be able to join you?


----------



## herein2020 (May 20, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Some people seem to be under the impression that the adapters have optics in them (which of course would be a downside, albeit minor if the glass is very well made). Maybe you were already aware these adapters are simply empty tubes (basically extension tubes), in which case disregard; but if you weren't...does it make a difference?



Yes I'm aware, but to me its another set of contacts between the body and the lens, its one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens, it's another entry point for dust, moisture, and water; optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yeild the highest quality...my list goes on. So no, I've never purchased or used an adapter.



Richard Anthony said:


> Not that bad when you consider a decent medium format camera can cost that on its own .



I've chosen to spend that amount building out a C200 rig instead, after that last Canon discount I just couldn't resist.


----------



## analoggrotto (May 20, 2020)

Danglin52 said:


> Canon is fast moving from building anticipation to annoyance and disdain!


Exactly, I'm ready to get this camera, and use it until I forget to even read the DPR review or watch the stupid youtube reviews or heard what Tony Northrup has to say let alone Rishi Sanyal and his technical muzak.


----------



## herein2020 (May 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> So as soon as they release an RF 11-24, RF TS-E 17, RF 15mm f2.8 fisheye, RF 100 macro, RF TS-E 50, RF 1.4 and RF 2x TC's, some RF extension tubes and an RF 300mm f2.8 I'll be able to join you?
> 
> View attachment 190495


Holy S%[email protected], is that a camera store or your house? Do you ever actually get out and shoot, or do you just take pictures of your lens collection?


----------



## Michael Clark (May 20, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Or if you require FTP transfer as that’s not available in-camera only with the WFT



People are still using that non-secure mess over public networks?

Admittedly, you do need to use the external WFT with the 1D X Mark III to use encryption.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 20, 2020)

Whowe said:


> The one for the 1Dx Mark III does not include Ethernet, since it is built in to the camera. It may offer extended range since it is extenal antenna, but, unlike the 1DX, the R5 should have the faster wifi (5gHz) built in, so it should already be fast.
> 
> As Pixel said, I think this is more for the extended professional functions such as FTP, better remote control, etc.



You can have 5 GHz built in to any device, but as the distance increases the actual data rate will go down. In most homes, by the time you are three or four rooms away, 2.4GHz is actually faster than 5GHz in how much data it can really move.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Holy S%[email protected], is that a camera store or your house? Do you ever actually get out and shoot, or do you just take pictures of your lens collection?



I have a 6:00 A.M. shoot tomorrow, it will probably be the TS-E 50 or the TS-E 17 with a 2x TC and three 600EX-RT's, the boxes for those are behind the 300mm box, yes there is a second row...

But most of it is pretty old and doesn't owe me anything by now, I must be honest the thought of 'starting again' with the R system really doesn't appeal especially given the drop in secondhand EF prices, the premiums the RF glass attracts and the fact that there is still comparatively little native choice of RF glass in my particular use case. I'll probably get the R5SR or whatever the high resolution body is but only to use with an EF adapter.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 20, 2020)

BadHorse said:


> I find the Wireless File Transmitter a baffling accessory; even my vintage 70D has WiFi support -- either the R5 won't have 802.11 on-board or this carbuncle is redundant. What am I missing?



Extended range, same as the 1D X Mark III. The external WFT can work faster over longer distances than the internal WiFi can. It's just a more powerful radio.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 20, 2020)

shunsai said:


> sure, but tell me just this one thing... are we there yet?





usern4cr said:


> Oh boy, a new R5 thread!
> 
> Oh wait, it's just a WFT!
> 
> I think they meant WTF!






Jack Jian said:


> With the
> 
> With the current trend, stills side of things goes without saying. The present generation of cameras are no longer about stills.






Children, if you don't quiet down back there and stop asking if we are there yet I'm going to turn this car around and go straight home right now!




PureClassA said:


> I'm twitching waiting for this announcement. I've been debating back and forth, but the obvious thing to hit ebay for me would be the 5DSR. I just can't see myself selling the EOS R, at least not yet. That 30MP sensor is just too perfect for routine or volume photography uses. I think between the 5DSR and 6D I should wind up with about half the price of the EOS R5. Part of me still wants to hang back a year and see what the 1RX brings to the table. And I just last week got the RF 24-70 L 2.8 IS ... Damn what a FINE lens that is






analoggrotto said:


> Exactly, I'm ready to get this camera, and use it until I forget to even read the DPR review or watch the stupid youtube reviews or heard what Tony Northrup has to say let alone Rishi Sanyal and his technical muzak.



In other words, Canon's strategy worked and they've already reeled you in hook, line, and sinker?


----------



## pcgizzmo (May 20, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Don't forget you still need lenses. No point in using EF glass after buying a body like this.



EF works fine on the R why are RF lenses a necessity? Because of the resolution?


----------



## herein2020 (May 20, 2020)

pcgizzmo said:


> EF works fine on the R why are RF lenses a necessity? Because of the resolution?



It was partly a joke (Canon wants to convince you that you need RF lenses)...but mainly because if you are paying as much as I think people will be paying for the R5 body the EF lenses will become the limitation vs the R5 body. The EF lenses are fantastic (hence why I see no need to move to the RF family) but IMO they will be the limiting factor with a body like the R5, otherwise Canon would never have went to the RF mount to begin with. 

The way I see it, if you are paying $4K+ for a camera body I would think you would be all in on the RF system as well since clearly cost is no issue.


----------



## herein2020 (May 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> I have a 6:00 A.M. shoot tomorrow, it will probably be the TS-E 50 or the TS-E 17 with a 2x TC and three 600EX-RT's, the boxes for those are behind the 300mm box, yes there is a second row...
> 
> But most of it is pretty old and doesn't owe me anything by now, I must be honest the thought of 'starting again' with the R system really doesn't appeal especially given the drop in secondhand EF prices, the premiums the RF glass attracts and the fact that there is still comparatively little native choice of RF glass in my particular use case. I'll probably get the R5SR or whatever the high resolution body is but only to use with an EF adapter.



I'm up at 7AM tomorrow myself, 5DIV, 70-200 2.8, XPLOR 600, 24" beauty dish, a GH5 with a Voigtlander 17.5mm lens, Ronin S, and some white foam board for fill lighting for the video portion. Can't forget the T6S rebel with the EF-S 10-22mm to shoot a timelapse during the sunrise while I wait for the model to arrive. If the timelapse turns out good I'll put it in her video, if it doesn't she'll never know I tried, or after she leaves I'll shoot a midday one which is easier .

All of my camera bodies and lenses are at least 4yrs old and still work great. I spend more on accessories such as audio, lighting, stands, backdrops, etc. than I do on the bodies and lenses. I have so many different tripods, sliders, etc I think I've spent over $400 on tripod plates alone; that's why I don't get excited anymore over lenses and bodies.


----------



## Whowe (May 20, 2020)

Del Paso said:


> You don't need kidneys, just don't drink!


I don't thinks that is possible with all the waiting game going on....

I just really wish I knew what the best options were for inexpensive wildlife/ birding rig to upgrade to from a 7d Mark ii/ 100-400 Mark ii.... 

"TALK" of EOS R series APS-C in 2021, "Talk" of high end M series APS-C, but nothing close to any real idea where Canon is going with it. It doesn't leave many good options, so I am thinking the R5 and use in crop mode for birding/sports where I need the reach (still get close to 20 MP) and have the advantage of full frame the rest of the time. But this is a lot more expensive than an $1800 7D2!


----------



## herein2020 (May 20, 2020)

Whowe said:


> I don't thinks that is possible with all the waiting game going on....
> 
> I just really wish I knew what the best options were for inexpensive wildlife/ birding rig to upgrade to from a 7d Mark ii/ 100-400 Mark ii....
> 
> "TALK" of EOS R series APS-C in 2021, "Talk" of high end M series APS-C, but nothing close to any real idea where Canon is going with it. It doesn't leave many good options, so I am thinking the R5 and use in crop mode for birding/sports where I need the reach (still get close to 20 MP) and have the advantage of full frame the rest of the time. But this is a lot more expensive than an $1800 7D2!



What's wrong with the 7D2? How many more birds would you have filmed if you had the R5?


----------



## Whowe (May 20, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Holy S%[email protected], is that a camera store or your house? Do you ever actually get out and shoot, or do you just take pictures of your lens collection?


Or are they just pictures of empty boxes????


----------



## Pixel (May 20, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Some people seem to be under the impression that the adapters have optics in them (which of course would be a downside, albeit minor if the glass is very well made). Maybe you were already aware these adapters are simply empty tubes (basically extension tubes), in which case disregard; but if you weren't...does it make a difference?


Took the words right out of my mouth before I could type them.


----------



## Pixel (May 20, 2020)

Whowe said:


> Or are they just pictures of empty boxes????


Why are people obsessed with boxes? I asked the guys at Roberts when I was trading in gear and they don't even want them. They take up too much room on their shelves. So I toss them.


----------



## Whowe (May 20, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> What's wrong with the 7D2? How many more birds would you have filmed if you had the R5?


Actually, I love the 7D2 for birds. I am thinking of picking up a second used one just as spare/ back-up because I think it is a great camera. 

However, I have started doing photos for a high school swim team. Indoors, poor light, fast action.... I shoot at f/2.8, 1/700 and about 2500 ISO. That ISO really pushes the limits of the 7D2 and there can be a lot of noise. Sometimes fixed easy enough in PP for what I need, but other times you just cant make the image look the way you want. So, I have been looking for a way to improve that.

Any suggestions?


----------



## herein2020 (May 20, 2020)

Whowe said:


> Actually, I love the 7D2 for birds. I am thinking of picking up a second used one just as spare/ back-up because I think it is a great camera.
> 
> However, I have started doing photos for a high school swim team. Indoors, poor light, fast action.... I shoot at f/2.8, 1/700 and about 2500 ISO. That ISO really pushes the limits of the 7D2 and there can be a lot of noise. Sometimes fixed easy enough in PP for what I need, but other times you just cant make the image look the way you want. So, I have been looking for a way to improve that.
> 
> Any suggestions?


My 5DIV at 2500 ISO doesn't look very good either, unless I went high to ETTR then pushed back down the exposure in post. Personally I would back down the shutter speed before raising the ISO in your situation. I tend to drop down to 1/400 or even 1/320 to get more light when needed; I'd rather a little motion blur over higher ISO. If you are using a long lens and no monopod getting a monopod might make you look at your camera with new eyes...the blur could be coming from camera shake at the lower shutter speeds...not motion blur.

Ultimately I always ask myself...will my client notice the difference and is that difference big enough to warrant the expense of new equipment? The final resting place for 99% of my images is 960x1200 images on someone's instagram or 1920x1080 images on someone's website, if I'm the only one who doesn't like a picture I took then I did something right. For higher end clients such as magazines and when I know they will make prints, then yes I go the extra mile to get every ounce of quality that I can...but that type of customer is few and far between for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 20, 2020)

Pixel said:


> Why are people obsessed with boxes? I asked the guys at Roberts when I was trading in gear and they don't even want them. They take up too much room on their shelves. So I toss them.


I keep mine for two reasons,
1: If I have to send it in for service it is nice to use the packaging it came in, it's free and a secure and perfect fit.
2: I have always sold my retired gear privately and in that instance having the box and all paperwork/packaging makes for an easier sell, in my experience.

I have the space so why not? I wouldn't say I am obsessed with them.


----------



## MVPhoto (May 20, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> So:
> 
> R5
> Grip
> ...



LoL! Same for me though. Minus the WFT.. but debating swapping out my glass. I only have a couple lenses so it's not that huge of an investment... but they're both L series lenses. 24-105 f/4 and 85 f/1.2. I'm wondering how much a difference native RF glass will make in terms of not only sharpness but AF speed and accuracy.


----------



## koenkooi (May 20, 2020)

MVPhoto said:


> LoL! Same for me though. Minus the WFT.. but debating swapping out my glass. I only have a couple lenses so it's not that huge of an investment... but they're both L series lenses. 24-105 f/4 and 85 f/1.2. I'm wondering how much a difference native RF glass will make in terms of not only sharpness but AF speed and accuracy.



I own the original EF24-105L and have rented the RF24-105, the RF is better in sharpness and AF speed. I haven't noticed accuracy differences between EF and RF lenses, if there was focus confirmation, it's accurate.

I haven't used the EF85 f/1.2, but I did use the RF85 f/1.2, it's amazing. Compared to the RF24-105 AF is slow and it showed the difference between the R and RP AF systems quite clearly when chasing toddlers.


----------



## degos (May 20, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yeild the highest quality...my list goes on. So no, I've never purchased or used an adapter.



Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.

The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...

And the small additional register distance has no effect on optics

But Canon thanks you for slavishly following their marketing. Do you drive an Audi perchance?


----------



## Otara (May 20, 2020)

Battery grip next I suppose.


degos said:


> Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.
> 
> The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...
> 
> ...



Optically no, but the RF protocols faster communication may impact on other aspects, ie AF tracking, IBIS/IS etc, viewfinder lag etc. It is noticeable how much smoother the VF is with the RF 35mm vs EF adapted lenses on the EOS R.

But how much that is anywhere near worth getting RF replacements is a whole other story.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (May 20, 2020)

degos said:


> Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.
> 
> The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...
> 
> ...


It really does depend on the focal length. Personally I use the 50mm focal length the most and the RF 50mm f1.2L is so much better than any EF 50mm lens.


----------



## yeahright (May 20, 2020)

degos said:


> Optically there's no difference between EF and RF, there's no magic sauce. Some RF lenses are sharper than EF and vice versa.
> 
> The 600mm f/4 EF is optically far superior to the RF 600mm...
> 
> ...


... the RF 600mm ...?  ... didn't know you could evaluate the optical performance of a non-existent lens


----------



## Michael Clark (May 20, 2020)

MVPhoto said:


> LoL! Same for me though. Minus the WFT.. but debating swapping out my glass. I only have a couple lenses so it's not that huge of an investment... but they're both L series lenses. 24-105 f/4 and 85 f/1.2. I'm wondering how much a difference native RF glass will make in terms of not only sharpness but AF speed and accuracy.



The EF 85mm f/1.2 isn't even really designed for "sharpness". For flat field work an EF 85mmf/1.8 will wipe the floor with it. It's designed for a certain rendering character that sacrifices "sharpness" on the edges in exchange for ultra smooth out of focus areas. It's not exactly the fastest autofocusing lens, either.


----------



## jam05 (May 20, 2020)

analoggrotto said:


> I'm getting awful sick of hearing about this camera. Does it even shoot stills at this point?


Hearing about it? Oh, you mean running accross articles about it and deciding to read? Or finding on YouTube and deciding to watch? Why stop to read and listen if you're getting sick? LOL, just sayin


----------



## Whowe (May 20, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> My 5DIV at 2500 ISO doesn't look very good either, unless I went high to ETTR then pushed back down the exposure in post. Personally I would back down the shutter speed before raising the ISO in your situation. I tend to drop down to 1/400 or even 1/320 to get more light when needed; I'd rather a little motion blur over higher ISO. If you are using a long lens and no monopod getting a monopod might make you look at your camera with new eyes...the blur could be coming from camera shake at the lower shutter speeds...not motion blur.
> 
> Ultimately I always ask myself...will my client notice the difference and is that difference big enough to warrant the expense of new equipment? The final resting place for 99% of my images is 960x1200 images on someone's instagram or 1920x1080 images on someone's website, if I'm the only one who doesn't like a picture I took then I did something right. For higher end clients such as magazines and when I know they will make prints, then yes I go the extra mile to get every ounce of quality that I can...but that type of customer is few and far between for me.



Those are great points. I have been thinking along those same lines, which is why I have been thinking about just getting another used 7D2 for $800 while I can and call it good for a few years. 

Its interesting that the 5DIV at ISO 2500 has enough noise to not look very good. I guess I was just hoping for "greener pastures on the other side." 

I don't have much problem with blur from camera shake. I am only shooting a 70-200 for indoor swim. At 1/500 shutter, I shot at ISO 1600, but was underexposed by over 1 stop. Those shots already had some motion blur in the water splashes and arms/hands. I like some motion blur in the hands, so I am OK with that shutter speed, but don't think I could go much lower without blurring the faces/eyes, etc. But I will try next season!


----------



## koenkooi (May 20, 2020)

Whowe said:


> [..]Its interesting that the 5DIV at ISO 2500 has enough noise to not look very good. I guess I was just hoping for "greener pastures on the other side."
> [..]



Have you compared ISO 1600, 2500 and 3200? Canon only has 'real' ISOs on the full stops, everything in between is just brightened up a bit by software. ETTR on ISO 3200 should look a lot better than plain ISO 2500. Where 'a lot' might just be placebo effect.


----------



## Richard Anthony (May 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> So as soon as they release an RF 11-24, RF TS-E 17, RF 15mm f2.8 fisheye, RF 100 macro, RF TS-E 50, RF 1.4 and RF 2x TC's, some RF extension tubes and an RF 300mm f2.8 I'll be able to join you?
> 
> View attachment 190495


I am sure they will be coming , I am waiting on the a good macro lens myself , and most of my photography is portrait and wedding , so large prime lenses don't interest me .


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 20, 2020)

Its amusing reading some of the comments in the thread!

Ive a whole bunch of Canon DSLRS, EF lenses and the EOS R with two lenses I own (RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM & RF 24-240mm f4-6.3). The RF 24-105mm f4L IS USM is better optically than its EF counter-part on the edges but not by much. The RF 24-240mm is what it is an average lens that needs in-camera or Lightroom / Camera Raw strong adjustments for vignetting and color fringing (chromatic aberrations). Its not a master class in lens design and one of their weakest lenses. The holy trinity we have in our rental fleet are all very good lenses that are marginally better that the EF lenses, the fast primes are good (RF 85mm f1.2L is much better). I can see no difference with EF lenses on the EOS R when using the adaptor both mechanically & optically apart from the spacing the adaptor produces.

As to Canon teasing with the R5, working in the advertising & movie industry you have more impact if you "tease" close to the run-up to a product going on sale and make it available in good numbers the minute you do. If Canon have any delays once they officially announce the price & on-sale date this will actually work against them not with early adopters but with impulse purchasers and could harm the adoption of the product. That coupled with a still limited range of native lenses in the RF mount (Rental like to have the f1.4 24, 35, 50, 85mm or at least these in a mix of 1.4 / 1.2) for a video centric mirrorless camera that the R5 is looking like it will be with 8K. Most stills lenses don't zoom well for video so primes are often preferred.


----------



## Juangrande (May 20, 2020)

Jstnelson said:


> My advice is to sell the testicles. None of us will need them when the wife finds out how much this camera costs.


Or you could turn your organs into a theme park for miniaturized guests! If you saw the last episode of Rick and Morty you’ll know what I’m talking about


----------



## Juangrande (May 20, 2020)

Juangrande said:


> Or you could turn your organs into a theme park for miniaturized guests! If you saw the episode of Rick and Morty Anatomy Park (season 1 ep 3) you’ll know what I’m talking about


----------



## slclick (May 20, 2020)

Wireless module certification! 

Not quite up there with the invention of the Pop Tart but we'll take it. (Nod to Jerry Seinfeld)


----------



## dancan (May 20, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> That’s not an R5, this is an R5
> View attachment 190490


OK, just a little more car talk: I show you the R4. No pics of R3 yet, neither Renault nor Canon...


----------



## dcm (May 20, 2020)

At this rate we'll soon be talking about Mazda's RX series.


----------



## deleteme (May 21, 2020)

Mark3794 said:


> A WFT transmitter like the one for the 1DX mark III?


I read that as a "WTF" transmitter.
Seems like that what is needed to give us the specs of this camera.


----------



## deleteme (May 21, 2020)

dcm said:


> At this rate we'll soon be talking about Mazda's RX series.





Oh yes.


----------



## sanj (May 21, 2020)

edoorn said:


> 2x CFExpress? What am I missing here?


Only 1.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 21, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> Have you compared ISO 1600, 2500 and 3200? Canon only has 'real' ISOs on the full stops, everything in between is just brightened up a bit by software. ETTR on ISO 3200 should look a lot better than plain ISO 2500. Where 'a lot' might just be placebo effect.



In my experience, the "-1/3 stop" ISO settings (160, 320, 640, 1250, 2500, etc.) that are "pulled" 1/3 stop in raw development (so "darkened" by 1/3 stop, rather than "brightened" by 2/3 stop) are about the same as the full stop amplifications at which they are actually shot (200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, etc.) with a 1/3 stop loss in highlight headroom. It's the "+1/3 stop" settings (125, 250, 500, 1000, 2000, etc.) which are pushed 1/3 stop in development from the full stop amplification at which they are actually shot (100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, etc.) that are noisier than the full stop settings well above them.

A few old tests done when this first burst into public consciousness a decade ago support my experience. Here's one of the easiest to digest at a glance of the graph. A lot of the links I have to such similar tests are now dead.


----------



## jam05 (May 21, 2020)

Question Admin. Will the EOS R5 second card slot be compatible with the new SD Express 8.0 Memory Card? Is the SD host capable of transfering data to the new SD express card? Surely Canon had access to the SD express white papers since they are on the committee. Still reading the white papers. Tell me what you think or are able to find out. The white papers state :
"SD Express cards cannot support UHS-II interface" . However the white papers state that the SD express card will be backward compatible. Figure 11 and Figure 12 looks as if one could put an the SD express card in slot 2 but only get 104 MB/s vs Full duplex 156 MB/s


https://www.sdcard.org/downloads/pls/latest_whitepapers/SD_Cards_8_0_WhitePaper20200519.pdf


----------



## vjlex (May 21, 2020)

jam05 said:


> Question Admin. Will the EOS R5 second card slot be compatible with the new SD Express 8.0 Memory Card? Is the SD host capable of transfering data to the new SD express card? Surely Canon had access to the SD express white papers since they are on the committee. Still reading the white papers. Tell me what you think or are able to find out. The white papers state :
> "SD Express cards cannot support UHS-II interface" . However the white papers state that the SD express card will be backward compatible. Figure 11 and Figure 12 looks as if one could put an the SD express card in slot 2 but only get 104 MB/s vs Full duplex 156 MB/s
> 
> 
> https://www.sdcard.org/downloads/pls/latest_whitepapers/SD_Cards_8_0_WhitePaper20200519.pdf


I think it's a safe bet that Canon still plays on the conservative side of implementing new tech into their consumer products. Would be great if they somehow future-proofed it, but then again, I'm sure they want to have something to get us to upgrade to the R5 Mark II .


----------



## jam05 (May 21, 2020)

shunsai said:


> I think it's a safe bet that Canon still plays on the conservative side of implementing new tech into their consumer products. Would be great if they somehow future-proofed it, but then again, I'm sure they want to have something to get us to upgrade to the R5 Mark II .


Yes. However it will have an express bus host. Question is, it also has as SD host and is that host capable of writing to the new SD express card. From reading the white papers I cant see any reason for it not being able to at least use the half duplex speed. Looking at figure 11 and 12 of the white papers. Not sure of the SD UHS II interface compatibility. Would be pretty simple to find out once the SD express cards are released.


----------



## mpmark (May 21, 2020)

don't worry kids, here is the next few weeks of Canon headlines for the mysterious R5

Next week "R5 passes UV test on plastic exterior"
week after that "Canon gives go ahead for front Canon logo on R5 size and font type"
another week after that "Canon passes ergonomics test after being passed throughout canon headquarters employees"

more to come my friends, you'll have this camera in no time!


----------



## Mark3794 (May 21, 2020)

mpmark said:


> don't worry kids, here is the next few weeks of Canon headlines for the mysterious R5
> 
> Next week "R5 passes UV test on plastic exterior"
> week after that "Canon gives go ahead for front Canon logo on R5 size and font type"
> ...


The UV test will be after the ergonomics test! I have inside info.


----------



## Bert63 (May 21, 2020)

Tell us the price so we can decide if we even need to read about all the great features we can't afford.


----------



## Kit. (May 21, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Tell us the price


Around 700 US$/Euro - if you are about the transmitter.


----------



## x4dow (May 21, 2020)

The cripple hammer will be that this camera is never actually put on sale


----------



## Michael Clark (May 21, 2020)

mpmark said:


> don't worry kids, here is the next few weeks of Canon headlines for the mysterious R5
> 
> Next week "R5 passes UV test on plastic exterior"
> week after that "Canon gives go ahead for front Canon logo on R5 size and font type"
> ...



Expect the official announcement at the end of May which is when it's been scheduled to be made for at least six months. This coincides with the dates for the cancelled Photokina Show which was scheduled to run May 27-30.


----------



## Whowe (May 21, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Expect the official announcement at the end of May which is when it's been scheduled to be made for at least six months. This coincides with the dates for the cancelled Photokina Show which was scheduled to run May 27-30.


But we are so close....


----------



## Whowe (May 21, 2020)

Dad, are we there yet ?!?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 22, 2020)

x4dow said:


> The cripple hammer will be that this camera is never actually put on sale



Yeah. Or it affects sales of 5DIV and R. Canon doesn't want to kill 5DIV and R does it?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 22, 2020)

mpmark said:


> more to come my friends, you'll have this camera in no time



What would you expect from this thread.
This thread is about an unannounced gear for another unannounced gear. Not exactly a concrete information...


----------



## Cat_Interceptor (May 22, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yeah. Or it affects sales of 5DIV and R. Canon doesn't want to kill 5DIV and R does it?




Given this is supposed to replace the 5D IV, I suspect Canon will be delighted if this kills the 5D IV. And I suspect they dont care if this does in th R as long as it sells and becomes a RF lens seller.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 22, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Given this is supposed to replace the 5D IV, I suspect Canon will be delighted if this kills the 5D IV. And I suspect they dont care if this does in th R as long as it sells and becomes a RF lens seller.


Sorry for a bag joke, I thought my irony was obvious


----------



## HenryL (May 22, 2020)

Cat_Interceptor said:


> Given this is supposed to replace the 5D IV, I suspect Canon will be delighted if this kills the 5D IV. And I suspect they dont care if this does in th R as long as it sells and becomes a RF lens seller.



While I don't disagree with the premise that concern would be low if one Canon camera were to "kill off" another Canon camera since they get the cash either way, nowhere have they stated that the R5 is meant to replace the 5D. They have, in fact, stated exactly the opposite in the interview with Tech Radar just last month. To quote Canon's Dave Parry (emphasis mine), "It's aimed at that level of the market. *This isn't a replacement for the 5D Mark IV or anything like that*. But this is a mirrorless 5-series, it's aimed at that segment of the market"


----------



## mariosk1gr (May 22, 2020)

Im feeling that till the end of the next week we will have an announcement.... too much silence last weeks from Canon!!


----------



## Michael Clark (May 23, 2020)

Whowe said:


> Dad, are we there yet ?!?



We're turning around right now and going home. You're grounded until Christmas. 2021.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yeah. Or it affects sales of 5DIV and R. Canon doesn't want to kill 5DIV and R does it?



Pretty much everyone who wants a 5D Mark IV (and can afford one) has already bought one. It's been on the market for just over four years. The EOS R has been on the market for almost two years. Neither can be expected to sell as many units as even a cosmetic "replacement" (e.g. 5D Mark V or EOS R Mark II with no substantive improvements) would be expected to sell.


----------



## vjlex (May 23, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yeah. Or it affects sales of 5DIV and R. Canon doesn't want to kill 5DIV and R does it?





Michael Clark said:


> Pretty much everyone who wants a 5D Mark IV (and can afford one) has already bought one. It's been on the market for just over four years. The EOS R has been on the market for almost two years. Neither can be expected to sell as many units as even a cosmetic "replacement" (e.g. 5D Mark V or EOS R Mark II with no substantive improvements) would be expected to sell.


For the record @Quarkcharmed, the sarcasm was obvious to me...


----------



## prodorshak (May 23, 2020)

I am not complaining, I am just sad. Man, I am tired of seeing the same top headline for past few days at CR...about file transmitter! Please, @Canon Rumors Guy, I hope you are doing well. Please, post something new; CR1, CR0, CRx, CRxxx, it doesn't matter.


----------



## SteveC (May 23, 2020)

prodorshak said:


> I am not complaining, I am just sad. Man, I am tired of seeing the same top headline for past few days at CR...about file transmitter! Please, @Canon Rumors Guy, I hope you are doing well. Please, post something new; CR1, CR0, CRx, CRxxx, it doesn't matter.



My butt is getting tired of sitting on the edge of my seat, too. It looks like a camera I want, but I need a price!!!

Maybe this is the calm before the storm.

We're getting up to the time Canon would most likely be announcing stills specs for the R5...if things had not been shut down. They did announce video specs during the timeframe of a cancelled video event.


----------



## x4dow (May 23, 2020)

prodorshak said:


> I am not complaining, I am just sad. Man, I am tired of seeing the same top headline for past few days at CR...about file transmitter! Please, @Canon Rumors Guy, I hope you are doing well. Please, post something new; CR1, CR0, CRx, CRxxx, it doesn't matter.


when i wake up i dont even kiss the missus. i check CR home page first


----------



## prodorshak (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> when i wake up i dont even kiss the missus. i check CR home page first


Clearly a mistake!
It can affect your bowel movement, depending on the news!


----------



## prodorshak (May 24, 2020)

SteveC said:


> Maybe this is the calm before the storm.
> 
> We're getting up to the time Canon would most likely be announcing stills specs for the R5...if things had not been shut down. They did announce video specs during the timeframe of a cancelled video event.


Let's hope so.


----------



## x4dow (May 24, 2020)

prodorshak said:


> Let's hope so.


what stills specs? its clear the camera has at least 45MP , 12fps mechanical and 20fps eletronically. What other "stills specs" are you looking for?


----------



## AEWest (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> what stills specs? its clear the camera has at least 45MP , 12fps mechanical and 20fps eletronically. What other "stills specs" are you looking for?


I would like to know what new sensor tech they are using. Is it a stacked sensor? What about dynamic range? Canon has indicated it is an all new sensor. It will be interesting to see - I expect the announcement this week. 

Hopefully some youtubers will have had a chance to test it and provide first impressions - I'd hate to rely only on marketing spin from Canon.


----------



## x4dow (May 24, 2020)

AEWest said:


> I would like to know what new sensor tech they are using. Is it a stacked sensor? What about dynamic range? Canon has indicated it is an all new sensor. It will be interesting to see - I expect the announcement this week.
> 
> Hopefully some youtubers will have had a chance to test it and provide first impressions - I'd hate to rely only on marketing spin from Canon.


Likely will be worse at stills than a a7r4, specially DR. If all you do is stills, that's the exciting camera to get


----------



## padam (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Likely will be worse at stills than a a7r4, specially DR. If all you do is stills, that's the exciting camera to get


Apart from the dynamic range being slightly better and the resolution being better, the A7R4 looks outdated already (of course it will drop in price significantly after the R5 so it remains an attractive choice)
It only shoots 10fps, the buffer clearing is slow, the grip, handling, IBIS, EVF, screen, menus, lens options (including adapted) all going better on the Canon. While Sony came up with many new models over the years, they only made smaller steps forward as opposed to Canon with less updates but much bigger steps forward.


----------



## vjlex (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Likely will be worse at stills than a a7r4, specially DR. If all you do is stills, that's the exciting camera to get


what in the world are you talking about? what makes you think you could possibly know that?


----------



## David_E (May 24, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> _I don't believe in adapters even if it's from the vendor..._


If you mean in the same sense that you don’t believe in the tooth fairy, then you are wrong. Adapters exist; I own one to use my EF lenses with my RP.

If you mean in the sense that adapters somehow provide an inferior experience, you’re still wrong. The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside.


----------



## herein2020 (May 24, 2020)

David_E said:


> If you mean in the same sense that you don’t believe in the tooth fairy, then you are wrong. Adapters exist; I own one to use my EF lenses with my RP.
> 
> If you mean in the sense that adapters somehow provide an inferior experience, you’re still wrong. The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside.



I assume you missed my reasons why I do not use adapters, from your perspective _"The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside" ; _making such a statement does not make it true it simply means that you refused to consider viewpoints that are not your own. So, I will repeat my list of why I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time:


Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
Obviously adapters exist, no I don't believe in them nor do I use them and no a discussion on CR will not change my mind. If EF was already perfect Canon would not have created a new lens mount so if you want to get the best experience from an RF mount camera you will need to get RF mount lenses...it's that simple. Can you get a great experience using an adapter, I'm sure you could, can you save a lot of money sticking with EF lenses and adaptors for your RF mount camera, I'm sure you could, will anyone notice the quality difference between an EF mount lens on an RF mount body, probably not. Does any of that mean I will get an adaptor and use EF lenses on an RF body if I buy one...no I will not for the reasons that I previously stated.


----------



## x4dow (May 24, 2020)

padam said:


> Apart from the dynamic range being slightly better and the resolution being better, the A7R4 looks outdated already (of course it will drop in price significantly after the R5 so it remains an attractive choice)
> It only shoots 10fps, the buffer clearing is slow, the grip, handling, IBIS, EVF, screen, menus, lens options (including adapted) all going better on the Canon. While Sony came up with many new models over the years, they only made smaller steps forward as opposed to Canon with less updates but much bigger steps forward.


 its a better sensor. whatever ergonomics, terrible menus and so on. the final image, its better on the sony, more likely to be taken on time/in focus, better DR/ISO/Colour depth etc. But i understand this is a canon forum and fanboys gonna be offended and start going on about colour science.


----------



## yeahright (May 24, 2020)

David_E said:


> If you mean in the same sense that you don’t believe in the tooth fairy, then you are wrong. Adapters exist; I own one to use my EF lenses with my RP.
> 
> If you mean in the sense that adapters somehow provide an inferior experience, you’re still wrong. The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside.


EF-to-RF adapters are clearly a disadvantage if you are using both EF and RF lenses. Either you buy each EF lens its own adapter, then it's not so much of an issue except for cost. Or you keep switching lenses and adapters when you go from an EF lens to an RF lens. In situations where quick lens swaps are desired, I would consider it a PITA to switch from EF lens A to RF lens B to EF lens C. If the adapter stays on EF lens A after use, during the switch from RF lens B to EF lens C you'd have to 1) remove adapter from EF lens A, 2) remove EF back lens cap from EF lens C, 3) attach EF back lens cap to EF lens A, 4) attach adapter to EF lens C, 5) remove RF lens B from body, 6) remove adapter RF back lens cap, 7) attach RF back lens cap to RF lens B, 8) attach EF lens C with adapter to body. Without adapters (i.e. with only RF lenses) you'd only have to 1) remove RF lens B from body, 2) remove back lens cap from RF lens C, 3) attach back lens cap to RF lens B, 4) attach RF lens C to body. That's 4 steps instead of 8.


----------



## padam (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> its a better sensor. whatever ergonomics, terrible menus and so on. the final image, its better on the sony, more likely to be taken on time/in focus, better DR/ISO/Colour depth etc. But i understand this is a canon forum and fanboys gonna be offended and start going on about colour science.


Guess what, the final image is heavily affected by the camera's handling. So a camera, that handles better, more enjoyable, less frustrating etc. will actually take better images for most people.
And we can move onto the lenses as well, Canon lenses are big, heavy and very expensive, but also very high-end, they are really hard to fault.

I purposefully left it out because Sony users seems to be overly sensitive to it, but yes, colours are still better on the Canon as well.
Sony is slowly catching up, they are not as bad as they've used to be, but still considerably behind.
The dynamic range is a little better on the Sony, but really not by much and with the latest Canon sensor like the 1DX III, the ISO is not better anymore, it is likely to be similar (the A7RIV actually got a little worse in exchange for more megapixels, they probably employ a bit of clever noise-reduction to the baked RAW files, so it is difficult to compare).

So all things considered, the difference between sensor performance is not that big, but there are other differences, mainly regarded to the camera's operation, that are far more significant and also the system itself, with the lenses and everything.









Sony A7III vs Canon R vs Nikon Z6 By DPreview | My Thoughts | Alik Griffin


Jordan and Chris at DPreview posted their comparison of the Nikon, Sony, and Canon camera and I thought I would share some of my thoughts since I shoot on these three cameras. Well, not the A7III but the A7rIII.




alikgriffin.com




Check out this article, the worst part about Sony is actually the community behind it, I have to agree with this assessment.


----------



## Kit. (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> its a better sensor.


Please tell me where you did have a chance to test the R5 sensor.



x4dow said:


> whatever ergonomics, terrible menus and so on. the final image, its better on the sony, more likely to be taken on time/in focus, better DR/ISO/Colour depth etc.


For what subject is that? Can you show us any examples?


----------



## Otara (May 24, 2020)

yeahright said:


> EF-to-RF adapters are clearly a disadvantage if you are using both EF and RF lenses. Either you buy each EF lens its own adapter, then it's not so much of an issue except for cost. Or you keep switching lenses and adapters when you go from an EF lens to an RF lens. In situations where quick lens swaps are desired, I would consider it a PITA to switch from EF lens A to RF lens B to EF lens C. If the adapter stays on EF lens A after use, during the switch from RF lens B to EF lens C you'd have to 1) remove adapter from EF lens A, 2) remove EF back lens cap from EF lens C, 3) attach EF back lens cap to EF lens A, 4) attach adapter to EF lens C, 5) remove RF lens B from body, 6) remove adapter RF back lens cap, 7) attach RF back lens cap to RF lens B, 8) attach EF lens C with adapter to body. Without adapters (i.e. with only RF lenses) you'd only have to 1) remove RF lens B from body, 2) remove back lens cap from RF lens C, 3) attach back lens cap to RF lens B, 4) attach RF lens C to body. That's 4 steps instead of 8.



You can use the back lens caps interchangeably, with the 35mm at least. Anything else I wouldn't be rushing anyway.

You only need 2 adapters at worst to avoid it for the vast majority of situations, and a spare can be good to have anyhow. It only becomes a risk once you have enough money to buy multiple RF lenses anyway so cost shouldnt be a problem.

I didnt like the EF-M adapters but these are a lot more usable and even have some advantages with the optional extras (if wanted). I have the variable ND adapter and its awesome for its intended use - can change any lens without needing to change it. I dont tend to use the dial on the other but other people seem to like them.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 24, 2020)

yeahright said:


> EF-to-RF adapters are clearly a disadvantage if you are using both EF and RF lenses. Either you buy each EF lens its own adapter, then it's not so much of an issue except for cost. Or you keep switching lenses and adapters when you go from an EF lens to an RF lens. In situations where quick lens swaps are desired, I would consider it a PITA to switch from EF lens A to RF lens B to EF lens C. If the adapter stays on EF lens A after use, during the switch from RF lens B to EF lens C you'd have to 1) remove adapter from EF lens A, 2) remove EF back lens cap from EF lens C, 3) attach EF back lens cap to EF lens A, 4) attach adapter to EF lens C, 5) remove RF lens B from body, 6) remove adapter RF back lens cap, 7) attach RF back lens cap to RF lens B, 8) attach EF lens C with adapter to body. Without adapters (i.e. with only RF lenses) you'd only have to 1) remove RF lens B from body, 2) remove back lens cap from RF lens C, 3) attach back lens cap to RF lens B, 4) attach RF lens C to body. That's 4 steps instead of 8.


If you are regularly switching. three lenses you should be running two bodies, sorted.


----------



## AEWest (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> its a better sensor. whatever ergonomics, terrible menus and so on. the final image, its better on the sony, more likely to be taken on time/in focus, better DR/ISO/Colour depth etc. But i understand this is a canon forum and fanboys gonna be offended and start going on about colour science.


It may be a better sensor compared with existing Canon sensor, but this is supposed to be a new design so it may be as good or better than Sony. Time will tell.


----------



## sanj (May 24, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Likely will be worse at stills than a a7r4, specially DR. If all you do is stills, that's the exciting camera to get


Now you did it. You injected steroids to a dying horse post.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 25, 2020)

It's not 100% clear it'll have 45mp sensor. It's very likely but not 100% clear.



x4dow said:


> what stills specs? its clear the camera has at least 45MP , 12fps mechanical and 20fps eletronically. What other "stills specs" are you looking for?


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

padam said:


> The dynamic range is a little better on the Sony, but really not by much and with the latest Canon sensor like the 1DX III, the ISO is not better anymore,


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

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


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's not 100% clear it'll have 45mp sensor. It's very likely but not 100% clear.


with 8k dci raw, its clear to have AT LEAST 45MP, it can be more.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> dunno where you seeing those figures as last time i checked, some sony APSC cameras beat every single canon full frame on dynamic range. Even the old nikon 7200 beats full frame canons on dynamic range. Also regarding ISO, youre wrong. 7 out of the top8 full frame ISO performers are sony, and 4 out of the top8 have over 40MP, (and one of them is a sony). the one that isnt a sony is the S1R, which is also like 47MP.
> 
> That whole "less MP is better for HIGH iso" is mainly a myth based on how cameras VIDEO performance used to line skip on higher MP sensors (like the A7R2/A7II line skips , while the A7S2 and A7III read the whole sensor)
> the 2 best performing Canons on DR are the 5div and R with around 13.6 DR, most sonys have 14.5-14.8 stops DR.


Well that depends on where you get your figures from.

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


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> Well that depends on where you get your figures from.
> 
> https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 1D X Mark III,Nikon D7200,Sony ILCE-6600,Sony ILCE-9M2


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

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


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> with 8k dci raw, its clear to have AT LEAST 45MP, it can be more.



As far as i understand, not 'with 8k DCI', but 'if 8K DCI'.
We don't know for sure if it's DCI.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> yeah charts that say nikons and sony to have 10 stops dynamic range... plenty of independent tests show results on 14-15 stops, That website makes no sense
> 
> Not to mention that scores THE SAME CAMERA 2 stops worse when in crop, when in fact images cropped have the exact same DR, they are just cropped, highlights/shadows dont clip faster by goingcrop


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


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> You clearly don’t understand what the graphs are or what the measurements are so there is no point in starting all that up again. Suffice to say anybody that thinks they are getting 14-15 stops of dr out of any crop sensor camera is drinking somebody else’s cool aid, enjoy it but it isn’t the truth.


Sensor size doesnt affect dynamic range.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Sensor size doesnt affect dynamic range.


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


----------



## Quarkcharmed (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Sensor size doesnt affect dynamic range.



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

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

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


----------



## SteveC (May 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


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



New guy. Probable Sony troll.


----------



## SteveC (May 25, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)



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

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

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

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

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


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

SteveC said:


> New guy. Probable Sony troll.


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


----------



## herein2020 (May 25, 2020)

SteveC said:


> This is at least somewhat a non-sequitur. An EF lens with the RF adapter is no worse optically than the EF lens native.
> 
> But, you're probably trying to compare the EF lens with an adapter (or for that matter, without one, since the adapter makes no optical difference) to an RF lens.
> 
> ...



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

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

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


----------



## vjlex (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


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


So... you sign up to a Canon rumors site a week ago, to post about how inferior to Sony cameras Canon's bodies are? Canon bodies whose full specs (let alone actual real world use) are not publicly known? And everyone else is the fanboy? Got it...


----------



## privatebydesign (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


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


If you need two card slots you need two card slots, I have shot professionally since 1978 and never needed them, but I am in the minority here on that issue. 

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


----------



## herein2020 (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


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



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

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

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

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


----------



## SecureGSM (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> its a better sensor. whatever ergonomics, terrible menus and so on. the final image, its better on the sony, more likely to be taken on time/in focus, better DR/ISO/Colour depth etc. But i understand this is a canon forum and fanboys gonna be offended and start going on about colour science.


Better colour depth. As in 16bit colour on Sony or something? 
We have no idea what the sensor used in R5 performance will be like however understand that you somehow have some solid info to share?


----------



## herein2020 (May 25, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> If you need two card slots you need two card slots, I have shot professionally since 1978 and never needed them, but I am in the minority here on that issue.



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

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


----------



## SecureGSM (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> yeah charts that say nikons and sony to have 10 stops dynamic range... plenty of independent tests show results on 14-15 stops, That website makes no sense
> 
> Not to mention that scores THE SAME CAMERA 2 stops worse when in crop, when in fact images cropped have the exact same DR, they are just cropped, highlights/shadows dont clip faster by goingcrop


15 stops of DR in a 14bit file? Some kind of magic ...


----------



## SteveC (May 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> 15 stops of DR in a 14bit file? Some kind of magic ...



Rather reminds me of the old jokes about compressing a 1 MB file over and over again til you get it down to one byte. I guess that works if there are only 256 possible 1MB files.


----------



## koenkooi (May 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> 15 stops of DR in a 14bit file? Some kind of magic ...



You can have an arbitrary number of stops in even a 1-bit file. Just define zero as 1 lux and one as 1048576 lux, and BAM 20 stops! Just have a look at what C-LOG does in the Cine range, the C300III does 16 stops in a 12-bit file. As the 'LOG' name implies, the relation between input and storage doesn't have to be linear.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (May 25, 2020)

Quarkcharmed said:


> As far as i understand, not 'with 8k DCI', but 'if 8K DCI'.
> We don't know for sure if it's DCI.



At the Cine online event a month ago, Canon said the camera does 8K DCI video recording and uses the full width of sensor to do that.

EDIT: They did apparently not exactly _say _it in the broadcast, but it is stated in the associated press release:








Canon EOS R5 video specs include 8K/30, 4K/120 with Raw, 10-bit H.265 and full AF


Canon has revealed the video specs of its forthcoming EOS R5, including internal Raw capture of its 8K/30p footage. There's also full-width 4K at up to 120p with 10-bit 4:2:2 recording and full AF in all modes.




www.dpreview.com




or directly from the source (notice asteriks note in bottom of press release):





Canon U.S.A., Inc. | Press Release Details







www.usa.canon.com


----------



## SecureGSM (May 25, 2020)

koenkooi said:


> You can have an arbitrary number of stops in even a 1-bit file. Just define zero as 1 lux and one as 1048576 lux, and BAM 20 stops! Just have a look at what C-LOG does in the Cine range, the C300III does 16 stops in a 12-bit file. As the 'LOG' name implies, the relation between input and storage doesn't have to be linear.


I know all that. Are we shootings stills in c-log now? ) trickery aside, the claim was that Sony a7r4 sensor outputs DR is 14-15 stops. So..


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> 15 stops of DR in a 14bit file? Some kind of magic ...


I can show you a 8bit jpg with 16 stops of DR. What does one thing have to do with the other?


----------



## SecureGSM (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> I can show you a 8bit jpg with 16 stops of DR. What does one thing have to do with the other?


Out of camera?  

A Reasonable expectation is 7-10 stops of DR in a 8 bit JPEG if acceptable quality. Key word: acceptable. 






What is the dynamic range of a JPEG image?: Photographic Science and Technology Forum: Digital Photography Review


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




www.dpreview.com





Anyway... a7R3 sensor DR at ISO 100 is about 0.7 stop wider than the same in 5d4.


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Out of camera?
> 
> A Reasonable expectation is 7-10 stops of DR in a 8 bit JPEG if acceptable quality. Key word: acceptable.
> 
> ...


Yes 
Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras. 

Colour but rate has nothing to do with dynamic range. One is the number of gradient of the same colours, the other is the number of stops of light between darkest and lightest before clipping. Completely unrelated. 
Always laugh when clueless youtubers say a 10bit video camera is more likely to give more DR because its 10bit.


----------



## SecureGSM (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Yes
> Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras.
> 
> Colour but rate has nothing to do with dynamic range. One is the number of gradient of the same colours, the other is the number of stops of light between darkest and lightest before clipping. Completely unrelated.
> Always laugh when clueless youtubers say a 10bit video camera is more likely to give more DR because its 10bit.


Not even remotely interested in the discussion at this level. As I said. “ trickery aside”... Bottom line is: Sony a7r3 sensor DR advantage over 5d4 is around 0.7 stop and at iso 100. Not much at all. And at iso 200 there is hardly any advantage left at all. 
Nice and simple.


----------



## BillB (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Yes
> Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras



hdr mode is basically in camera shadow pushing, along with software to hold the highlights. Some of us are more wound up about how far shadows can be pushed at base iso than others. People who talk a lot about how far you can push shadows at base ISO like to use magic numbers that they call DR. It gets pretty silly sometimes.


----------



## yeahright (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> I can show you a 8bit jpg with 16 stops of DR. What does one thing have to do with the other?


DR in photography is defined as the ratio between lightest areas and NOISE LEVEL, not between lightest areas and darkest areas (see here, for example). Otherwise the DR wouldn't decrease as you increase ISO. In a sensibly designed camera with an appropriate file format, the DR you find in a RAW file is mainly determined by analog noise sources such as sensor read noise, etc. The bit depth of the file will be at least as high as the DR of a single pixel, everything else would be throwing away valuable information from the sensor. In real-world cameras this is the case, which is why you see noise in RAW files even at base ISO. If you choose to limit the bit depth of the file to smaller values than would be warranted by analog noise, you make quantization noise dominant instead. But by doing that, you are increasing the noise level, and therefore reducing the dynamic range in your image. A 1-bit file with value 1 defined 2^20 times as bright as value 0 therefore does NOT have a DR of 20 stops.


----------



## David_E (May 25, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
> Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
> Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
> Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)




Good list of hypotheticals, but they don’t really have much relevance in the real world. You could have added that the EF-to-RF adapter is made of aluminum, which is flammable at about 2600C—a potential fire hazard.


> Obviously adapters exist, no I don't believe in them nor do I use them...


So, in fact, you don’t know anything at all about the EF-to-RF adapter, but only have the hypotheticals that you made up. They are no different from extension tubes, bellows, or tele-extenders*, none of which has a reputation for ruining lenses, cameras, or photographs.

*except that, unlike tele-extenders, the lens adapters are empty tubes with no glass elements.


----------



## herein2020 (May 25, 2020)

David_E said:


> Good list of hypotheticals, but they don’t really have much relevance in the real world. You could have added that the EF-to-RF adapter is made of aluminum, which is flammable at about 2600C—a potential fire hazard.
> 
> So, in fact, you don’t know anything at all about the EF-to-RF adapter, but only have the hypotheticals that you made up. They are no different from extension tubes, bellows, or tele-extenders*, none of which has a reputation for ruining lenses, cameras, or photographs.
> 
> *except that, unlike tele-extenders, the lens adapters are empty tubes with no glass elements.



I'm not sure why you are so fixated on my decision to not use adapters and stick with native lenses for my work but whatever keeps you entertained so be it. But saying that an adapter could be lost, forgotten, or misplaced during a shoot preventing you from using the lens it was meant to adapt is about as far from hypothetical as it gets; just like every other reason why I don't use adapters.

I'm typically running at least two video cameras during a shoot, lighting, audio, gimbals, a photography camera, shooting b-roll, doing interviews, etc etc. I'm simply not going to add anything to my gear that will increase its complexity unnecessarily if there is a better/simpler way to do it. Get over yourself and get a life...who knows maybe even get outdoors and shoot once in awhile, adapters are not a part of my workflow and never will be.

I also only use tool less parts (nato rails, thumbscrews, quick release etc) for all of my gear, I don't add anything that uses batteries unless absolutely necessary (i.e external monitors, lights, audio recorders, etc), I don't buy anything that uses custom cables, I don't buy anything that uses non standard inputs or outputs, all for the same reason; simplicity, interoperability, and speed in setup/takedown. I guess that to you makes no sense either. Everyone has set up their gear and made their purchasing decisions based on what works best for their workflow. It's time to take the blinders off and realize that other people have workflows or shooting conditions that you may not have considered.

If I was shooting with a single body, had plenty of setup and tear down time, and was doing this for a hobby then sure I'd get an adapter and be perfectly fine with it. But with my workflow where I need to be able to switch lenses between bodies very quickly, set up and tear down multiple configurations throughout a day, etc. there's no way I am adding a solution that requires an adapter to my workflow.


----------



## Kit. (May 25, 2020)

x4dow said:


> yeah charts that say nikons and sony to have 10 stops dynamic range... plenty of independent tests show results on 14-15 stops, That website makes no sense


Still, how about your pictures to illustrate your point? Do they make sense? Do they exist at all?



x4dow said:


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


Shadows don't "clip".


----------



## x4dow (May 25, 2020)

Kit. said:


> Shadows don't "clip".


cropping an image in the same sensor doesnt reduce dynamic range


----------



## tron (May 26, 2020)

Whowe said:


> The one for the 1Dx Mark III does not include Ethernet, since it is built in to the camera. It may offer extended range since it is extenal antenna, but, unlike the 1DX, the R5 should have the faster wifi (5gHz) built in, so it should already be fast.
> 
> As Pixel said, I think this is more for the extended professional functions such as FTP, better remote control, etc.


Hmmm 5DIV has FTP software as standard functionality.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

AEWest said:


> I would like to know what new sensor tech they are using. Is it a stacked sensor? What about dynamic range? Canon has indicated it is an all new sensor. It will be interesting to see - I expect the announcement this week.
> 
> Hopefully some youtubers will have had a chance to test it and provide first impressions - I'd hate to rely only on marketing spin from Canon.



You won't know about DR until the camera is out in the wild and can be tested by independent labs. I don't recall Canon ever announcing specific numbers regarding DR for any of their cameras.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I assume you missed my reasons why I do not use adapters, from your perspective _"The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside" ; _making such a statement does not make it true it simply means that you refused to consider viewpoints that are not your own. So, I will repeat my list of why I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time:
> 
> 
> Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
> ...



Re: using adapters, would you say that:

I COULD NOT, WOULD NOT, ON A BOAT.
I WILL NOT, WILL NOT, WITH A GOAT.
I WILL NOT USE THEM IN THE RAIN.
NOT IN THE DARK! NOT IN A TREE!
NOT IN A CAR! YOU LET ME BE!
I DO NOT LIKE THEM IN A BOX.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM WITH A FOX.
I WILL NOT USE THEM IN A HOUSE.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM WITH A MOUSE.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM HERE OR THERE.
I DO NOT LIKE THEM ANYWHERE!
I DO NOT LIKE ADAPTER SHAMS!
I DO NOT LIKE THEM, SAM-I-AM.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I assume you missed my reasons why I do not use adapters, from your perspective _"The EF-to-RF adapter is invisible; it has no downside" ; _making such a statement does not make it true it simply means that you refused to consider viewpoints that are not your own. So, I will repeat my list of why I do not use adapters again below since you missed it the first time:
> 
> 
> Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
> ...



Seriously, your first three points, though fairly miniscule, are legitimate gripes.

Your fourth point proves that you know absolutely nothing about what you are saying.


Try it, you'll like it!


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

yeahright said:


> EF-to-RF adapters are clearly a disadvantage if you are using both EF and RF lenses. Either you buy each EF lens its own adapter, then it's not so much of an issue except for cost. Or you keep switching lenses and adapters when you go from an EF lens to an RF lens. In situations where quick lens swaps are desired, I would consider it a PITA to switch from EF lens A to RF lens B to EF lens C. If the adapter stays on EF lens A after use, during the switch from RF lens B to EF lens C you'd have to 1) remove adapter from EF lens A, 2) remove EF back lens cap from EF lens C, 3) attach EF back lens cap to EF lens A, 4) attach adapter to EF lens C, 5) remove RF lens B from body, 6) remove adapter RF back lens cap, 7) attach RF back lens cap to RF lens B, 8) attach EF lens C with adapter to body. Without adapters (i.e. with only RF lenses) you'd only have to 1) remove RF lens B from body, 2) remove back lens cap from RF lens C, 3) attach back lens cap to RF lens B, 4) attach RF lens C to body. That's 4 steps instead of 8.



I guess that all depends on how you shoot. It's extremely rare for me to change lenses during a shoot. If I need more than one lens I take more than one body.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

x4dow said:


> dunno where you seeing those figures as last time i checked, some sony APSC cameras beat every single canon full frame on dynamic range. Even the old nikon 7200 beats full frame canons on dynamic range. Also regarding ISO, youre wrong. 7 out of the top8 full frame ISO performers are sony, and 4 out of the top8 have over 40MP, (and one of them is a sony). the one that isnt a sony is the S1R, which is also like 47MP.
> 
> That whole "less MP is better for HIGH iso" is mainly a myth based on how cameras VIDEO performance used to line skip on higher MP sensors (like the A7R2/A7II line skips , while the A7S2 and A7III read the whole sensor)
> the 2 best performing Canons on DR are the 5div and R with around 13.6 DR, most sonys have 14.5-14.8 stops DR.



Do you always shoot at ISO 100? Or do you actually take photos in the real world where lighting constraints and subject motion make that a pie-in-the-sky-in-the-sweet-by-and-by fantasy?

Look at the comparative DR and S/N ratio numbers for the latest Canon FF sensors compared to the latest Sony sensors at ISO 400, ISO 3200, or beyond. You might be embarrassed by what you see.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I am perfectly satisfied with EF optics on an EF mount, in fact I have no interest at all in the RF bodies for photography; the only reason I would get an RF mount body is for its video features which has nothing to do with optics; Canon does not make a single EF mount DSLR body that matches the features I get with the GH5 and if they did I would get that instead.
> 
> I was not comparing EF lenses with an adapter to RF lenses without an adapter; my point was Canon has a new RF mount with lenses that so far are proving to be optically superior to their EF equivalents (as it should be), the adapter has nothing to do with it; so if I were to get an RF mount camera I would also get the optically superior RF mount lenses that Canon made for it.
> 
> The larger context of the discussion was why I don't use adapted lenses; so my point still stands, adapted EF mount lenses simply by the nature of the fact that they are from a previous generation more than likely will be inferior to a current generation RF mount lens, so by mounting an EF mount lens on an RF mount camera which by the way can only be done with an adapter; you are using a lens that is optically inferior to the RF mount equivalent.



I'd put at least one-third of the current EF mount lens catalog up against the RF 24-240mm f/4-6.3 and come out ahead. Once Canon releases more lower tier RF mount lenses, as they are rumored to be preparing to do in the relatively near future, that list will grow.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

x4dow said:


> Yes
> Very easily can give you a 20DR with a jpg out of camera. It's often called "hdr mode" or bracketing in cameras.
> 
> Colour but rate has nothing to do with dynamic range. One is the number of gradient of the same colours, the other is the number of stops of light between darkest and lightest before clipping. Completely unrelated.
> Always laugh when clueless youtubers say a 10bit video camera is more likely to give more DR because its 10bit.



You can capture a 20 stop scene that way, but you can't produce a 20 stop JPEG that way. The higher DR of the scene must be reduced to the lower DR of the output medium.

The way Ansel Adams figured out how to do that with film is why he is considered a genius.


----------



## David_E (May 26, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> ..._my point was Canon has a new RF mount with lenses that so far are proving to be optically superior to their EF equivalents_...


So you say after reading that somewhere. Or perhaps I’m mistaken and you ran the tests on your $100k optical bench. If I place two otherwise identical photos from an R or RP side-by-side, one made with EF + adapter, one made with equivalent RF, will you see a difference? No.


----------



## yeahright (May 26, 2020)

David_E said:


> So you say after reading that somewhere. Or perhaps I’m mistaken and you ran the tests on your $100k optical bench. If I place two otherwise identical photos from an R or RP side-by-side, one made with EF + adapter, one made with equivalent RF, will you see a difference? No.


I will never understand why people on forums often take a statement of personal preference as a statement of universal truth. herein2020 has explained at length and quite plausibly why he/she does not want adapters in his/her *personal workflow*, here for instance. Still, you keep insisting that adapters have no drawbacks whatsoever, you simply ignore all of the plausible arguments. It might well be that an adapter is perfectly fine for many people, and this hasn't been doubted in any way, but for herein2020 it is not. Why is that such a problem for you? Concerning your last post: I think there is enough evidence that one can "read somewhere" that e.g. the RF 85mm f/1.2L is optically superior to the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and the same goes for the RF 50 mm f/1.2L vs. the EF 50 mm f/1.2L. You don't need your own optical bench to come to that conclusion, just read some of the dozens of reviews out there.


----------



## herein2020 (May 27, 2020)

David_E said:


> So you say after reading that somewhere. Or perhaps I’m mistaken and you ran the tests on your $100k optical bench. If I place two otherwise identical photos from an R or RP side-by-side, one made with EF + adapter, one made with equivalent RF, will you see a difference? No.



I'm just going to stop wasting my time on this thread; who would have thought a discussion on lens adapters could devolve into such idiotic comments. You are still completely oblivious to the fact that you have been wrong since the moment you made the statement "there are no downsides to using an adapter vs native lenses" but now you are inferring that the entire Internet's body of knowledge which all concludes that the native RF lenses outperform and have features that adapted EF lenses do not must be wrong including Canon themselves who made the EF and RF lenses and the adapters while simultaneously cherry picking from my list of downsides the one area where you think you have a chance of being right...but simply are wrong again.

In case you want to "read somewhere" about the benefits of *not *using the adapter (since apparently there can be no benefits since there are no downsides to using an adapter) you can click a few of the links below. If you are simply trying to justify your purchase of the adapter vs. native lenses a better start would be to get your facts straight first.









Video: Canon RF vs EF Lenses on the Canon Mirrorless System


Want to know how your Canon EF lenses will perform on the Canon EOS R or RP? Check out this Canon RF vs EF Lenses video by BorrowLenses.




digital-photography-school.com













Canon: Here's Why RF Lenses Can Be Better Than EF Lenses


Canon made this 4.5-minute video explaining the technology of its new RF lens mount for full-frame mirrorless cameras and its strengths over conventional




petapixel.com









__





6 Significant Features of RF Lenses






snapshot.canon-asia.com








Michael Clark said:


> Seriously, your first three points, though fairly miniscule, are legitimate gripes.
> 
> Your fourth point proves that you know absolutely nothing about what you are saying.
> 
> ...



So what you are saying then is that Canon, you know...the company that made the RF mount does not know what they are saying when they stated there are extra pins in the RF mount for faster lens communication, more IS options, the RF mount lets them optically improve on the EF mount etc., etc. Why two people (or maybe one person with two usernames, who knows) could possibly care enough about why I have decided adapters have no place in my workflow is beyond me. I'm done wasting time on this completely senseless topic.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 27, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> So what you are saying then is that Canon, you know...the company that made the RF mount does not know what they are saying when they stated there are extra pins in the RF mount for faster lens communication, more IS options, the RF mount lets them optically improve on the EF mount etc., etc. Why two people (or maybe one person with two usernames, who knows) could possibly care enough about why I have decided adapters have no place in my workflow is beyond me. I'm done wasting time on this completely senseless topic.



The Petapixel article says RF lenses _*can*_ be better than EF lenses. It doesn't exactly say *every* RF lens *is* better than *every* EF lens.

The Digital Photography School article tests only two RF lenses against two comparable EF lenses and then declares "... the RF lens lineup is somewhat better" without even looking at the other eight lenses in the RF lineup. I'm sure if they had put the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II against the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM they'd be singing a different song and generalizing it across the board. This is fairly typical of the quality of articles published by DPS.

Just because the RF mount has the extra pins does not mean every single RF lens, either current or in the future, will take advantage of the faster communication made possible by them. The advantage of the shorter registration distance gradually fades for focal lengths past 44mm and disappears by about 2X the 44mm registration distance of the older mount.

Will many, maybe even most, RF lenses be better than their EF counterparts? Sure. Part of that is simply because the RF designs are more recent and take advantage of things that could have also been done with a new EF lens (e.g. the size advantage of the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 IS when stored in the 70mm position because Canon was willing to go from an internally zooming EF design to an externally zooming RF design.).

But what you started this conversation with was that _**all**_ adapted lenses are *optically* inferior to **all** native lenses. That is simply not true, not by a long shot.


----------



## SteveC (May 27, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> I'm just going to stop wasting my time on this thread; who would have thought a discussion on lens adapters could devolve into such idiotic comments. You are still completely oblivious to the fact that you have been wrong since the moment you made the statement "there are no downsides to using an adapter vs native lenses" but now you are inferring that the entire Internet's body of knowledge which all concludes that the native RF lenses outperform and have features that adapted EF lenses do not must be wrong including Canon themselves who made the EF and RF lenses and the adapters while simultaneously cherry picking from my list of downsides the one area where you think you have a chance of being right...but simply are wrong again.
> 
> In case you want to "read somewhere" about the benefits of *not *using the adapter (since apparently there can be no benefits since there are no downsides to using an adapter) you can click a few of the links below. If you are simply trying to justify your purchase of the adapter vs. native lenses a better start would be to get your facts straight first.
> 
> ...



And again, you're blaming the (alleged) relative inferiority of EF lenses on the adapter. It has nothing to do with the adapter. This argument is a non-sequitur, when it comes to explaining "why adapaters are bad."

Would they be good, if somehow an EF lens was better than the corresponding RF lens? Why not? Oh, you have an answer for that? Well THAT answer is why THIS "reason" you give for adapters being bad is flat-out stupid. Because it has nothing to do with adapters.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 27, 2020)

yeahright said:


> I will never understand why people on forums often take a statement of personal preference as a statement of universal truth. herein2020 has explained at length and quite plausibly why he/she does not want adapters in his/her *personal workflow*, here for instance. Still, you keep insisting that adapters have no drawbacks whatsoever, you simply ignore all of the plausible arguments. It might well be that an adapter is perfectly fine for many people, and this hasn't been doubted in any way, but for herein2020 it is not. Why is that such a problem for you? Concerning your last post: I think there is enough evidence that one can "read somewhere" that e.g. the RF 85mm f/1.2L is optically superior to the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and the same goes for the RF 50 mm f/1.2L vs. the EF 50 mm f/1.2L. You don't need your own optical bench to come to that conclusion, just read some of the dozens of reviews out there.



How about the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM versus the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II? Which one of those is far superior optically?


----------



## herein2020 (May 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> The Petapixel article says RF lenses _*can*_ be better than EF lenses. It doesn't exactly say *every* RF lens *is* better than *every* EF lens.
> 
> The Digital Photography School article tests only two RF lenses against two comparable EF lenses and then declares "... the RF lens lineup is somewhat better" without even looking at the other eight lenses in the RF lineup. I'm sure if they had put the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II against the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS STM they'd be singing a different song and generalizing it across the board. This is fairly typical of the quality of articles published by DPS.
> 
> ...



Wrong yet again here was my exact statement

"Optically with all else equal *typically *the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are *typically *optically superior than adapted ones) "

There are exceptions to every rule.


----------



## herein2020 (May 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And again, you're blaming the (alleged) relative inferiority of EF lenses on the adapter. It has nothing to do with the adapter. This argument is a non-sequitur, when it comes to explaining "why adapaters are bad."
> 
> Would they be good, if somehow an EF lens was better than the corresponding RF lens? Why not? Oh, you have an answer for that? Well THAT answer is why THIS "reason" you give for adapters being bad is flat-out stupid. Because it has nothing to do with adapters.



And again you simply cannot comprehend the fact that I have never said the adapter affected the optical quality of the lenses. So for you as well, let me repost my original statement yet again then I'll even break it down for you. I also never said "adapters are bad" I said why I have chosen to exclude them from my workflow.
_
"Optically with all else equal *typically *the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are *typically *optically superior than adapted ones) " _

The fact still remains that native lenses are still typically optically superior than the adapted ones. Since you are simply not comprehending the completed sentence structure let me make these much more elementary statements:

EF lenses need an adapter to work on the RF mount camera
EF lenses may have missing features that RF lenses have
EF lenses will probably be optically inferior to RF lenses

Conclusion

I am not going to use an adapter and I am going to use only RF lenses on RF cameras because if I use an adapter it means I am using lenses that may have missing features and that are probably optically inferior. At no point have I ever blamed the adapter for these shortcomings. I was simply stating the causality between using an adapter and the shortcomings of the lens mount that its use enables.

See what I did there? No? Probably not, but it's ok, this thread is good for comedic relief regardless.


----------



## SteveC (May 27, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> And again you simply cannot comprehend the fact that I have never said the adapter affected the optical quality of the lenses. So for you as well, let me repost my original statement yet again then I'll even break it down for you. I also never said "adapters are bad" I said why I have chosen to exclude them from my workflow.
> 
> _"Optically with all else equal *typically *the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are *typically *optically superior than adapted ones) " _
> 
> ...



OK, mister Context Is Key...

The WHOLE post was about why you'd never use an adapter. Here's the CONTEXT:

You gave the following reasons adapters are bad. [emphasis mine]

"So, I will repeat my list of why* I do not use adapters *again below since you missed it the first time:

Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens
Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
[end quote]

Let's take them one by one:

Adaptors are another set of contacts between the body and the lens (i.e. something else that can break)
This would be true of ANY adapter on ANY camera under ANY circumstance. Check.


Adaptors are one more thing that can go wrong during a shoot, if you misplace it, lose it, or forget it you can't use the lens\
This would be true of ANY adapter on ANY camera under ANY circumstance, too. Check.


Adaptors are another entry point for dust, moisture, and water
This again would be true, perhaps unless the adapter has weather sealing on both sides whereas the native lens and body do not. But,, all things being equal, true, of any adapter, any time. 

So far, so good. If you'd have stopped here (or maybe gone on to add the additional inconvenience) you'd have been fine. But then:


Optically with all else equal typically the native lens will yield the highest quality (faster AF, better communication between lens and camera, native lenses are typically optically superior than adapted ones)
Now you come up with one that isn't true all of the time, and arguably is NOT true in this specific case, and it's not really the adapter that's the issue here. Yet it's given in a list of reasons you won't use adapters (and you said "adapters" in general, note) and don't want to use them.

See how that doesn't FIT with the others?


I could keep going but if you don't get the point by now a longer list won't matter
And finally, reason number five is just insulting the people you're talking at, so it's no wonder you get pushback.


----------



## herein2020 (May 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> OK, mister Context Is Key...
> 
> So far, so good. If you'd have stopped here (or maybe gone on to add the additional inconvenience) you'd have been fine. But then:
> 
> ...



You still simply aren't getting it, no matter how simple I make it. So I'm going to make it even simpler....

Problem: The adapter is converting a superior lens mount (according to Canon) to an inferior lens mount (according to Canon) and by doing so the lenses from the inferior lens mount along with their possible shortcomings can now be mounted to the camera

Solution: I don't use the adapter

Do you get it yet? The adapter is the first piece of a larger equation which has the potential to cause a domino effect that results in a decrease in functionality/optical quality/camera performance/ insert effect here. So what possible list then do you think that should be on?

Reason number 5 was added because I had already repeated my reasons and continued to clarify for those that still didn't get it; kind of like now, so reason number 5 is still pretty accurate as well, which leads me back to the comedic value of this discussion because you started your post with "context is key" then proceeded to question a reason that is easily understandable when evaluated in the context for which it was given.


----------



## SteveC (May 27, 2020)

herein2020 said:


> You still simply aren't getting it, no matter how simple I make it. So I'm going to make it even simpler....
> 
> Problem: The adapter is converting a superior lens mount (according to Canon) to an inferior lens mount (according to Canon) and by doing so the lenses from the inferior lens mount along with their possible shortcomings can now be mounted to the camera
> 
> ...



If your post had been "Why I don't want to use an adapted EF lens on an RF camera" you'd have a point.

But your post was about ADAPTERS IN GENERAL.

Then you gave a reason which is arguably FALSE in this SPECIFIC case--it is not invariably that case that RF lenses are superior to the EF ones, AND would not be a reason Adapters in General are bad, or even a reason THIS adapter is bad, even if it were true.

You can continue beclowning yourself, but I'm not the only one here who sees the problem.


----------



## herein2020 (May 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> If your post had been "Why I don't want to use an adapted EF lens on an RF camera" you'd have a point.
> 
> But your post was about ADAPTERS IN GENERAL.
> 
> ...


Finally, you are right about something, you are not the only one here who simply cannot grasp a very simple concept; I don't use adapters because I have no wish to use the lens mount they enable.

And yet again, you are saying adapters are bad, and you are saying my post was about adapters in general; neither is true. My post was about why I do not use adapters. But for me this thread has reached it's logical conclusion, clearly you are incapable of connecting two very simple dots together, at the end of the day none of it matters; if adapters fit your workflow so be it, I already know they don't fit mine.


----------



## yeahright (May 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> OK, mister Context Is Key...
> 
> The WHOLE post was about why you'd never use an adapter. Here's the CONTEXT:
> 
> ...


I have read through the whole sub-thread on adapters again:

NOBODY has made a statement that adapters IN GENERAL are bad
NOBODY has made a statement that ALL EF lenses are optically inferior to RF lenses
NOBODY has claimed that any optical inferiority of an EF lens w.r.t. an RF lens has ANYTHING to do with the adapter
If you find such a statement, please point me to it.


----------



## yeahright (May 27, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> How about the RF 35mm f/1.8 IS Macro STM versus the EF 35mm f/1.4 L II? Which one of those is far superior optically?


Why would you compare two such completely different lenses? It hasn't been claimed that all RF lenses are better than EF lenses. It has been claimed that most RF versions are better than their comparable EF counterparts.


----------



## SteveC (May 27, 2020)

yeahright said:


> Why would you compare two such completely different lenses? It hasn't been claimed that all RF lenses are better than EF lenses. It has been claimed that most RF versions are better than their comparable EF counterparts.



And yet, that's supposedly a reason to NEVER use an adapter. Makes no damn sense.


----------



## yeahright (May 27, 2020)

SteveC said:


> And yet, that's supposedly a reason to NEVER use an adapter. Makes no damn sense.


and why would you want to make sense of somebody else's personal decisions?


----------



## Kit. (May 27, 2020)

x4dow said:


> cropping an image in the same sensor doesnt reduce dynamic range


Here again:

Can you illustrate it with your pictures? Those pictures where you _need_ that dynamic range, of course.

(Hint: dynamic range of an image at a given spatial frequency is _not_ dynamic range of a pixel)


----------



## tron (May 27, 2020)

yeahright said:


> I will never understand why people on forums often take a statement of personal preference as a statement of universal truth. herein2020 has explained at length and quite plausibly why he/she does not want adapters in his/her *personal workflow*, here for instance. Still, you keep insisting that adapters have no drawbacks whatsoever, you simply ignore all of the plausible arguments. It might well be that an adapter is perfectly fine for many people, and this hasn't been doubted in any way, but for herein2020 it is not. Why is that such a problem for you? Concerning your last post: I think there is enough evidence that one can "read somewhere" that e.g. the RF 85mm f/1.2L is optically superior to the EF 85mm f/1.2L II, and the same goes for the RF 50 mm f/1.2L vs. the EF 50 mm f/1.2L. You don't need your own optical bench to come to that conclusion, just read some of the dozens of reviews out there.


Yes but RF35 1.8 is not better than EF35 1.4LII with adapter. I am comparing apples to oranges but so do you due to different decades where the products (50mm and 85mm) were made.

The RF15-35 vs EF16-35III would be more apples to apples comparison and they would come close to each other. They even have the same vignetting issues. 

Having said that, personally I would like to avoid adapters for the hassle of keeping them, searching for them, having to use and remove them etc. Some new expensive lenses have also the IS advantage (24-70 and 15-35) and that's why I got them.


----------



## yeahright (May 27, 2020)

tron said:


> Having said that, personally I would like to avoid adapters for the hassle of keeping them, searching for them, having to use and remove them etc. Some new expensive lenses have also the IS advantage (24-70 and 15-35) and that's why I got them.


Your last sentence gives exactly the same reasons for not using an adapter that herein2020 has stated and which I am defending in my post. Nobody said the RF 35 f/1.8 would be better than the EF 35 f/1.4L II. Nobody said that recent EF lenses with adapter would optically not be just as good as their RF counterparts. This whole adapter-discussion revolves around the fact that somebody (herein2020) stated that he/she doesn't use adapters. For exactly those reasons you are also giving in your post (losing them, searching for them, additional handling, etc.). One of the reasons was that in the RF ecosystem there are some new lenses that are optically superior to older EF lenses. Nobody said that this has anything to do with the adapter itself, but in RF without adapter world there are some unique and shiny lenses that are better than their comparable EF counterparts. Partly simply because they are newer, partly because they (possibly) make use of the faster communication protocols, etc.


----------

