# The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Oct 14, 2019)

> We have been told that Canon still has plans to update its most popular professional full-frame camera, the EOS 5D Mark IV.
> The EOS 5D Mark V apparently appeared on an internal roadmap, along with an EOS R Mark II, the source did not provide the timeline of the roadmap.
> We think it makes a lot of sense to see another iteration of the EOS 5D DSLR, along with a similarly specced EOS R Mark II.
> With all of the new cameras expected in 2020 from Canon, I don’t see either the EOS 5D Mark IV or EOS R replacement coming before Q4 of 2020.



Continue reading...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2019)

I just swallowed my coffee the wrong way! Ok, I can hold onto those EF lenses a bit longer. Oh, how I fretted they'd be paperweights by now.  Actually, crow tastes ok if you marinate it in enough hot sauce for a day, then get drunk before eating it with rice.


----------



## Memdroid (Oct 14, 2019)

Sounds like they will go the same route as the 90D and M6 mk II, same specs different systems and let the market decide what to buy.


----------



## kiwiengr (Oct 14, 2019)

This is excellent news.... having gone 300D, 1D ii, 5D ii, and then 5D iv (and the latter being the best of those for AF), another increment would be great.


----------



## suburbia (Oct 14, 2019)

A 5D Mk V released alongside a R Mk II is a win win, especially as their development would also be in parallel perhaps with a single team.


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Oct 14, 2019)

Every 4 years another 5D appears! In 2020 after 4 years of 5D IV, there will be another 5D V released, now that comes as a surprize 

Don't tell me it will have 1 stop iso improvement ?! That can't be true )


----------



## HikeBike (Oct 14, 2019)

R Mark II is what I'm interested in. Cool that there will be a 5D Mark V though.


----------



## Bob Howland (Oct 14, 2019)

Outstanding! I tend to skip generations in the 5D series and currently own a 5D3. A (nearly) simultaneous introduction of a similar R camera would also be most welcome.


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Oct 14, 2019)

HikeBike said:


> R Mark II is what I'm interested in. Cool that there will be a 5D Mark V though.



Who knows maybe the 5D V will have RF mount. And better maybe when you go on liveview you'll have a LCD instead of the black Viewfinder.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 14, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


So I wonder, if the 5D V is expected, and the 1Dx III is expected, why not hte 7D III (alongside the R crop sensor)?

Just wondering


----------



## masterpix (Oct 14, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> Who knows maybe the 5D V will have RF mount. And better maybe when you go on liveview you'll have a LCD instead of the black Viewfinder.


You forgot the mirror. The RF lenses focus is shorter than that of the EF lenses. the 5D therefore can not have RF mount.


----------



## Sharlin (Oct 14, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> Who knows maybe the 5D V will have RF mount. And better maybe when you go on liveview you'll have a LCD instead of the black Viewfinder.



And what do you think the R (Mark II or not) is? The RF mount and a reflex mirror are mutually exclusive features, that’s the whole point of the R system.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> Who knows maybe the 5D V will have RF mount. And better maybe when you go on liveview you'll have a LCD instead of the black Viewfinder.


A Canon Rumors guarantee: in every rumor thread someone will ask for a rainbow unicorn.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 14, 2019)

I’m not surprised. I’ve never bought the DSLRs are dead hype.


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Oct 14, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> And what do you think the R (Mark II or not) is? The RF mount and a reflex mirror are mutually exclusive features, that’s the whole point of the R system.


Yes you are right. Can't be RF mount. If they make a DSLR/mirrorless it should have EF mount!


----------



## venusFivePhotoStudio (Oct 14, 2019)

unfocused said:


> A Canon Rumors guarantee: in every rumor thread someone will ask for a rainbow unicorn.


It has been done before. There are some rangefinders that have OVFs that cange to EVF when you press a buton


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2019)

Does Nikon or Some other company have auto AFMA on any of their dSLR's? If it works, that would be a great incentive to consider a 5DV!


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 14, 2019)

YES! Just yes!


----------



## edoorn (Oct 14, 2019)

very nice! I'll take the R version


----------



## mclaren777 (Oct 14, 2019)

I'm so excited for this camera!

I just hope Canon doesn't raise the resolution too much. 30mp feels perfect on the 5D4.


----------



## BrightTiger (Oct 14, 2019)

Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace. 
They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.


----------



## Act444 (Oct 14, 2019)

I think it is possible that both these cameras will end up being similar in the way that the M6 Mark II and EOS 90D are...


----------



## KirkD (Oct 14, 2019)

If the R II will lose the touch bar and include IBIS, I'll be dusting off my credit card.


----------



## jdale273 (Oct 14, 2019)

mclaren777 said:


> I'm so excited for this camera!
> 
> I just hope Canon doesn't raise the resolution too much. 30mp feels perfect on the 5D4.


I'd love to see somewhere between 35-40


----------



## amorse (Oct 14, 2019)

I guess my biggest question here is will the RII stay where it is in the lineup, or does it move up market to more closely match the 5d series? There's some separation there now, but I wonder if that was a strategy to keep the R's price down and let more people buy into the system - create more potential homes for RF glass.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.


Okay...


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.



You mean there aren't enough customers like myself who are very happy to have both options? For different purposes? Canon should just go cold turkey with a system that is working great for many, a system that includes a huge catalog of great lenses that can be used on the new mirrorless? Hmmm...

If Canon is offering both, along with incredible, industry leading prime lenses for mirrorless right now, why would that be a reason to migrate to another company? How does the choice to go mirrorless get diminished by Canon offering one more, at least, generation of dSLR? Please help me follow the logic!


----------



## slclick (Oct 14, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> Who knows maybe the 5D V will have RF mount. And better maybe when you go on liveview you'll have a LCD instead of the black Viewfinder.


Then it wouldn't be a Mark V, it would be a new model first of it's kind.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.


Care to elaborate?



BrightTiger said:


> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.


Good luck with your Sony Vaio camera.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2019)

I doubt anybody could make a convincing case that releasing another 5D slows down development and release of a more action oriented R body. For Canon customers, this looks like a win/win.


----------



## dominic_siu (Oct 14, 2019)

I have ditched almost all EF glasses, don’t like using EF lenses on R body. After the V1.4 firmware upgrade the R works great, hope the R Mark II will have better control at least par with 5D4. Will definitely buy the RF70200, RF lenses are the future.


----------



## Chris_Seattle (Oct 14, 2019)

I think it’s most likely that this will be the FF equivalent of the 80D—>90D move, with the upgrades to the lightmeter and a better sensor. I don’t really think they would hybridize the 5D Mark 5 to be an EF Mount mirrorless camera with an EVF, because that would essentially be an R ii with an EF adapter that you could never remove.

The frustrating thing would be if they didn’t limit the differences between the 5D Mark5 and the R ii to ONLY the mirror/OVF/EF Mount vs the EVF/RF mount.

If you can get dual card slots in one but not the other, or IBIS in one but not the other, it will be obnoxious.

Otherwise, this will be a great move from Canon to give consumers choice.


----------



## BrightTiger (Oct 14, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Good luck with your Sony Vaio camera.


It's been great and delivered in spades on the vacation we just had!


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 14, 2019)

Surprised, if true. This would say to me that mirrorless technology will not be at a similar performance level (in some respects) as the DSLR for several more years. The R lenses are certainly as good as, or better than EF, but apparently not the bodies.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> It's been great and delivered in spades on the vacation we just had!


Hey is that you Marsu42?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 14, 2019)

Makes me wonder how well the R is being adopted by existing 5D users which must still account for a significant portion of wedding and event photographers. Lots of chatter about the new R bodies and lenses on-line but I can't say I've ever seen one out "in the wild". Of course, I rarely see any interchangeable cameras these days so I don't suppose that means very much. This might be the first 5D in the line that I don't buy. Not saying it won't be a great camera; just not sure what it can do better than my 5D Mark IV. I hadn't expected to buy any more DSLR's but maybe Canon still has a few DSLR tricks up their sleeves.

edit: I understand that Canon wants to please all of their constituents but there is a risk of looking indicisive regarding their transition to the RF mount. 

Personally, as long as Canon seems to have a "foot in each boat" I don't see my self committing to the new R/RF line. I don't see why I should be committing to a new proprietary lens mount when Canon seems to be hedging it's bets. Just my opinion. Those new RF lenses are pretty nice. YMMV.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 14, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> Who knows maybe the 5D V will have RF mount. And better maybe when you go on liveview you'll have a LCD instead of the black Viewfinder.



Then it would be a RII not a 5DV.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2019)

I don't expect a EOS R MK II for a couple of years unless Canon has found a way to substantially improve its performance.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.



Troll.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> You mean there aren't enough customers like myself who are very happy to have both options? For different purposes? Canon should just go cold turkey with a system that is working great for many, and a system that includes a huge catalog of great lenses that can be used on the new mirrorless? Hmmm...
> 
> If Canon is offering both, along with incredible, industry leading prime lenses for mirrorless right now, why would that be a reason to migrate to another company? How does the choice to go mirrorless get diminished by Canon offering one more, at least, generation of dSLR? Please help me follow the logic!



Agree.
If it is basically the same camera but one DSLR and the other mirrorless no harm no foul. It sounds exciting for those wanting a DSLR to get the cutting edge tech being pumped into the mirrorless systems. Especially in live view and video. It would be nice if the viewfinder switched from the mirror to EVF when in live view. I do so hate to hold the camera out away from the body when in live view at present. Oh well we shall see. This is very exciting.


----------



## melgross (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> You mean there aren't enough customers like myself who are very happy to have both options? For different purposes? Canon should just go cold turkey with a system that is working great for many, and a system that includes a huge catalog of great lenses that can be used on the new mirrorless? Hmmm...
> 
> If Canon is offering both, along with incredible, industry leading prime lenses for mirrorless right now, why would that be a reason to migrate to another company? How does the choice to go mirrorless get diminished by Canon offering one more, at least, generation of dSLR? Please help me follow the logic!


Because some people are fair whether friends. They want the newest, and they want it NOW! There are those who switch systems every few years because of the newest body, or lens. They just don’t get that every major manufacturer has excellent equipment, and that most any of it is suitable for anything they want to do. I like Canon, and I’ve been using it since the F1 came out, and I’m not interested in switching.


----------



## melgross (Oct 14, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Makes me wonder how well the R is being adopted by existing 5D users which must still account for a significant portion of wedding and event photographers. Lots of chatter about the new R bodies and lenses on-line but I can't say I've ever seen one out "in the wild". Of course, I rarely see any interchangeable cameras these days so I don't suppose that means very much. This might be the first 5D in the line that I don't buy. Not saying it won't be a great camera; just not sure what it can do better than my 5D Mark IV. I hadn't expected to buy any more DSLR's but maybe Canon still has a few DSLR tricks up their sleeves.
> 
> edit: I understand that Canon wants to please all of their constituents but there is a risk of looking indicisive regarding their transition to the RF mount.
> 
> Personally, as long as Canon seems to have a "foot in each boat" I don't see my self committing to the new R/RF line. I don't see why I should be committing to a new proprietary lens mount when Canon seems to be hedging it's bets. Just my opinion. Those new RF lenses are pretty nice. YMMV.


It takes a while before people move over in large numbers to a new mount with all that entails. If this is true, then yes, Canon is hedging its bets. But I’d bet that it will be the last incarnation of the 5D series. Same thing for the 1Ds when it comes out next year.

the future is mirrorless. Everything is dumping, where it can, mechanical for electronic. That’s been happening for decades, and it won’t stop.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 14, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't expect a EOS R MK II for a couple of years unless Canon has found a way to substantially improve its performance.



Seeing how much the M6II/90D sensor has improved over the previous gen, using that tech combined with a digic 9 would be a big performance boost. 
Having said that, does Canon want the R to be on a 2 year cycle?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 14, 2019)

melgross said:


> It takes a while before people move over in large numbers to a new mount with all that entails. If this is true, then yes, Canon is hedging its bets. But I’d bet that it will be the last incarnation of the 5D series. Same thing for the 1Ds when it comes out next year.
> 
> the future is mirrorless. Everything is dumping, where it can, mechanical for electronic. That’s been happening for decades, and it won’t stop.


You're probably right, but I'd still be ticked if I laid out $8k or so for Canon's new RF Trinity and then Canon dropped some amazing new EF mount DSLR/Hybrid thingy that was incompatible with my shiny new lenses. I'm not saying it's likely to happen but I've been around a bit too and stranger things have happened. As long as Canon keeps developing EF mount bodies and selling incompatible RF lenses it's a significant risk IMO. Enough to keep me on the sidelines for a while yet.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 14, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Seeing how much the M6II/90D sensor has improved over the previous gen, using that tech combined with a digic 9 would be a big performance boost.
> Having said that, does Canon want the R to be on a 2 year cycle?


Has it?



Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


----------



## Canon1966 (Oct 14, 2019)

I've been happy with my 5D4. For me, for it to be a perfect camera I would love an articulating screen. IBIS would be nice and EVF. Funny how years ago none of these things were desired, less needed. : )


----------



## mk0x55 (Oct 14, 2019)

Stuff to look forward to. I haven't bought the mirrorless stuff and as long as Canon keeps making great DSLRs, I might just stick around with DSLRs. Every DSLR has a mirrorless in it, it is just more rugged, less vulnerable to dust and less power-thirsty. 
EF glass is still great for years to come. Then there is also high-end EF glass like Zeiss (ZE). RF is no doubt great, but honestly, since I don't shoot with 80+ MP at large apertures, I won't make use of its additional sharpness wide open... not to talk about the pricing.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2019)

KirkD said:


> If the R II will lose the touch bar and include IBIS, I'll be dusting off my credit card.


At first I couldn't find a reason for the touch bar. Now it is used to turn the histogram on and off. Same with the electronic level.


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 14, 2019)

Who wouldn't be surprised if it has IBIS? Or is that a nonstarter because it would rob sales from the rumored 1DX III with IBIS?

Not to spoil the party, but a friend just called. Sobering! He is older and has had a recent health setback. Long time Canon FF shooter, but he is excited about his new Oly coming today. One reason: IBIS. He doesn't want to wait any longer, and he can't believe the latest EOS M (VI) didn't include true IBIS.

Many of Canon's customers in the USA who have the wherewithal are getting to the point where IBIS is a priority now. I'd be willing to bet quite a few experienced photographers here can see that time on the horizon for themselves. I can.


----------



## tron (Oct 14, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Troll.


Or hater!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Stuff to look forward to. I haven't bought the mirrorless stuff and as long as Canon keeps making great DSLRs, I might just stick around with DSLRs. Every DSLR has a mirrorless in it, it is just more rugged, less vulnerable to dust and less power-thirsty.
> EF glass is still great for years to come. Then there is also high-end EF glass like Zeiss (ZE). RF is no doubt great, but honestly, since I don't shoot with 80+ MP at large apertures, I won't make use of its additional sharpness wide open... not to talk about the pricing.


Believe you me, the RF lens sharpness wide open is very apparent at f/1.2 on the 30mp R. While the RP is more vulnerable to dust, the R is absolutely not. It has a mechanical shutter that closes when one changes lenses. I'd be happy to see performance comparisons between the RF and Zeiss (ZE) lenses.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 14, 2019)

I am delighted with the 90D and think a hybrid DSLR/Mirrorless where you have the benefits of an OVF in one mode and a mirrorless in another is a tremendous package. Do this with a 5DV and for me at least it will be a winner.


----------



## melgross (Oct 14, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> You're probably right, but I'd still be ticked if I laid out $8k or so for Canon's new RF Trinity and then Canon dropped some amazing new EF mount DSLR/Hybrid thingy that was incompatible with my shiny new lenses. I'm not saying it's likely to happen but I've been around a bit too and stranger things have happened. As long as Canon keeps developing EF mount bodies and selling incompatible RF lenses it's a significant risk IMO. Enough to keep me on the sidelines for a while yet.


No company can keep everybody happy. That’s why there are a number of companies treading the same circle around the millstone. The products are more similar than different.

but a company needs to look at the overall market. If they think DSLRs are dying, they won’t produce more, if they think something has changed, they might. A combo is very unlikely. It would need to have about the same back distance as the EF mount, so what’s the point? They would just use the EF mount, maybe adding a few contacts. But I really don’t see it happening. It would be too weird.

remember the discussions we had here about whether Canon would use the EF mount, or move to a new one? That’s been decided. There’s no going back now.


----------



## flip314 (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Not to spoil the party, but a friend just called. Sobering! He is older and has had a recent health setback. Long time Canon FF shooter, but he is excited about his new Oly coming today. One reason: IBIS. He doesn't want to wait any longer, and he can't believe the latest EOS M (VI) didn't include true IBIS.



It was my grandfather's dying wish to have a Canon with IBIS, and sadly he did not live to see it. He had been bedridden for years and was mostly senile, but the only thing that cheered him up was reading spec sheets. We tried buying him a Canon R, but he just threw it on the floor and yelled "IBIS!" loud enough for the entire hospital to hear him.

The saddest part of the story though, were his dying words. He called his daughter closer, she had to go right up to his ear as his voice was fading, and he whispered "I'm switching to Sony." With that, he left us forever.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Oct 14, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I don't expect a EOS R MK II for a couple of years unless Canon has found a way to substantially improve its performance.



They already did. Its called firmware 1.4


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Then it would be a RII not a 5DV.


Gotta wonder where some of these ideas come from. "Yes, let's have a 5D V with an RF mount... forget about a mirror and flange distance."


----------



## mk0x55 (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.


As an outdoor stills shooter, I see only one advantage of Sony over Canon: the sensors.
Kodak moment? Canon is already in the mirrorless game, and optimizing through parallell development of tech otherwise almost identical.
What you seem to suggest it yielding to the hype madness created by youtubers and trolls.
What's the next exclusive future, cell phone cameras? In light of that, all dedicated cameras might be in that Kodak-land already. Yet we enjoy using them and prefer them big time.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Who wouldn't be surprised if it has IBIS? Or is that a nonstarter because it would rob sales from the rumored 1DX III with IBIS?
> 
> Not to spoil the party, but a friend just called. Sobering! He is older and has had a recent health setback. Long time Canon FF shooter, but he is excited about his new Oly coming today. One reason: IBIS. He doesn't want to wait any longer, and he can't believe the latest EOS M (VI) didn't include true IBIS.
> 
> Many of Canon's customers in the USA who have the wherewithal are getting to the point where IBIS is a priority now. I'd be willing to bet quite a few experienced photographers here can see that time on the horizon for themselves. I can.


I have an Olympus M4/3. If I could pry it from my wife's automatic only fingers I'd have sold it already. PITA to hold and the menu system is atrocious. That said: The IBIS works very well. I'd imagine the R II will have IBIS. If so, I'll be getting one for sure.


----------



## mk0x55 (Oct 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Believe you me, the RF lens sharpness wide open is very apparent at f/1.2 on the 30mp R. While the RP is more vulnerable to dust, the R is absolutely not. It has a mechanical shutter that closes when one changes lenses. I'd be happy to see performance comparisons between the RF and Zeiss (ZE) lenses.


Shutter mech is (1) a dust generator itself and (2) a pretty delicate and sensitive part of a camera. Let's see what the longevity of the R is going to be compared to 5D4.

Comparisons between RF and Zeiss, both Milvus and Otus, would be awesome to see.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Oct 14, 2019)

But will it have a tilty flippy?? Would be about time


----------



## riker (Oct 14, 2019)

I don't get this, EOS R being released in 2018, Mark II in 2020 is not realistic at all.

The comparison with 90D and M6II is actually sad and worrying - if you seriously look into 90D and M6II it turns out they are actually different, both missing some features which the other has and you end up crying if you were considering buying one. A similar approach to 5D4 and R2 would probably be the most annoying in Canon's rich history.


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.



A Kodak moment would be ignoring mirrorless altogether. Canon is currently the largest mirrorless interchangeable lens camera manufacturer. Furthermore, canon sells a vast number of dslrs as well. Were they to throw that away, they’d suddenly lose a huge chunk of their market share. Plenty of people still want and buy dslrs. They’d be insane to throw away that revenue and customer loyalty. 

The strategy with the m6 and 90d is a very clever one that can only be done by someone like canon with all those resources. Sell both, see which is more popular. Keep doing it until they no longer sell many dslrs.

Going all in to mirrorless is a risk for the underdogs to take who have nothing to loose. Made perfect sense for Sony. But not for canon.


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.



How do you consider Sony and “firmly fixed on .... the future” when they chose the existing (and too narrow) APS-C mount for their full frame cameras?


----------



## Chaitanya (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Does Nikon or Some other company have auto AFMA on any of their dSLR's? If it works, that would be a great incentive to consider a 5DV!


D5 and D500 combo, heard mixed reviews about how well auto AFMA works in practise.


----------



## melgross (Oct 14, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> How do you consider Sony and “firmly fixed on .... the future” when they chose the existing (and too narrow) APS-C mount for their full frame cameras?


Heh. Sony seems to like having numerous mounts. The more the better. Maybe they’ll come out with a new mirrorless mount if Canon and Nikon begin to catch up, and a big reason is perceived to be mount limitations.


----------



## Joules (Oct 14, 2019)

riker said:


> I don't get this, EOS R being released in 2018, Mark II in 2020 is not realistic at all.


I believe the R and RP were just cameras to get a foot in the FF mirrorless game and get serious about developing the software behind it. They are nice cameras, but in purely technical terms they didn't bring much new to the Canon lineup. The fact that they share sensors with Canon's existing FF DSLRs and didn't introduce features like IBIS or uncropped 4K and got so many significant firmware updates in such a short time seems to confirm that. Maybe that's the reason the R doesn't have 2 card slots. Canon doesn't want to make a body that isn't quite fleshed out a professional tool.

Since they have managed to improve on one of their greatest weaknesses (throughput) with the 90D/M6 II sensor, it makes a lot of sense to update the R and 5D series to make use of the best Canon can offer. Especially since Sony doesn't have much space left to run away with their spec sheets.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2019)

mk0x55 said:


> Shutter mech is (1) a dust generator itself and (2) a pretty delicate and sensitive part of a camera. Let's see what the longevity of the R is going to be compared to 5D4.
> Comparisons between RF and Zeiss, both Milvus and Otus, would be awesome to see.


Well, (1) since both the DSLR and the Mirrorless R both have a shutter... they are on equal ground there.
(2) I would assume, rightly or wrongly, that the mirror flipping up and down would make dust fly also. It is also a moving part.
(3) Longevity will be interesting.


----------



## tron (Oct 14, 2019)

5DMkV? It will be like yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Now where is my 5DsRMkII ? (And no nonsense answers like a mirrorless version please! This is my wish not yours!)


----------



## Joules (Oct 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Has it?
> 
> 
> 
> Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


The M6 II has over 40% more pixel throughput than the 1DX II. It also has less read noise than the 80D tech and therefore slightly more Dr (although that's miniscule).

But the improvement in throughput is quite significant and something that future Canon bodies should profit from.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> It's been great and delivered in spades on the vacation we just had!


So was my Sony Vaio notebook... until it broke. Sony was a company "firmly focused on the future" and by then already got rid of its notebook business.



Quirkz said:


> A Kodak moment would be ignoring mirrorless altogether.


People who try to appeal to "a Kodak moment" are forgetting that already in 1990s, Kodak by itself could not make a half-decent camera (digital or film or whatever) even if the future of the humanity depended on it. All that Kodak's camera crapware was only selling because Kodak was a household name in the film department. Kodak digital SLRs were produced by Canon, Kodak digital P&S were produced by someone in China.


----------



## slclick (Oct 14, 2019)

Welcome to the Canon EOS R thread


----------



## Kit. (Oct 14, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> How do you consider Sony and “firmly fixed on .... the future” when they chose the existing (and too narrow) APS-C mount for their full frame cameras?


But they chose the new(!) mount. Their old mount was Minolta A mount.

Besides, as a company "firmly fixed on the future", they can introduce a new, incompatible mount at any time.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Please help me follow the logic!



The logic is something like this: "I'm going to troll, and to hell with logic."


----------



## miketcool (Oct 14, 2019)

dominic_siu said:


> I have ditched almost all EF glasses, don’t like using EF lenses on R body. After the V1.4 firmware upgrade the R works great, hope the R Mark II will have better control at least par with 5D4. Will definitely buy the RF70200, RF lenses are the future.



My last hesitation to letting go of the 5D is the lack of the R’s AF movement tracking. The 5D excels at moving subjects with a myriad of options for tracking action sequences that the R just hasn’t matured with yet. Once Canon adds those in, and can keep condensation from forming inside the eyepiece, I’m on board fully with RF.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 14, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Makes me wonder how well the R is being adopted by existing 5D users which must still account for a significant portion of wedding and event photographers. Lots of chatter about the new R bodies and lenses on-line but I can't say I've ever seen one out "in the wild". Of course, I rarely see any interchangeable cameras these days so I don't suppose that means very much. This might be the first 5D in the line that I don't buy. Not saying it won't be a great camera; just not sure what it can do better than my 5D Mark IV. I hadn't expected to buy any more DSLR's but maybe Canon still has a few DSLR tricks up their sleeves.
> 
> edit: I understand that Canon wants to please all of their constituents but there is a risk of looking indicisive regarding their transition to the RF mount.
> 
> Personally, as long as Canon seems to have a "foot in each boat" I don't see my self committing to the new R/RF line. I don't see why I should be committing to a new proprietary lens mount when Canon seems to be hedging it's bets. Just my opinion. Those new RF lenses are pretty nice. YMMV.



I think I’ve very likely that the 5DV would have IBIS. That alone is a pretty tempting feature, is it not!?


----------



## reef58 (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Who wouldn't be surprised if it has IBIS? Or is that a nonstarter because it would rob sales from the rumored 1DX III with IBIS?
> 
> Not to spoil the party, but a friend just called. Sobering! He is older and has had a recent health setback. Long time Canon FF shooter, but he is excited about his new Oly coming today. One reason: IBIS. He doesn't want to wait any longer, and he can't believe the latest EOS M (VI) didn't include true IBIS.
> 
> Many of Canon's customers in the USA who have the wherewithal are getting to the point where IBIS is a priority now. I'd be willing to bet quite a few experienced photographers here can see that time on the horizon for themselves. I can.



If I am in the market for a 1dx3, and I am am, I am not going to switch gears because another model is released with IBIS. I want the speed, AF performance and the robust build. I couldn't care less about IBIS in a 1dx3. That is just me though. I use the camera for a specific purpose.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 14, 2019)

miketcool said:


> My last hesitation to letting go of the 5D is the lack of the R’s AF movement tracking. The 5D excels at moving subjects with a myriad of options for tracking action sequences that the R just hasn’t matured with yet. Once Canon adds those in, *and can keep condensation from forming inside the eyepiece,* I’m on board fully with RF.



Is this is a problem? First I've heard of it - just curious.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 14, 2019)

reef58 said:


> If I am in the market for a 1dx3, and I am am, I am not going to switch gears because another model is released with IBIS. I want the speed, AF performance and the robust build. I couldn't care less about IBIS in a 1dx3. That is just me though. I use the camera for a specific purpose.


What if Canon added a phone feature to the 5DV.


----------



## BillB (Oct 14, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Agree.
> If it is basically the same camera but one DSLR and the other mirrorless no harm no foul. It sounds exciting for those wanting a DSLR to get the cutting edge tech being pumped into the mirrorless systems. Especially in live view and video. It would be nice if the viewfinder switched from the mirror to EVF when in live view. I do so hate to hold the camera out away from the body when in live view at present. Oh well we shall see. This is very exciting.


Liveview works well for me on a tripod. Never use it handheld. Of course, if my 5DIV had a tilty-flippy screen I might feel differently.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Is this is a problem? First I've heard of it - just curious.


I own an R and RF lenses. Neither are a problem in my part of the world. Tracking with continuous AF works flawlessly. Going from a 72 degree home and out into 100+ degree weather at 95% humidity has not resulted in any condensation in my viewfinder.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory.



Canon's decision might have something to do with the fact that DSLRs still out sell 'the future', aka mirrorless, much like Canon out sells Sony.

To that point and your post: why is it that mirrorless becomes a religion to some people? If Canon continues to offer DSLRs why is that an offense?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 14, 2019)

tron said:


> Now where is my 5DsRMkII ? (And no nonsense answers like a mirrorless version please! This is my wish not yours!)



I'm very happy with my 5Ds and probably won't be quick to upgrade to the 83mp mirrorless. If anything I need more photography trips, not more cameras. That said, someday I will upgrade to a higher rez mirrorless and I suspect I'll miss the OVF when I do. If Canon were to make an 83mp 5Ds/sR mk II I would be inclined to get it even if it was in addition to a mirrorless version with the same sensor.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 14, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I own an R and RF lenses. Neither are a problem in my part of the world. Tracking with continuous AF works flawlessly. Going from a 72 degree home and out into 100+ degree weather at 95% humidity has not resulted in any condensation in my viewfinder.



What I figured would be the case. Hard to imagine otherwise given what a rudimentary-seeming engineering challenge that would be.


----------



## bitcars (Oct 14, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.


Kodak's downfall teaches many subtle lessons, but make no mistake, it was not indecisiveness that killed the once giant in imaging technology. Kodak was certain about embracing the digital camera, it invented it, invested billions into it, it even recognized that future of image lies in the online sharing business, precisely because of the merge of digital cameras.

But Kodak failed. Because it committed to a future that would not come to pass: printing.


----------



## TonyPM (Oct 14, 2019)

jdale273 said:


> I'd love to see somewhere between 35-40


I put my bets on 32, but who knows. This is Canon, when you least expect it, they surprise you. (32.5mpx apsc).


----------



## Davidarmenphoto (Oct 14, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Has it?
> 
> 
> 
> Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting


I see an improvement at a majority of the ISO settings. So yes, it has.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 14, 2019)

Davidarmenphoto said:


> I see an improvement at a majority of the ISO settings. So yes, it has.



In any case, the major improvement was with throughput/readout speed, which is someone PBD wasn't even thinking of when he asked his question.


----------



## ashmadux (Oct 14, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Does Nikon or Some other company have auto AFMA on any of their dSLR's? If it works, that would be a great incentive to consider a 5DV!


AFMA is the WORST. Glad that its going away permanently.


----------



## mpb001 (Oct 14, 2019)

I own and like a 5DIV, however, I have been hiking all over Acadia National Park with it and a 17-40 and 25-105 lens and a small tripod and while the image quality is great, I really want a lighter set up for active travel. 

I am actually thinking an RP might be best because I am not really interested in ditching Canon. I was hoping for an R body with IBIS, but it one doesn’t arrive by like Spring 2020, I might still consider an RP. I know the RP body and probably its sensor are not up to that of the 5DIV.


----------



## Sparky (Oct 14, 2019)

Yes please, I’ll take both. Q4 2020. 5D4 was September 2016, if I remember right?


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 14, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> AFMA is the WORST. Glad that its going away permanently.


My #2 reason for choosing the R over the 5D Mark IV.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 14, 2019)

The rumour is based on an internal roadmap of cameras. But, we are still waiting to hear about (I) the new 1D and (ii) the long-awaited high MP R. Both of those will presumably be out (or at least trialling) during the Olympics next year. I can absolutely see the parallel release of a 5DV / EOS Rii (using the same sensor, probably with IBIS), but in terms of development and timing of releases, surely it would have to be 2021? 4 major new bodies in a single year??


----------



## tron (Oct 14, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Canon's decision might have something to do with the fact that DSLRs still out sell 'the future', aka mirrorless, much like Canon out sells Sony.
> 
> To that point and your post: why is it that mirrorless becomes a religion to some people? If Canon continues to offer DSLRs why is that an offense?


You are trying to understand how problematic people think!


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 14, 2019)

Joules said:


> I believe the R and RP were just cameras to get a foot in the FF mirrorless game and get serious about developing the software behind it. They are nice cameras, but in purely technical terms they didn't bring much new to the Canon lineup. The fact that they share sensors with Canon's existing FF DSLRs and didn't introduce features like IBIS or uncropped 4K and got so many significant firmware updates in such a short time seems to confirm that. Maybe that's the reason the R doesn't have 2 card slots. Canon doesn't want to make a body that isn't quite fleshed out a professional tool.
> 
> Since they have managed to improve on one of their greatest weaknesses (throughput) with the 90D/M6 II sensor, it makes a lot of sense to update the R and 5D series to make use of the best Canon can offer. Especially since Sony doesn't have much space left to run away with their spec sheets.


Will Canon follow Sony (shock - horror!) and keep the existing R and the upgraded one in their product line? The OP mentioned Rii but this may not be a replacement.
Rs (high mp version replacing 5Ds/r) 2019 announcement?
Rx (sports model coming out with 1Dxiii. Weather sealing/dual slot) early 2020
Rii (Better all round model coming out with 5Dv) late 2020
R current model
RP entry model
The current R is cheaper than the 5Div with the same sensor. A new sensor/DIGIC processor from 5Dv plus more fps, IBIS and maybe a couple of improvements on the current R and Rii is good package. I don't think it will have dual slots or significant weather sealing though. A lot of models to support - at least for a couple of years but keeping them in the portfolio will amortise their R&D costs better.


----------



## tron (Oct 14, 2019)

Jethro said:


> The rumour is based on an internal roadmap of cameras. But, we are still waiting to hear about (I) the new 1D and (ii) the long-awaited high MP R. Both of those will presumably be out (or at least trialling) during the Olympics next year. I can absolutely see the parallel release of a 5DV / EOS Rii (using the same sensor, probably with IBIS), but in terms of development and timing of releases, surely it would have to be 2021? 4 major new bodies in a single year??


A high megapixel camera is not needed for the Olympics! So maybe 3 new bodies. But maybe the Rii is the most improbable for 2020 (2 year cycle) and more probable for 2021...


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Oct 14, 2019)

mclaren777 said:


> I'm so excited for this camera!
> 
> I just hope Canon doesn't raise the resolution too much. 30mp feels perfect on the 5D4.


More speed and improved Af would be awesome


----------



## Drcampbellicu (Oct 14, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> Seeing how much the M6II/90D sensor has improved over the previous gen, using that tech combined with a digic 9 would be a big performance boost.
> Having said that, does Canon want the R to be on a 2 year cycle?



They should put the new out in 2020 or 2021 because some elements of the R are already outdated parts from the 5d4


----------



## peters (Oct 14, 2019)

I never had a doubt the 5D V would come. I am also very certain that the 5D VI will come 4 years later  Mark my words =)


----------



## slclick (Oct 14, 2019)

Drcampbellicu said:


> They should put the new out in 2020 or 2021 because some elements of the R are already outdated parts from the 5d4


and the battery is 9 years old! *gasp*


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Oct 15, 2019)

mclaren777 said:


> I'm so excited for this camera!
> 
> I just hope Canon doesn't raise the resolution too much. 30mp feels perfect on the 5D4.


I hope they raise it a fair bit, at least 36MP. With the EOS Rs likely to be 83MP, it would be a huge gap down to the EOS RII/5DV. The EOS RP II should be around 30MP, EOS RII IMO should be around 42MP, minimum 10-fps with full AF/AE in servo. If Sony can do 10fps with 61MP, this shouldn’t be hard for Canon if they have the will. Also if Canon are fairdinkum the 5DV will get exact same AF and dual CPU’s as 1DXIII, they need to follow Nikon’s lead with the D850.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 15, 2019)

tron said:


> A high megapixel camera is not needed for the Olympics! So maybe 3 new bodies. But maybe the Rii is the most improbable for 2020 (2 year cycle) and more probable for 2021...


Sure, but my point was that the new 1D and the high MP R are both already 'highly likely' to be out in 2020, so is it realistic to expect the 5Dv/EOS Rii in the same 12 month period? Maybe it is - if the same (new) FF sensor was to be used in the 5Dv/EOS Rii, cutting production costs. But it just sounds like a lot of FF bodies to me. Pretty much rolling over the whole stock of FF bodies (apart from the 6Dii/RP and assuming the high MP R is the replacement for the 5DS).


----------



## miketcool (Oct 15, 2019)

navastronia said:


> Is this is a problem? First I've heard of it - just curious.



When trying to track things that don’t begin in frame (athletes, wildlife, talent) the R has no way to fine tune AF. The 5Dmk4 like the 1DX has a full menu that allows you to hone in and capture more shots when rolling continuously.


----------



## C Tographer (Oct 15, 2019)

I'm a 5D user. But I don't want another one.

I want to migrate to full-frame mirrorless. Probably RF-mount.

But the current flagship Canon R camera isn't quite as good as a 5D. I was hoping Canon would release a better Canon R (5D equivalent) before improving on the 5D DSLR.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 15, 2019)

miketcool said:


> When trying to track things that don’t begin in frame (athletes, wildlife, talent) the R has no way to fine tune AF. The 5Dmk4 like the 1DX has a full menu that allows you to hone in and capture more shots when rolling continuously.


Hmmm.... I must be misunderstanding what you are saying because the latest firmware update changed a lot. Here's Talent and also motorcycle that did not begin in the frame. What kind of fine tuning while shooting do you mean? From where do you get this info? Have a link?


----------



## navastronia (Oct 15, 2019)

miketcool said:


> When trying to track things that don’t begin in frame (athletes, wildlife, talent) the R has no way to fine tune AF. The 5Dmk4 like the 1DX has a full menu that allows you to hone in and capture more shots when rolling continuously.


That’s interesting, but the post I quoted was referring to moisture getting into the eyepiece.


----------



## slclick (Oct 15, 2019)

C Tographer said:


> I'm a 5D user. But I don't want another one.
> 
> I want to migrate to full-frame mirrorless. Probably RF-mount.
> 
> But the current flagship Canon R camera isn't quite as good as a 5D. I was hoping Canon would release a better Canon R (5D equivalent) before improving on the 5D DSLR.


I understand completely. What I am hoping is that the V drops in weight like the 4 did compared to the 3 (60 grams). A lighter series 5D with everything the 4 has and more would be a dream. I love the size and ergonomics but a lighter bag is always nice, especially for us geezers.


----------



## miketcool (Oct 15, 2019)

navastronia said:


> That’s interesting, but the post I quoted was referring to moisture getting into the eyepiece.



The humidity in the eyepiece condenses when temperatures change suddenly. It’s obnoxious when you’re trying to use the viewfinder. I’m not sure what the solution is here, as latent humidity is the real culprit.


----------



## Nelu (Oct 15, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> I don't think it will have dual slots or significant weather sealing though. A lot of models to support - at least for a couple of years but keeping them in the portfolio will amortise their R&D costs better.


There’s no way the next R will not have dual card slots!
This is one of the most common complaints and maybe the easiest one to fix.
I don’t get it why they didn’t have this to start with...


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 15, 2019)

I cnt see all those high priced lenses selling without a better body.


----------



## PFloyd (Oct 15, 2019)

So stoked - been waiting for this (inevitable) news for a while, and why I have been holding off on buying a 5D Mark IV (I only have an 80D)! I'm guessing this will be the last 5D DSLR, but I'm really hoping Canon releases IS versions of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and 16-35mm f/2.8L before they kill off the EF line - in fact I feel they OWE it to us DSLR users! With a 5D MK V, 16-35mm f/2.8L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L IS and my other EF L glass, I will be perfectly happy to stay with DSLR for a good 4-5 years before I even need to consider mirrorless. I may even pickup a 7D MK II and/or a 90D too (I have all the "good" EF-S lenses), but I will wait for the 5D MK V to go full-frame - unless I find a steal on a 5D Mark III for $600-$700 to tide me over. In fact, I wonder what this news will do to the used market on 5D Mk III's and Mk IV's. I've seen NEW Mk IV's for $1900, so . . .


----------



## navastronia (Oct 15, 2019)

PFloyd said:


> . . . I'm really hoping Canon releases IS versions of the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and 16-35mm f/2.8L . . .
> 
> . . . With a 5D MK V, 16-35mm f/2.8L IS, 24-70mm f/2.8L IS . . . I will be perfectly happy to stay with DSLR for a good 4-5 years before I even need to consider mirrorless . . .



I'm sorry to say it, but I think the second thing is the reason the first thing won't happen. I think Canon anticipates almost everyone switching to mirrorless eventually (though there will certainly be plenty of holdouts, mainly those who dislike OVFs) and as such, might feel that better lenses are the carrot to get people to make the jump.


----------



## PFloyd (Oct 15, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I'm sorry to say it, but I think the second thing is the reason the first thing won't happen. I think Canon anticipates almost everyone switching to mirrorless eventually (though there will certainly be plenty of holdouts, mainly those who dislike OVFs) and as such, might feel that better lenses are the carrot to get people to make the jump.


Every day that went by without the announcement of the 5D Mk V led me to think the same thing. Perhaps it's naive, but it gives me hope. It actually crossed my mind that Canon's answer to the 5D Mk IV successor would be an EOS R Mk II (killing off the 5D line); so hearing the news of a 5D Mk V is very encouraging. But yes, not having the IS versions of these essential lenses could be the "carrot" to get me to jump sooner than anticipated. And it would not surprise me if, as you say, that's what Canon is counting on; but I'm holding out hope that they release these last 2 EF lenses. . .


----------



## MovingViolations (Oct 15, 2019)

If Canon does not introduce the 5D V until late in 2020 then is there not a chance it will have the rumored new 80MP sensor in it?


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (Oct 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I just swallowed my coffee the wrong way! Ok, I can hold onto those EF lenses a bit longer. Oh, how I fretted they'd be paperweights by now.  Actually, crow tastes ok if you marinate it in enough hot sauce for a day, then get drunk before eating it with rice.


The EF/RF adapter of course makes it possible to keep on using your excellent EF glass.


----------



## will4m (Oct 15, 2019)

I really hope this comes to fruition: I like being able to swap my lenses directly between my 6D and my C200 (and cary a single set when traveling). With the Cinema EOS line still sticking with EF (see e.g. C500 II), I was toying with the idea of upgrading to the 5D and sticking with just EF glass for the next 5 years. But the current 5D IV's dynamic range just doesn't look like enough to justify the move and I had feared that line was dead.


----------



## navastronia (Oct 15, 2019)

PFloyd said:


> Every day that went by without the announcement of the 5D Mk V led me to think the same thing. Perhaps it's naive, but it gives me hope. It actually crossed my mind that Canon's answer to the 5D Mk IV successor would be an EOS R Mk II (killing off the 5D line); so hearing the news of a 5D Mk V is very encouraging. But yes, not having the IS versions of these essential lenses could be the "carrot" to get me to jump sooner than anticipated. And it would not surprise me if, as you say, that's what Canon is counting on; but I'm holding out hope that they release these last 2 EF lenses. . .



On the bright side, if the 5DV does come out, it might have IBIS, and if it does, you'd be set with your current glass : )


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 15, 2019)

I love my 5d Mark IV, and it's high ISO performance is shockly good. But I'm falling for the new RF50L and RF85L, just waiting for the successor to the 30MP FF sensor to make the switch. Its about the RF-L glass, I'll deal with the OVF to get it.


----------



## The Tired Photographer (Oct 15, 2019)

For over two years now I’ve been saying to friends, if another 5D gets released Canon will call it the 5DX and not a 5D V.
My reasoning is that’s what happen with the 1D series.


----------



## deleteme (Oct 15, 2019)

While I love the OVF and general snappiness of my mk4, I really love the accuracy of the Af on the R that reaches any corner of the VF.
I also do not care for the mirror shock in portraits on a tripod with a long lens that adds the slightest bit of blur to the detail.
Sadly, the EVF will never perform like an OVF.


----------



## thomste (Oct 15, 2019)

the question is..... will it have 24fps?


----------



## ChockstoneMike (Oct 15, 2019)

I don't particularly want to switch from Canon DSLR (EOS 5 Series) to Canon Mirror-less (EOS R Series), but having waited nearly a decade for them to do something that interests me as a landscape guy, I'll probably end up with the rumoured Canon RS (83mp) if it actually happens next year.

I thought I had plenty of patience, skipping the last few models. 5DSR nearly tempted me, but the lack of improved low ISO DR stopped me. 5D IV nearly tempted me, but the res increase seemed barely worth it. 5D III offered nothing I needed. I'm back on a 5DII and still not seeing anything in Canon land worth my money.

There's always the Fuji mini-MF GFX 50R, but it seems barely better than a 5DSR once stopped down, and GFX 100S is to pricey. Nikon D850 - maybe, but starting over with lenses and work flow, is all a bit much. The Sony A7RIII feels like a toy. My canon DSLRs have taken dips in the ocean, been dropped onto concrete, been encrusted in ice, drenched with rain, invaded by desert sands and baking heat, and the worst that's happened is a shutter replacement. So, no, Sony isn't for me. I'll keep waiting for Canon. If they force me to go mirror-less I will.

What I don't understand about mirror-less, like the EOS R, is how I am supposed to compose a pre-dawn image? If it's anything like what "live view" currently shows me, it would be useless compared to simply eyeballing reality through a DSLR view finder. Also the idea that I have to drain precious battery power on multi-day hikes just to visualize possible shots whilst scouting seems like a serious disadvantage.

The only thing about the EOS R that sounds interesting so far, is the idea of mounting a filter inside the EF adaptor for use with TSE lenses. But that seems like a small advantage. Weight? A saving of a couple hundred grams at best. Even then recent RF 15-25 F2.8 is actually heavier than the EF 16-35 F2.8 III, not by much, but still.

Some more F4 RF lenses options might help with weight, but they don't exist yet. The RF 70-200 looks intriguingly small, for example, but I'd prefer a lighter F4 version for hiking.

So, yes, a Canon 5D V would be welcome, if it provided both high res and improved (low ISO) DR for landscapes.


----------



## Tremotino (Oct 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.



So you think e-mount is the future?
e-mount is the most crippled lens mount i know.


----------



## -pekr- (Oct 15, 2019)

What for, whom for? As an owner of the 5DIV, I definitely have zero plans to go with another high-end DSLR in 2-3 years time frame. Game over man, game over (Aliens TM  ) Don't get me wrong, it will surely be a beast camera, but with the recent m6 II and EOS R firmware update, showing us what the mirrorless could become, I will definitely wait for the EOS R II or EOS R5, whatever its name is going to be. Just don't screw us with 50+ mpx, give us fine IQ, remove the touch bar and get our money.


----------



## Hector1970 (Oct 15, 2019)

The 5DIV is getting long in the tooth . The 5DV might be a very incremental improvement to sell a new version to those who prefer a longer battery life. 
It would take a new sensor but a higher dynamic range would be a selling point to me. Just shooting along side an A7RIII for the last week. They had much less requirements for grad filters.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 15, 2019)

-pekr- said:


> What for, whom for? As an owner of the 5DIV, I definitely have zero plans to go with another high-end DSL in 2-3 years time frame. Game over man, game over (Aliens TM  ) Don't get me wrong, it will surely be a beast camera, but with the recent m6 II and EOS R firmware update, showing us what the mirrorless could come, I will definitely wait for the EOS R II or EOS R5, whatever its name is going to be. Just don't screw us with 50+ mpx, give us fine IQ, remove the touch bar and get our money.



Possibly me. The ability to view the landscape image I have just captured in the viewfinder would be a major advantage for me, but the camera needs to have similar dimensions (for ease of use), weight (for balance when using EF lenses) and robustnance to my 5D mk IV. If the R II and similar R type camera continue to be smaller and lighter than there mirrored equivalent's I will stick with mirrored camera's for as long as possible.


----------



## edoorn (Oct 15, 2019)

my current 5d 4's are from 2016. I am usually on a 4 to 5 year replacement cycle, so somewhere in 2020 replacements would be good. I expect to pick up the high res R earlier in the year; if the year's financially solid I could add two 5D-equivalent R bodies to the mix later on.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

masterpix said:


> So I wonder, if the 5D V is expected, and the 1Dx III is expected, why not hte 7D III (alongside the R crop sensor)?
> 
> Just wondering



Because there has not been so much as a peep from reliable sources about 7D Mark III development since about 2017, when the project was apparently shelved. There have been rumors from those same reliable sources since late 2018 that the 7D Mark III is officially dead within Canon's future plans.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> Does Nikon or Some other company have auto AFMA on any of their dSLR's? If it works, that would be a great incentive to consider a 5DV!



D500 does it. I've not used it, but I'm not that crazy about the idea in principle.

Tuning AFMA on a lens/body combination is a lot like tuning a piano. There's both science and art to it. When tuning a piano, getting every note perfect on an electronic tuner is just the beginning, then the real work begins. Same with a lens. Different focus distances (primes + zooms) and focal lengths (zooms) will need slightly different adjustments. You set them to be best were you tend to use that lens the most.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.



See 'ya. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Because there has not been so much as a peep from reliable sources about 7D Mark III development since about 2017, when the project was apparently shelved. There have been rumors from those same reliable sources that the 7D Mark III is officially dead within Canon's future plans.



Yes, if the rumours are correct the 90D was the mirrored replacement for both the 80D and 7D Mark II (albeit a downgrade one in many regards). Expect the true replacement for the 7D Mark II to be RF mount.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

Chris_Seattle said:


> I think it’s most likely that this will be the FF equivalent of the 80D—>90D move, with the upgrades to the lightmeter and a better sensor. I don’t really think they would hybridize the 5D Mark 5 to be an EF Mount mirrorless camera with an EVF, because that would essentially be an R ii with an EF adapter that you could never remove.
> 
> The frustrating thing would be if they didn’t limit the differences between the 5D Mark5 and the R ii to ONLY the mirror/OVF/EF Mount vs the EVF/RF mount.
> 
> ...



The 5D Mark IV already has a 150,000 pixel/252 zone RGB+IR light meter, compared to the 90D's 220,000 pixel/216 zone RGB+IR light meter. Not that much of a difference there.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Makes me wonder how well the R is being adopted by existing 5D users which must still account for a significant portion of wedding and event photographers. Lots of chatter about the new R bodies and lenses on-line but I can't say I've ever seen one out "in the wild". Of course, I rarely see any interchangeable cameras these days so I don't suppose that means very much. This might be the first 5D in the line that I don't buy. Not saying it won't be a great camera; just not sure what it can do better than my 5D Mark IV. I hadn't expected to buy any more DSLR's but maybe Canon still has a few DSLR tricks up their sleeves.
> 
> edit: I understand that Canon wants to please all of their constituents but there is a risk of looking indicisive regarding their transition to the RF mount.
> 
> Personally, as long as Canon seems to have a "foot in each boat" I don't see my self committing to the new R/RF line. I don't see why I should be committing to a new proprietary lens mount when Canon seems to be hedging it's bets. Just my opinion. Those new RF lenses are pretty nice. YMMV.



They're not "hedging their bets" any more than an automobile manufacturer is who continues to offer full size SUVs while also introducing smaller "crossover" models.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

melgross said:


> It takes a while before people move over in large numbers to a new mount with all that entails. If this is true, then yes, Canon is hedging its bets. But I’d bet that it will be the last incarnation of the 5D series. Same thing for the 1Ds when it comes out next year.
> 
> the future is mirrorless. Everything is dumping, where it can, mechanical for electronic. That’s been happening for decades, and it won’t stop.



There hasn't been a 1Ds since the 1Ds Mark III in 2007.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

riker said:


> I don't get this, EOS R being released in 2018, Mark II in 2020 is not realistic at all.
> 
> The comparison with 90D and M6II is actually sad and worrying - if you seriously look into 90D and M6II it turns out they are actually different, both missing some features which the other has and you end up crying if you were considering buying one. A similar approach to 5D4 and R2 would probably be the most annoying in Canon's rich history.



What if it is not an EOS R Mark II, but rather an EOS 5R or R5?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 15, 2019)

bitm2007 said:


> Yes, if the rumours are correct the 90D was the mirrored replacement for both the 80D and 7D Mark II (albeit a downgrade one in many regards). Expect the true replacement for the 7D Mark II to be RF mount.


The 90D is a significant upgrade to the 7DII in most respects. There is a much higher resolution sensor with its much improved liveview, which is as good as a mirrorless and better DR at low iso. The CRAW allows a much larger burst size of 44 in my hands with a UHS-I cardand more with a UHS-II for Grant. The AF is excellent for BIF and seems more consistent for static shots. The only real downgrade is in its ruggedness, and possibly in having just one card slot it that concerns you. Let us know what other downgrades there are.

A "true replacement" with an RF mount will not have OVF, which will be a complete turn off off for many action and nature photographers, and would not in our minds be a successor to a 7DII.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

bitcars said:


> Kodak's downfall teaches many subtle lessons, but make no mistake, it was not indecisiveness that killed the once giant in imaging technology. Kodak was certain about embracing the digital camera, it invented it, invested billions into it, it even recognized that future of image lies in the online sharing business, precisely because of the merge of digital cameras.
> 
> But Kodak failed. Because it committed to a future that would not come to pass: printing.



Kodak never made much money selling cameras.

They sold cameras, often at a loss, only in order to get customers for their film/photo paper/developing/chemicals businesses. That's where they made their fortune.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 15, 2019)

riker said:


> I don't get this, EOS R being released in 2018, Mark II in 2020 is not realistic at all.
> 
> The comparison with 90D and M6II is actually sad and worrying - if you seriously look into 90D and M6II it turns out they are actually different, both missing some features which the other has and you end up crying if you were considering buying one. A similar approach to 5D4 and R2 would probably be the most annoying in Canon's rich history.


I am certainly not crying about buying a 90D and not having an M6 II. The 90D has the best of both worlds, enabling me to do very well indeed the nature photography I want using the OVF, high fps with real time view and little black out, and having the ergonomics to hold large lenses. And I am using also in liveview for portrait work with eye AF and for some landscapes. It's one of the best DSLRs ever made and maybe a way for the future.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Has it?
> 
> 
> 
> Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting



If a source biased against Canon as much as DP Review admits the 90D/M6 Mark II sensor is better than any current Sony APS-C sensor, then yes, it has.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

slclick said:


> and the battery is 9 years old! *gasp*



More like 11 years since the LP-E6 was introduced with the 5D Mark II.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

The Tired Photographer said:


> For over two years now I’ve been saying to friends, if another 5D gets released Canon will call it the 5DX and not a 5D V.
> My reasoning is that’s what happen with the 1D series.



They called it the 1D X because it combined the replacement for both APS-H 1D Mark IV and the FF 1Ds Mark III.


----------



## suburbia (Oct 15, 2019)

ChockstoneMike said:


> I don't particularly want to switch from Canon DSLR (EOS 5 Series) to Canon Mirror-less (EOS R Series), but having waited nearly a decade for them to do something that interests me as a landscape guy, I'll probably end up with the rumoured Canon RS (83mp) if it actually happens next year.
> 
> I thought I had plenty of patience, skipping the last few models. 5DSR nearly tempted me, but the lack of improved low ISO DR stopped me. 5D IV nearly tempted me, but the res increase seemed barely worth it. 5D III offered nothing I needed. I'm back on a 5DII and still not seeing anything in Canon land worth my money.
> 
> ...



The EVF Viewfinder image in the EOS R is very bright, much brighter than the back screen. You can also zoom in with both, there is another cool option when you switch focus to manual it will highlight the outlines (edges) of the image thats in focus, not tried it in low light yet though. I agree with the battery consumption, biggest shock for me, but if doing tripod style landscape work you can get away with keeping the power-save mode on permenantly (problematic for street photography where things happen at the blink of an eye) or switching it off when trekking. One thing that would be nice would be just to have the EVF activate when your eye is on the viewfinder (as in the current mechanism to detect whether to light the viewfinder EVF or the back LED) but not have the back LED turn on at all, BUT to still be able to use it as a touch screen for moving the focus point. Currently can only have the back screen either completely disabled for fully functioning as a display.


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> There hasn't been a 1Ds since the 1Ds Mark III in 2007.


1d series or 1D s - plural.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> 1d series or 1D s - plural.



So they are introducing 1Ds (multiple 1-series models) in 2020, and not just a single model: the1D X Mark III?

Not to mention that the original comment said "... the 1Ds when _it_ comes out next year."

Not _they. It._


----------



## gzroxas (Oct 15, 2019)

I really hope the R2 is coming out in 2021 since I think I’ll buy the R soon
This hopefully will give them time to put IBIS, have new sensor Tech and hopefully dual slots, of course at the same price of the original R more or less. (Otherwise it’s definitely out of my budget)
At that point I also think buying a 5DV will be absolutely useless unless they keep some features separated or if someone either hates EVFs or Adaptors 
Great news nevertheless, I really hope they’ll listen to the feedbacks like they’ve been doing recently


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 15, 2019)

gzroxas said:


> I really hope the R2 is coming out in 2021 since I think I’ll buy the R soon
> This hopefully will give them time to put IBIS, have new sensor Tech and hopefully dual slots, of course at the same price of the original R more or less. (Otherwise it’s definitely out of my budget)
> At that point I also think buying a 5DV will be absolutely useless unless they keep some features separated or if someone either hates EVFs or Adaptors
> Great news nevertheless, I really hope they’ll listen to the feedbacks like they’ve been doing recently



The R version of the 5D Mark V will not be an EOS R Mark II. It will be the first of a model line one step above the EOS R.

**Edit** for those who lack the intellectual capacity to read between the lines and see the obvious implications of a statement such as the above: **Edit**

***EDIT** "In my opinion the R version of the 5D Mark V will not be an EOS R Mark II. It will be the first of a model line one step above the EOS R." **EDIT***


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 15, 2019)

You have a very interesting workflow for a landscape photographer. 99% of time I can't use the viewfinder on my 5DIV for landscapes, it's so inconvenient. In the Live View I have histogram, exact composition in exposure simulation, level indicator. Dusk/dawn, early sunset and late sunrise are nearly impossible to compose in the OVF. You just see no shadows.
OVF is useful sometimes in composing night shots as LV may go almost completely dark. Yet I can use LV for focusing on the stars, it shows bright stars.



ChockstoneMike said:


> I don't particularly want to switch from Canon DSLR (EOS 5 Series) to Canon Mirror-less (EOS R Series), but having waited nearly a decade for them to do something that interests me as a landscape guy, I'll probably end up with the rumoured Canon RS (83mp) if it actually happens next year.
> 
> I thought I had plenty of patience, skipping the last few models. 5DSR nearly tempted me, but the lack of improved low ISO DR stopped me. 5D IV nearly tempted me, but the res increase seemed barely worth it. 5D III offered nothing I needed. I'm back on a 5DII and still not seeing anything in Canon land worth my money.
> 
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The R version of the 5D Mark V will not be an EOS R Mark II. It will be the first of a model line one stop above the EOS R.


Written from the perspective of insider knowledge that you lack.


----------



## tron (Oct 15, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Sure, but my point was that the new 1D and the high MP R are both already 'highly likely' to be out in 2020, so is it realistic to expect the 5Dv/EOS Rii in the same 12 month period? Maybe it is - if the same (new) FF sensor was to be used in the 5Dv/EOS Rii, cutting production costs. But it just sounds like a lot of FF bodies to me. Pretty much rolling over the whole stock of FF bodies (apart from the 6Dii/RP and assuming the high MP R is the replacement for the 5DS).


They could follow 6 months later than the 1DxIII Also Rii could follow even later than the 5D in order to create a 3 year cycle instead of a 2 year one. That way it could be even more advanced than 5D or equal but cheaper.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Kodak never made much money selling cameras.
> 
> They sold cameras, often at a loss, only in order to get customers for their film/photo paper/developing/chemicals businesses. That's where they made their fortune.


Like printers these days. The money is in the ink... not the printer itself.


----------



## freejay (Oct 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.


Canon has 70 EF lenses in there lineup, ready to be sold. And many people have lots of EF glass. Many of them will still be wanting to use it natively also in the future. And I guess much more photographers want their next DSLR than the forum and youtubers crowds thinks to know... Did you read the many "I want one" remarks when the 90D came out? There is still a huge market for these cameras.


----------



## Andrew Davies Photography (Oct 15, 2019)

Great news for me , having owned all of the iterations of the 5D series I am a big fan and its a perfect workhorse for my business, did not want to really go RF route yet as I am not sold on them having used a couple of times so another 5D will be welcome. Another stop at least of ISO as always would be nice without cramming too many more pixels in as we already have reached a plateau i think on pixels v iso performance, I would like an articulating screen but can see how that may cause long term reliability issues. I would like to see a better dual card configuration too. 

Wedding Photographer North East & Yorkshire Northumberland & Wedding Photographer Cumbria


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> So they are introducing 1Ds (multiple 1-series models) in 2020, and not just a single model: the1D X Mark III?
> 
> Not to mention that the original comment said "... the 1Ds when _it_ comes out next year."
> 
> Not _they. It._


yes, you are correct. I am incorrect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment:
> 
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future,


Perhaps there’s another Vaio moment in your future.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 15, 2019)

ChockstoneMike said:


> 5DSR nearly tempted me, but the lack of improved low ISO DR stopped me. 5D IV nearly tempted me, but the res increase seemed barely worth it. 5D III offered nothing I needed. I'm back on a 5DII and still not seeing anything in Canon land worth my money.



DR of the 5DS is way ahead of the 5D2 and from a practical point of view very close to the on-chip ADC cameras.


----------



## BillB (Oct 15, 2019)

Jethro said:


> Sure, but my point was that the new 1D and the high MP R are both already 'highly likely' to be out in 2020, so is it realistic to expect the 5Dv/EOS Rii in the same 12 month period? Maybe it is - if the same (new) FF sensor was to be used in the 5Dv/EOS Rii, cutting production costs. But it just sounds like a lot of FF bodies to me. Pretty much rolling over the whole stock of FF bodies (apart from the 6Dii/RP and assuming the high MP R is the replacement for the 5DS).


All the speculation is in the context of Canon's ability to role out a family of new sensors, together with adequate processing power and firmware. Past notions about refresh cycles may not apply in this environment, especially for the release of mirrorless models.


----------



## MartinF. (Oct 15, 2019)

A 5D mkV in late 2020 is very good news for me. Being the owner of a 5D (Classic) and a 6D (classic) and some very good Canon EF "L" zoom lenses I am not into jumping to RF mount yet. I would rather have one more (and probably last) EF-mount DSLR body before moving to RF mount. And a 5D mk IV on firesale or a 5D mkV in 2020/2021 will fit perfect into my timeframe. Then I can give myself a RF body and lenses in retirement gift....


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If a source biased against Canon as much as DP Review admits the 90D/M6 Mark II sensor is better than any current Sony APS-C sensor, then yes, it has.


Or it means they lied through their teeth about the 80D and are now telling a story closer to the truth about the 90D. I don’t read DPReviews ridiculousness and haven’t since they out right lied about the 5DSr in their review of that camera, the reviewer even came here to try to justify his lies and failed miserably.

Just look at trustworthy sites like Photonstophotos, who are completely open about their methodology, and show me where there is any kind of measurable difference. I’m not saying the 90D isn’t a great camera, I am saying for 80D owners looking to get a measurable increase in IQ they will be disappointed. They will get tons of other improvements, just not IQ.


----------



## wockawocka (Oct 15, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> DR of the 5DS is way ahead of the 5D2 and from a practical point of view very close to the on-chip ADC cameras.



Can confirm, shot weddings for two years on dual 5DSr's.


----------



## slclick (Oct 15, 2019)

thomste said:


> the question is..... will it have 24fps?


so last week


----------



## Arod820 (Oct 15, 2019)

KirkD said:


> If the R II will lose the touch bar and include IBIS, I'll be dusting off my credit card.


Seriously! How useless is that touch bar!


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 15, 2019)

Arod820 said:


> Seriously! How useless is that touch bar!


I like the Touch Bar for rating photos, but don’t find it very useful when shooting.


----------



## Arod820 (Oct 15, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Agree.
> If it is basically the same camera but one DSLR and the other mirrorless no harm no foul. It sounds exciting for those wanting a DSLR to get the cutting edge tech being pumped into the mirrorless systems. Especially in live view and video. It would be nice if the viewfinder switched from the mirror to EVF when in live view. I do so hate to hold the camera out away from the body when in live view at present. Oh well we shall see. This is very exciting.


From a business stand point it makes sense to keep developing DSLR's. Canon and Nikon are probably going to keep putting out new mirrored bodies till people stop buying them now that every other company has ditched the DSLR market. The main reason Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, etc went mirrorless was because they couldn't compete with Canon or Nikon DSLRs.
It's kind of like cars with manual transmissions. Dual clutch automatics shift faster, but people still want manuals.


----------



## Arod820 (Oct 15, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I like the Touch Bar for rating photos, but don’t find it very useful when shooting.


I tried to set it up to change my iso while shooting, it takes forever to realize what i want it to do. I switched my iso to the control ring and its soooo much quicker. I'll have to try it for rating photos, thanks for the tip.


----------



## bergstrom (Oct 15, 2019)

i think one of the biggest complaints about the 5d4 was that video files were too huge to work with, no compression or whatever, so hopefully they fix that. But also, canon need to look at other faults or complaints about the 5d4 that came up in reviews and fix them, give people NOTHING to complain about and implement the focusing system of the eos r ( with v1.4 firmware) and even improve on that even further. But also come in at a reasonable price point.


----------



## Arod820 (Oct 15, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> i think one of the biggest comlaints avout 5d4 was that video files were too huge to work sith, no compression of r whatever, so hopefully they fix that. But also, canon need to look at other faults or complaints about the 5d4 that came up in reviews and fix them, ive people NOTHING to complain about. and implement the focusing system of the eos r ( with v1.4 firmware) and improve on that even further. But also come in at a reasonable price point.


I didn’t like that the video output of the 5d4 was limited to 1080p. That’s my only complaint, it’d be cool if they came up with a nicer audio input than a mini plug. If I could plug in the top handle from my years outdated C100 and have two channels I’d buy two.


----------



## slclick (Oct 15, 2019)

Arod820 said:


> Seriously! How useless is that touch bar!


If you can use it to switch in an instant to a completely different mode such as from one AF setting to another then it's invaluable.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Because there has not been so much as a peep from reliable sources about 7D Mark III development since about 2017, when the project was apparently shelved. There have been rumors from those same reliable sources that the 7D Mark III is officially dead within Canon's future plans.



That is not what I've asked, I know Canon did not anounced creating the 7D(3), and that they merged some of the 7D(2) features into the 90D (which is not a 7D upgrade).

I've asked that question since it seems Canon is making both EF and RF models co-exist with similar features, the R and the 5D(4), the RF and the 6D(2), and probably the 1Dx(3) with the Rx, than no they say they will go and develop the 5D(5) with probably an equal R(2) to match it, than going along this logic, why not make the 7D(3) and R7 if it was rumored already that they are into a crop-sensor RF model?


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 90D is a significant upgrade to the 7DII in most respects. There is a much higher resolution sensor with its much improved liveview, which is as good as a mirrorless and better DR at low iso. The CRAW allows a much larger burst size of 44 in my hands with a UHS-I cardand more with a UHS-II for Grant. The AF is excellent for BIF and seems more consistent for static shots. The only real downgrade is in its ruggedness, and possibly in having just one card slot it that concerns you. Let us know what other downgrades there are.
> 
> A "true replacement" with an RF mount will not have OVF, which will be a complete turn off off for many action and nature photographers, and would not in our minds be a successor to a 7DII.



You've got the biggies, you could include buffer rates (but that's due to the increased files sizes), less focus points 65 v 45, viewfinder magnification 1.0x v 0.95x, built in GPS, USB 3 v 2, but overall I agree that the 90D is the better camera as long as the ruggedness isn't an issue.


----------



## hugebob (Oct 15, 2019)

KirkD said:


> If the R II will lose the touch bar and include IBIS, I'll be dusting off my credit card.



If either offering is a significant improvement, Canon can count on at least one sale, LOL! If it's mainly a namby-pamby upgrade, my wait will continue. But, it won't last forever.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 15, 2019)

bitm2007 said:


> You've got the biggies, you could include buffer rates (but that's due to the increased files sizes), less focus points 65 v 45, viewfinder magnification 1.0x v 0.95x, built in GPS, USB 3 v 2, but overall I agree that the 90D is the better camera as long as the ruggedness isn't an issue.


With CRAW, the 90D actually has significantly more buffer (CRAW has little downsides and half or so file size) and 0.95 vs 1.0 viewfinder magnification is not noticeable in use. Canon has a real edge over the opposition in DPAF, the best live view AF, and it has been used with an OVF for some time now.


----------



## amorse (Oct 15, 2019)

masterpix said:


> That is not what I've asked, I know Canon did not anounced creating the 7D(3), and that they merged some of the 7D(2) features into the 90D (which is not a 7D upgrade).
> 
> I've asked that question since it seems Canon is making both EF and RF models co-exist with similar features, the R and the 5D(4), the RF and the 6D(2), and probably the 1Dx(3) with the Rx, than no they say they will go and develop the 5D(5) with probably an equal R(2) to match it, than going along this logic, why not make the 7D(3) and R7 if it was rumored already that they are into a crop-sensor RF model?


I don't think anyone but Canon can answer your question with any sort of reliability, so take all of this with a grain of salt.

The impression I've been given from all the rumours is that Canon wouldn't release a 7D III along side a crop sensor RF mount equivalent because they may not release release a 7D III at all, let alone a 7D III with a crop equivalent. I believe the 7D series had been updated on a 5 year cycle, and we're right at year 5 of waiting for a 7D III, so the feeling that no 7D III is coming may be realistic. Why they'd choose not to continue the 7D line is anyone's guess, but if they stopped producing a camera which has strong sales then I'd bet they have a reason which makes sense for them. Here's a few grasping at straws ideas on why they may not refresh the 7D:

Maybe it was cannibalizing higher end bodies for the price point so they don't plan on replacing it? Maybe that's why the 90D got a bit of a specs boost from the 80D? 
Maybe they'll release a new camera in that niche on EF-M mount? I.e. the m5II?
Maybe they'll release an RF mount body with a new and improved autofocus system to fill that niche instead of the 7D? Mirrorless bodies could hold a lot of promise for a 7D - style camera with really great autofocus tracking, and incredibly fast burst rates - the m6II is a good example of what kind of performance is possible in a crop mirrorless body.
Maybe the 7D series benefit - a relatively cheap and ruggedized body with great autofocus and burst rates - will not stand out with some of the technical advancement of late? Crazy fast burst rates are moving into lower tier camera bodies (i.e. M6II), incredible autofocus capabilities seem to be more software based than hardware (on mirrorless anyway - though even lower-end mirrorless bodies are getting very advanced autofocus capabilities), and the only thing missing seems to be the ruggedized body. Maybe that's not enough niche for Canon to justify? Rumour has it Nikon went the same route and will not update the D500 (the 7DII's most direct competitor), so maybe the niche for rugged/price-conscious/high-burst rate/great autofocus just doesn't make sense from a business standpoint any longer. 
Really, it's anyone's guess. The only fact we have to work from here is that a 7D III is late from a release cycle point of view, and whether it is coming at all remains to be seen. Probably not an answer which will make anyone happy, but the fact is no-one (myself included) knows why the 7D III isn't here yet or what direction Canon is headed with the 7D series.


----------



## iheartcanon (Oct 15, 2019)

If the 5DmkV is a worthy upgrade to the mkIV (one would assume so) and they keep improving on the R series and releasing nice RF lenses with the price at least marginally dropping, then I would consider upgrading from the mkIV to the mkV with a view to down the road getting a new R that is well and truly had it's kinks worked out and utilising any benefits it may have over by that stage over the mkV.

That way I would still have the mkV and all it's perks such as keeping my EF glass, but get to utlise the ND adapter with EF glass on the R.
Side note, that RF 28-70 f/2 is ridiculously/comically large!


----------



## Larsskv (Oct 15, 2019)

Arod820 said:


> I tried to set it up to change my iso while shooting, it takes forever to realize what i want it to do. I switched my iso to the control ring and its soooo much quicker. I'll have to try it for rating photos, thanks for the tip.


Glad to help! I have set it up for ISO as well, but I am not happy with it. I use the control ring for exposure compensation.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 15, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> They're not "hedging their bets" any more than an automobile manufacturer is who continues to offer full size SUVs while also introducing smaller "crossover" models.


EOS is a system with an awkward incompatibility split down the middle. Canons new lenses don’t work with their flagship bodies. I don’t think your analogy is valid.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> With CRAW, the 90D actually has significantly more buffer (CRAW has little downsides and half or so file size) and 0.95 vs 1.0 viewfinder magnification is not noticeable in use. Canon has a real edge over the opposition in DPAF, the best live view AF, and it has been used with an OVF for some time now.



Internally as previously mentioned I do agree that the 90D is the better camera, but the pro nature photographers I know want the ruggedness of a 7D II style body. Your have already stated the only real downgrade (to the 90D) is in its ruggedness, and that a
"A "true replacement" with an RF mount will not have OVF, which will be a complete turn off for many action and nature photographers, and would not in our minds be a successor to a 7DII. 

So where do you see the future upgrade path for them ?


----------



## RayValdez360 (Oct 15, 2019)

Hopefully they start adding c log 3. every camera out now has 13 stops of DR for video. it makes a difference in outdoor shooting.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 15, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> Who knows maybe the 5D V will have RF mount. And better maybe when you go on liveview you'll have a LCD instead of the black Viewfinder.



The RF mount is not possible for SLR, it comes down to how far the lens sits from the sensor, you cant get a R mount lens close enough to the sensor because of the mirror hardware. The opposite (EF mount on a R camera is only possible because you can put space between the R body and the EF lens).


----------



## navastronia (Oct 15, 2019)

bitm2007 said:


> Internally as previously mentioned I do agree that the 90D is the better camera, but the pro nature photographers I know want the ruggedness of a 7D II style body. Your have already stated the only real downgrade (to the 90D) is in its ruggedness, and that a
> "A "true replacement" with an RF mount will not have OVF, which will be a complete turn off for many action and nature photographers, and would not in our minds be a successor to a 7DII.
> 
> So where do you see the future upgrade path for them ?



The industry seems to be heading away from OVFs. I think the future upgrade path is to use a mirrorless body with a premium EVF like that found in the Panasonic S1.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 15, 2019)

masterpix said:


> So I wonder, if the 5D V is expected, and the 1Dx III is expected, why not hte 7D III (alongside the R crop sensor)?
> 
> Just wondering



With so many camera lines, they married the 80D and 7D line into the 90D


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 15, 2019)

navastronia said:


> The industry seems to be heading away from OVFs. I think the future upgrade path is to use a mirrorless body with a premium EVF like that found in the Panasonic S1.



That's the way I see it going as well.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 15, 2019)

bitm2007 said:


> Internally as previously mentioned I do agree that the 90D is the better camera, but the pro nature photographers I know want the ruggedness of a 7D II style body. Your have already stated the only real downgrade (to the 90D) is in its ruggedness, and that a
> "A "true replacement" with an RF mount will not have OVF, which will be a complete turn off for many action and nature photographers, and would not in our minds be a successor to a 7DII.
> 
> So where do you see the future upgrade path for them ?


Sony has shown that mirrorless AF can work, but it's not for everyone. We simply do not know the future plans of Canon and Nikon. I have said a couple of times that I think the hybrid 90D like situation may be a way forward for a particular market, and we might be seeing DSLRs for far longer than many here have confidently predicted their imminent death.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Oct 15, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> But also, canon need to look at other faults or complaints about the 5d4 that came up in reviews and fix them, give people NOTHING to complain about and implement the focusing system of the eos r ( with v1.4 firmware) and even improve on that even further. But also come in at a reasonable price point.


Is that all - come on, give them a real challenge at least! 

- Just kidding - I agree with you that those would be great goals, and I for one am looking forward to an upgrade (skipped 5DIV and have been humming and aaahing for about 12-18 months).

Cheers


----------



## slclick (Oct 15, 2019)

mpmark said:


> With so many camera lines, they married the 80D and 7D line into the 90D


They dropped the 7D line, folks just assumed it was merged into the XXD series. Not so. It was never an official Canon intention but culturally it happened. So, like most things, there's no convincing some people.

Sometimes things go away without a replacement. Why shooters can't accept or grasp that is beyond me, but why Canon has no higher tier crop fast fps is also beyond me. Time will tell.


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Sony has shown that mirrorless AF can work, but it's not for everyone. We simply do not know the future plans of Canon and Nikon. I have said a couple of times that I think the hybrid 90D like situation may be a way forward for a particular market, and we might be seeing DSLRs for far longer than many here have confidently predicted their imminent death.



I think that may be the case as well. The ability to view a landscape image I have just captured in the viewfinder would be a major advantage for me, but I will be sticking with mirrored camera's until Canon release a suitable mirrorless camera with similar dimensions (for ease of use), weight (for balance when using EF lenses. I won't be upgrade them in a harry) and robustnance to my 5D mk IV. If the R II and similar R type cameras continue to be smaller and lighter than there mirrored equivalent's I will be in a similar position to the pro nature photographers I mentioned, so would sticking with mirrored camera's for as long as possible.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 15, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Another Kodak moment: Indecisiveness to move boldly into the future of the marketplace.
> They had the spirit in the early 2000s, but they have seemed to have lost their way.
> It is the primary reason I have finally migrated to Sony in the last month. I want a company firmly fixed on the present and the future, not one with trying to hang on to the past glory. Or a well used cripple hammer.



your views are delusional, why are you still here if you went to Sony? Leave then.
You don't just abandon 156 lenses on a platform for many customers that still use it, the DSLR is not at its culmination of development, it still has improvements to come. Canon are working to build up a new line, and what seems a parallel line that new R system still has only a hand full of lenses. When you're as big as Canon you don't just switch over night.

Sony has a way to go to make cameras that feel right, dont have little quirks and are actually durable. I for one hate the aragonmics, the cheap feel and the crappy basttery life, delay on startup, I could keep going. Have a look at any major sporting event, find me one Sony. Canon is doing this the right way and the DSLR still has a lot of life in it, you do know it shoots digital images dont you? You may like the EVF but speak for yourself, I still prefer a OVF.

So go hide in the Sony forums and gawg gawg over numbers, its something Sony people seem to love.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 15, 2019)

Larsskv said:


> I like the Touch Bar for rating photos, but don’t find it very useful when shooting.


Thank you for this! I finally have a use for the bar and a simple way to review and rate photos.


----------



## djack41 (Oct 15, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Canon needs a faster pace. Today's market is too dynamic for 5-year releases.


----------



## peters (Oct 15, 2019)

djack41 said:


> Canon needs a faster pace. Today's market is too dynamic for 5-year releases.


I think its 4 years on the top of the line models. 
I agree with you, though its not that drastic. I got the 1DX II and it feels a bit "dated" in some of its features. Another codec option and a better touch integration (cant use touch in menu, which is silly) would be good. Also intervallometer and 4k HDMI output (only FHD). Waiting one more year for the next model feels a bit long for me. 
I am in the silly situation where a C200 would be a bit overkill (I do photo AND video work, so I would love a good hybrid) but the 1DX II is a bit lacking the video front. And sadly the 5D IV, while great in photo, is quite a disaster in video mode. I think a 5D V right now would be great. A bit more resolution, a bit better video features and it would be great improvement. But waiting nearly 2 more years? brr


----------



## melgross (Oct 15, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Sony has shown that mirrorless AF can work, but it's not for everyone. We simply do not know the future plans of Canon and Nikon. I have said a couple of times that I think the hybrid 90D like situation may be a way forward for a particular market, and we might be seeing DSLRs for far longer than many here have confidently predicted their imminent death.



it all depends upon sales. With DSLR sales dropping between 20-30% every year, there will come a point where it makes no financial sense to put so much money into new body and lens designs. If they space out new cameras to five, or even six years, but space out mirrorless designs to every three or four, those DSLRs will get dated very quickly, dropping sales even more quickly.

of course, that assumes that mirrorless can hold the line in sales. If it can’t, all bets are off.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 15, 2019)

Arod820 said:


> Seriously! How useless is that touch bar!


Very useful to me. Right tap I turn the histogram on or off. Left tap and I turn the level on or off. For the first couple of months I thought it was useless too. Enjoy it now.


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 15, 2019)

mpmark said:


> your views are delusional, why are you still here if you went to Sony? Leave then.


I think he’s actually left about four or five times now. Isn’t this the latest reincarnation of AvTvM ?


----------



## bitm2007 (Oct 15, 2019)

melgross said:


> it all depends upon sales. With DSLR sales dropping between 20-30% every year, there will come a point where it makes no financial sense to put so much money into new body and lens designs. If they space out new cameras to five, or even six years, but space out mirrorless designs to every three or four, those DSLRs will get dated very quickly, dropping sales even more quickly.
> 
> of course, that assumes that mirrorless can hold the line in sales. If it can’t, all bets are off.



The general decline in camera sales largely due to the popularity of Smartphone cameras at the lower end of the market accounts for much of that, the key will be how quickly/many enthusiast and pro photographer make the switch to the mirrorless R mount cameras. Until Canon release a bigger, heavier, more robust mirrorless camera that won't be me.


----------



## melgross (Oct 15, 2019)

bitm2007 said:


> The general decline in camera sales largely due to the popularity of Smartphone cameras at the lower end of the market accounts for much of that, the key will be how quickly/many enthusiast and pro photographer make the switch to the mirrorless R mount cameras. Until Canon release a bigger, heavier, more robust mirrorless camera that won't be me.


It won’t be me either. Right now, I’m still happy with my 5Dmk IV. But that happiness wanes as time goes by. I also admit that I’m slavering over the 28-70 f2.

but it’s odd how so many people are willing to either give up, or not buy in the first place, a moderate DSLR, isn’t it? It’s not just the lowest priced models that are declining, after all.


----------



## MadScotsman (Oct 15, 2019)

mpmark said:


> your views are delusional, why are you still here if you went to Sony? Leave then.
> 
> So go hide in the Sony forums and gawg gawg over numbers, its something Sony people seem to love.


Exactly. Canon remains the clear and overwhelming choice of most professionals.

I’ll never get it.

There are a handful of brand names today that I, personally, perceive as being absolute junk. It’s just MY opinion. Hyundai and KIA cars, Payless shoes, Huawei phones, Sony electronics (all of them). All strike me as being cheap schlock that I have no interest in buying. I’m secure in my firm belief that every car, shoe, phone, stereo, television or camera I own is superior in everyday way to anything from any of these brands.

And because I’m secure about my decisions I don’t feel the need to run to their brand pages or advertising posts or forums and crow about how much better my stuff is. I could care less about their junk.

As the song says: Real gangtahs don’t flex nuts. 

Cause... 

Real gangstahs know they got ‘em.


----------



## Nelu (Oct 15, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Thank you for this! I finally have a use for the bar and a simple way to review and rate photos.


I have a different use for the touch-bar: one swipe is jump to 10 times zoom, one touch is to five times zoom. I find this very useful, especially when focusing manually.


----------



## Jethro (Oct 15, 2019)

Nelu said:


> I have a different use for the touch-bar: one swipe is jump to 10 times zoom, one touch is to five times zoom. I find this very useful, especially when focusing manually.


I use it for this too - I still find it 'fiddly' to make sure it's engaged, but I actually use it all the time for zoom.


----------



## koketso (Oct 16, 2019)

masterpix said:


> So I wonder, if the 5D V is expected, and the 1Dx III is expected, why not hte 7D III (alongside the R crop sensor)?
> 
> Just wondering


Because there may not be an R crop sensor


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Written from the perspective of insider knowledge that you lack.



My apologies if you are so obtuse as to not see the rather obviously implied "In my opinion" preface to my statement.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Like printers these days. The money is in the ink... not the printer itself.



Printer? What's a printer?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Or it means they lied through their teeth about the 80D and are now telling a story closer to the truth about the 90D. I don’t read DPReviews ridiculousness and haven’t since they out right lied about the 5DSr in their review of that camera, the reviewer even came here to try to justify his lies and failed miserably.
> 
> Just look at trustworthy sites like Photonstophotos, who are completely open about their methodology, and show me where there is any kind of measurable difference. I’m not saying the 90D isn’t a great camera, I am saying for 80D owners looking to get a measurable increase in IQ they will be disappointed. They will get tons of other improvements, just not IQ.



"Perception is reality."


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

masterpix said:


> That is not what I've asked, I know Canon did not anounced creating the 7D(3), and that they merged some of the 7D(2) features into the 90D (which is not a 7D upgrade).
> 
> I've asked that question since it seems Canon is making both EF and RF models co-exist with similar features, the R and the 5D(4), the RF and the 6D(2), and probably the 1Dx(3) with the Rx, than no they say they will go and develop the 5D(5) with probably an equal R(2) to match it, than going along this logic, why not make the 7D(3) and R7 if it was rumored already that they are into a crop-sensor RF model?



I don't recall any credible rumors about a forthcoming "R7". I've only seen baseless _theorizing_ by folks here and at similar sites that Canon _might_ offer such a camera.


----------



## slclick (Oct 16, 2019)

Where are we? The 7DR3Mark 7 thread? Keep on topic y'all.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> EOS is a system with an awkward incompatibility split down the middle. Canons new lenses don’t work with their flagship bodies. I don’t think your analogy is valid.



Tires for "crossover" vehicles do not fit full sized SUVs, and vice versa, either. Nor do brake shoes, wiper blades, not to mention body fenders and glass parts.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

amorse said:


> I don't think anyone but Canon can answer your question with any sort of reliability, so take all of this with a grain of salt.
> 
> The impression I've been given from all the rumours is that Canon wouldn't release a 7D III along side a crop sensor RF mount equivalent because they may not release release a 7D III at all, let alone a 7D III with a crop equivalent. I believe the 7D series had been updated on a 5 year cycle, and we're right at year 5 of waiting for a 7D III, so the feeling that no 7D III is coming may be realistic. Why they'd choose not to continue the 7D line is anyone's guess, but if they stopped producing a camera which has strong sales then I'd bet they have a reason which makes sense for them. Here's a few grasping at straws ideas on why they may not refresh the 7D:
> 
> ...



In the case of the Nikon D500 it is more than just a rumor. A high level Nikon executive confirmed in an official interview that there will be no D500 DSLR replacement in the future.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Or it means they lied through their teeth about the 80D and are now telling a story closer to the truth about the 90D. I don’t read DPReviews ridiculousness and haven’t since they out right lied about the 5DSr in their review of that camera, the reviewer even came here to try to justify his lies and failed miserably.
> 
> Just look at trustworthy sites like Photonstophotos, who are completely open about their methodology, and show me where there is any kind of measurable difference. I’m not saying the 90D isn’t a great camera, I am saying for 80D owners looking to get a measurable increase in IQ they will be disappointed. They will get tons of other improvements, just not IQ.


Photonstophotos just measures DR and sensor noise. It doesn’t measure IQ. So, as great a site as it is, its measurements showing the 80 and 90 have the same DR don’t tell you which one has the better IQ because DR is only one factor as you surely know. How do you know that there is not a measurable increase in IQ? There is a 15% increase in linear resolution without increase in noise, and 15% is measurable.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Photonstophotos just measures DR and sensor noise. It doesn’t measure IQ. So, as great a site as it is, its measurements showing the 80 and 90 have the same DR don’t tell you which one has the better IQ because DR is only one factor as you surely know. How do you know that there is not a measurable increase in IQ? There is a 15% increase in linear resolution without increase in noise, and 15% is measurable.


Because for the last few years DR and IQ have been entirely synonymous across the photography world.

But let me turn that around, if the only measurable increase in IQ is the bump in resolution, how does that enable DPReview to give it the glowing review? Both the DR and the high iso performance are effectively the same as the 80D. By that measure then 5DS/r should have jumped to the top of the field when it came out, but they panned it.

No, it’s just DPR being DPR...


----------



## dolina (Oct 16, 2019)

It'll ship in limited quantities by July 2020 for the Tokyo Olympics at an even higher MSRP than the debut price of the Mark IV.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Because for the last few years DR and IQ have been entirely synonymous across the photography world.
> 
> But let me turn that around, if the only measurable increase in IQ is the bump in resolution, how does that enable DPReview to give it the glowing review? Both the DR and the high iso performance are effectively the same as the 80D. By that measure then 5DS/r should have jumped to the top of the field when it came out, but they panned it.
> 
> No, it’s just DPR being DPR...


DR and IQ have certainly not been entirely synonymous across the photographic world, unless you live on a different planet.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> DR and IQ have certainly not been entirely synonymous across the photographic world, unless you live on a different planet.


Not to people with brains, but then they aren‘t the same people who endlessly fret about DPReview comments. Try reading anything written there in the last four years that hasn’t conflated DR/high iso performance and image quality.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> Photonstophotos just measures DR and sensor noise. It doesn’t measure IQ. So, as great a site as it is, its measurements showing the 80 and 90 have the same DR don’t tell you which one has the better IQ because DR is only one factor as you surely know. How do you know that there is not a measurable increase in IQ? There is a 15% increase in linear resolution without increase in noise, and 15% is measurable.


I prefer Photonstophotos to DxOMark, but all of them are flawed. Photonstophotos shows 1 stop decrease in DR on the very same sensors in the crop mode (4ex Nikon and Sony FF sensors in crop mode). That's because in their measurements they do some sort of normalisation as if everything is printed with the same print size. But the DR shouldn't change just because of cropping.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Not to people with brains, but then they aren‘t the same people who endlessly fret about DPReview comments. Try reading anything written there in the last four years that hasn’t conflated DR/high iso performance and image quality.


DR, resolution, number of bits per pixel, high ISO noise all contribute to the final image quality, but they're not image quality.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But the DR shouldn't change just because of cropping.


Why not? If one cycle of the spatial frequency at which you sample the signal starts to be represented by a smaller number of pixels, the pixels themselves being of the same quality, why wouldn't the DR decrease?


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I prefer Photonstophotos to DxOMark, but all of them are flawed. Photonstophotos shows 1 stop decrease in DR on the very same sensors in the crop mode (4ex Nikon and Sony FF sensors in crop mode). That's because in their measurements they do some sort of normalisation as if everything is printed with the same print size. But the DR shouldn't change just because of cropping.


What photonstophotos do is to compute the DR for a 8"x10" (I recall) print viewed at approximately arm's length. This means that a Canon APS-C output is enlarged 1.6x1.6 times, increasing the effects of noise and lowering DR. That would be a true comparison if you used the same lens on a crop as for a FF but stood back 1.6x further so both the FF and crop filled the frame identically. But, as you point out that is nonsense if what you are doing is using the same lens but standing at the same distance away and comparing a crop from the FF with the same view as from the APS-C.

Edit - Kit.'s reply just appeared while mine was being posted. He is of course correct about the former case and you the second.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Not to people with brains, but then they aren‘t the same people who endlessly fret about DPReview comments. Try reading anything written there in the last four years that hasn’t conflated DR/high iso performance and image quality.


To get to the real point of contention, you claimed that purchasers of the 90D would be disappointed because they would not see a measurable increase in IQ over the 80D. There is a 15% increase in resolution, and every serious review in addition to the dpr one has said the increase is "palpable". 
If you don't believe me, trawl through
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-90d-review-34051
https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-eos-90d-review/
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review#section-lab-tests
https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/canon-eos-90d
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/canon-eos-90d-hands-on-first-look
https://www.pcmag.com/review/370416/canon-eos-90d
https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/canon_eos_90d_review/news
And digitalcameraworld has even measured the resolution: https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/canon-eos-90d-review#section-lab-tests


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why not? If one cycle of the spatial frequency at which you sample the signal starts to be represented by a smaller number of pixels, the pixels themselves being of the same quality, why wouldn't the DR decrease?


Why would it though? DR by definition is not a function of number of pixels. The way they measure DR becomes such a function, but by definition the DR is simply a difference between the darkest and brightest parts of the scene the sensor is able to capture.


----------



## Anthny (Oct 16, 2019)

In addition to the features already mentioned for the 5D Mark V the addition of focus bracketing would be very useful for in field macro photography. If it has this feature and some increase in resolution among other improvements I would upgrade from my 5D mark IV.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 16, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> EOS is a system with an awkward incompatibility split down the middle. Canons new lenses don’t work with their flagship bodies. I don’t think your analogy is valid.



Awkward incompatibility? Let us see:
Every EF/EFs lens ever made works 100% perfectly with all new RF mount bodies and M mount bodies.
Of course new mirrorless lenses will not work on EF bodies. Neither does Nikon or Sony equivalents. 
Try fitting a new Nikon S mount lens on the antiquated F mount body or the Sony mirrorless lenses on their old Alpha models.
Try to get most Nikon F mount lenses to even work on the Z cameras, yes they mount but do not function as designed to function.
Canon has done a superb job maintaining compatibility and with the RF mount all the old R, FL and FD lenses now come to life again and I believe even the old Leica screw mount lenses as well.
Pretty impressive.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 16, 2019)

AlanF said:


> What photonstophotos do is to compute the DR for a 8"x10" (I recall) print viewed at approximately arm's length. This means that a Canon APS-C output is enlarged 1.6x1.6 times, increasing the effects of noise and lowering DR. That would be a true comparison if you used the same lens on a crop as for a FF but stood back 1.6x further so both the FF and crop filled the frame identically. But, as you point out that is nonsense if what you are doing is using the same lens but standing at the same distance away and comparing a crop from the FF with the same view as from the APS-C.
> 
> Edit - Kit.'s reply just appeared while mine was being posted. He is of course correct about the former case and you the second.



I think the problem is they have to do sampling from some area in order to _measure_ noise from the given image. The sensor size/resolution affects the noise measurements which in turn affect the resulting DR. I wonder if anyone is doing tests on a scene with fixed light levels, similar to this http://www.covingtoninnovations.com/dslr/cal/index.html - the points where the tones become indistinguishable would indicate the actual dynamic range. I'm not sure what setup they use in practice.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Why would it though? DR by definition is not a function of number of pixels.


There is nothing in DR's definition that would say that it's "not a function of number of pixels".



Quarkcharmed said:


> The way they measure DR becomes such a function, but by definition the DR is simply a difference between the darkest and brightest parts of the scene the sensor is able to capture.


Of the _scene_, but not of the image. The pixel noise being equal, the more pixels cover the signal, the lower levels of the signal can be extracted. Basically, a consequence of the Shannon-Hartley theorem.


----------



## Joules (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The way they measure DR becomes such a function, but by definition the DR is simply a difference between the darkest and brightest parts of the scene the sensor is able to capture.


The dynamic range measured by Photons to Photos takes into account how apparent noise is (signal to noise ratio) for what you call the darkest parts. As noise becomes more apparent with higher magnification (cropping), a larger sensor area corresponds to a higher dynamic range if everything else is the same.


----------



## Joules (Oct 16, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Awkward incompatibility?


RF and EF-M lenses are incompatible though. People have a point when they say that it is not a perfect solution. But neither is using an APS-C mount for a FF sensor (Sony E) nor is using a FF mount (Nikon Z) for APS-C sensors. So awkward is maybe the wrong word. Canon delivers the best of both worlds - in two separate systems.


----------



## slclick (Oct 16, 2019)

Anthny said:


> In addition to the features already mentioned for the 5D Mark V the addition of focus bracketing would be very useful for in field macro photography. If it has this feature and some increase in resolution among other improvements I would upgrade from my 5D mark IV.


I agree with this and add a lighter body and dual slots of the same configuration.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 16, 2019)

Kit. said:


> There is nothing in DR's definition that would say that it's "not a function of number of pixels".



But there's nothing in DR's definition that says it is. 
Extrapolating this method on a 30mp sensor and cropping it to two pixels, you'll find two pixels have a DR 15 million times less than the whole sensor. But two pixels should have the same DR.



Kit. said:


> Of the _scene_, but not of the image. The pixel noise being equal, the more pixels cover the signal, the lower levels of the signal can be extracted. Basically, a consequence of the Shannon-Hartley theorem.



But by cropping you also reduce the amount of information. What you said is applicable to the case where we increase the number of pixel per area unit and measure the same image projected to the same area, just with more pixels.

You may say let's compare FF and crop sensors using different lenses, so that the projected image will cover all sensor area of the both FF and crop sensors. But that'd mean DR depends on the focal length of the mounted lens.


----------



## yeahright (Oct 16, 2019)

@Quarkcharmed That's simply the difference between per-pixel-DR and per-image-DR. The source of so many discussions is that the term 'DR' is in fact ambiguous and different people are talking about different things. When cropping, the per-pixel-DR remains the same, but the per-image-DR decreases.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2019)

ephotozine: "There's a clear increase in detail captured when compared to the Canon EOS 80D, however, despite the additional pixels on the sensor, and therefore smaller pixels, the noise performance of both cameras is quite similar," Is the only key 'image quality' comment I can find.
Cameralabs: "The image quality, as you’ve seen, certainly has the potential to beat 24 Megapixel rivals, but not by a huge margin and crucially only when fitted with a quality lens."
digital camera world: "Canon’s new sensor does not provide the definitive step up in resolution that the figures left us hoping for. Worse, the increased pixel density does appear to have had an effect on the EOS 90D high ISO performance."

And on....

The only sensor improvement any of these reviews seem to list is resolution, not DR (it's the same), not high iso performance (its the same), bit depth (the same), color reproduction (its the same).

I stand by my comments, if people are looking for an image quality improvement over their 80D they will be disappointed, with a slight caveat, unless resolution is the be all and end all of your measurement of IQ. Now for a few people, like yourself, who is often focal length limited, that is a good reason to get one, for anybody that never found 24MP limiting (I'd venture that is vastly more common) then getting a 90D will ONLY add more MP to your 'image quality'. 

I do not equate resolution to image quality in and of itself, assuming you have enough for your uses, and the numbers we are talking about don't show an improvement in color reproduction due to more sampling, tonality or any other metric most photographers would include when talking about image quality.





AlanF said:


> To get to the real point of contention, you claimed that purchasers of the 90D would be disappointed because they would not see a measurable increase in IQ over the 80D. There is a 15% increase in resolution, and every serious review in addition to the dpr one has said the increase is "palpable".
> If you don't believe me, trawl through
> https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-90d-review-34051
> https://www.cameralabs.com/canon-eos-90d-review/
> ...


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 16, 2019)

Joules said:


> RF and EF-M lenses are incompatible though. People have a point when they say that it is not a perfect solution. But neither is using an APS-C mount for a FF sensor (Sony E) nor is using a FF mount (Nikon Z) for APS-C sensors. So awkward is maybe the wrong word. Canon delivers the best of both worlds - in two separate systems.



Canon seems to see the M series as a niche market. In a way like the Nikon J series it seems but far superior to it in that at least Canon M seamlessly uses all EF and EFs lenses.
We cannot predict what will happen in the volatile period we are in for "Real" cameras so who knows what will win. My daughter is now wanting to quit digital and go to film and there appears to be a niche trend going that way now.
So all is up in the air.


----------



## gouldopfl (Oct 16, 2019)

I would replace my R with mk ii if it has 2 uhs-II card slots larger meg pixels and a fully water tight body. I was hoping that this would be the EOS R pro and be available before the Olympics i 2020.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 16, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Tires for "crossover" vehicles do not fit full sized SUVs, and vice versa, either. Nor do brake shoes, wiper blades, not to mention body fenders and glass parts.


Analogy is not a logical form of argument. It's what you use when you want to distract from the fact that you don't have a logical argument.

Unless we are talking about Legos, I don't know anbody who purchases vehicle with the idea of them having interchangeable parts. EOS is a system that promotes interchangeability. It's the main reason many photographers choose Canon.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 16, 2019)

yeahright said:


> @Quarkcharmed That's simply the difference between per-pixel-DR and per-image-DR. The source of so many discussions is that the term 'DR' is in fact ambiguous and different people are talking about different things. When cropping, the per-pixel-DR remains the same, but the per-image-DR decreases.



Good explanation, however looks like this per-image DR doesn't make much sense. Simply put, cropping doesn't blow highlights out and un-cropping doesn't recover highlights. Photonstophotos data is only usable to compare sensors of the same size, relative comparison probably works, but absolute DR values (e.g. 12 or 13 stops) are meaningless.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 16, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Awkward incompatibility? Let us see:
> Every EF/EFs lens ever made works 100% perfectly with all new RF mount bodies and M mount bodies.
> Of course new mirrorless lenses will not work on EF bodies. Neither does Nikon or Sony equivalents.
> Try fitting a new Nikon S mount lens on the antiquated F mount body or the Sony mirrorless lenses on their old Alpha models.
> ...


Explain to me again how I mount Canon's RF lenses on my EF bodies? I must have missed that part.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Good explanation, however looks like this per-image DR doesn't make much sense. Simply put, cropping doesn't blow highlights out and un-cropping doesn't recover highlights. Photonstophotos data is only usable to compare sensors of the same size, relative comparison probably works, but absolute DR values (e.g. 12 or 13 stops) are meaningless.


But we dont look at pixels at an individual level we look at the images a collection of pixels make.

Both measures have a value but if you want to know what you will end up seeing then the noise per image makes a lot more sense, similarly, if you are going to compare different sensor sizes some kind of normalization also makes sense. To me it seems obvious that a same sized output is a realistic constant, that means a crop sensor is enlarged a lot more than a 'ff' one, which might seem 'unfair', but if I look at an image on my screen at full screen size I wouldn't want a smaller sensor to have a black border all around it I'd want to see it full screen.

So another way of looking at it. Take two images from the same place with ff and crop sensors and apply settings to achieve the same fov and dof. Use the same zoom lens for both images and it has a piece of dust on it (our 'noise'). The dust is obviously a constant size, but when we look at the two images full screen the dust spot in the crop image appears bigger so impacts the crop camera image more. The dust is the same size in real life (image noise at the per pixel level) but is more apparent in the image from the smaller sensor (normalized image output noise level).


----------



## AlanF (Oct 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> ephotozine: "There's a clear increase in detail captured when compared to the Canon EOS 80D, however, despite the additional pixels on the sensor, and therefore smaller pixels, the noise performance of both cameras is quite similar," Is the only key 'image quality' comment I can find.
> Cameralabs: "The image quality, as you’ve seen, certainly has the potential to beat 24 Megapixel rivals, but not by a huge margin and crucially only when fitted with a quality lens."
> digital camera world: "Canon’s new sensor does not provide the definitive step up in resolution that the figures left us hoping for. Worse, the increased pixel density does appear to have had an effect on the EOS 90D high ISO performance."
> 
> ...


I have made it absolutely clear through all I have written that there is a 15% increase in resolution over the 80D, and resolution of detail is a component of IQ. This was in response to your categoric statement that owners of the 90D will be disappointed that there is no improvement in IQ. You changed your tack from: there is no difference in IQ; to DR and IQ are synonymous and the 80D and 90D have the same DR; to the latest that resolution of detail is not part of IQ for those who don't want it. Just because 24 Mpx is not limiting for you does not mean that resolution of detail is not a part of IQ.

Here are some points you were unable to find
From actual measurements
_“A lot of talk is centred on the new sensor, which resolves a level of detail exceeding anything we’ve recorded from an APS-C camera in the past. _
https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/compacts/canon-eos-90d-hands-on-first-look/7

_We were expecting the 90D to produce some excellent results, thanks to its new sensor, and the camera certainly delivered. There were plenty of details in the results, in both highlights and shadows. _
https://www.techradar.com/uk/reviews/canon-eos-90d/3

_The resolution increase is palpable. Wildlife photographers will have a bit more room to crop distant subjects, just to cite one use case. _
https://www.pcmag.com/review/370416/canon-eos-90d


----------



## Kit. (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But there's nothing in DR's definition that says it is.
> Extrapolating this method on a 30mp sensor and cropping it to two pixels, you'll find two pixels have a DR 15 million times less than the whole sensor. But two pixels should have the same DR.


No, they shouldn't. You are losing all the higher-frequency components of the signal (the Nyquist-Shannon theorem). Also, from the whole sensor exposed to the same "2-pixel" scene, you can recover lower signal levels for your "2-pixel" frequency (so, basically, a constant to half cycle signal) if the noise is the photon shot noise (or another kind of additive white noise).



Quarkcharmed said:


> But by cropping you also reduce the amount of information.


That's the whole point. The DR is a measure of the amount of information you can get about the original scene.



Quarkcharmed said:


> What you said is applicable to the case where we increase the number of pixel per area unit and measure the same image projected to the same area, just with more pixels.


We measure DR on a kind of image we consider as a "signal". We are typically interested in the information that has lower spatial frequencies than the Nyquist limit - otherwise we would be using the wrong instrument to the task.



Quarkcharmed said:


> You may say let's compare FF and crop sensors using different lenses, so that the projected image will cover all sensor area of the both FF and crop sensors. But that'd mean DR depends on the focal length of the mounted lens.


No, it's the other way around: the parameters of the lens we use to measure _the sensor's_ DR are chosen to be up to the task.

The "DR" of the "sensor+lens" combination is kinda another topic.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 16, 2019)

Alan you have more time and inclination than me on this. 

I stand by my initial comment, people coming from an 80D to a 90D looking for improved ‘image quality” will be disappointed, that actually stemmed from a comment about how ridiculous DPReviews about change was, the 80D was bad and the same performance from the 90D in all but resolution is fantastic, yet when the 5D MkIII and 5DS/r did exactly the same thing the 5DS/r was absolutely panned! The only thing I have added to my initial comment is ‘unless resolution is their only measure of IQ’, nothing you have linked to has said any different, there is essentially no change in any other metric associated with image quality.




AlanF said:


> I have made it absolutely clear through all I have written that there is a 15% increase in resolution over the 80D, and resolution of detail is a component of IQ. This was in response to your categoric statement that owners of the 90D will be disappointed that there is no improvement in IQ. You changed your tack from: there is no difference in IQ; to DR and IQ are synonymous and the 80D and 90D have the same DR; to the latest that resolution of detail is not part of IQ for those who don't want it. Just because 24 Mpx is not limiting for you does not mean that resolution of detail is not a part of IQ.
> 
> Here are some points you were unable to find
> From actual measurements
> ...


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 16, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Explain to me again how I mount Canon's RF lenses on my EF bodies? I must have missed that part.



Where di I say that.
Intelligent people all know that is not possible to mount RF lenses on EF bodies just like Nikon and Sony failed miserably to do that as well with their ancient bodies with mirrors and the new S and e mount lenses.
Guess you missed that.
At least as I so eloquently pointed out is Canon is unique in that ALL EF and EFs lenses work 100% perfectly on the RF cameras as well as the M series cameras. Unlike the loser Sony old lenses for mirror cameras and Nikon as well there are a very limited that fully function on their new mirrorless mounts. Guess canon destroys the competition there. PS if you want to be a pro get the EF system and grow with 100% compatibility to the RF system. Or just go straight to the RF system and use ALL the old lenses and new ones that yes are different because you CANNOT do those designs on a mirror body but you seem to have slept through that class as well.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 16, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Where di I say that.
> Intelligent people all know that is not possible to mount RF lenses on EF bodies just like Nikon and Sony failed miserably to do that as well with their ancient bodies with mirrors and the new S and e mount lenses.
> Guess you missed that.
> At least as I so eloquently pointed out is Canon is unique in that ALL EF and EFs lenses work 100% perfectly on the RF cameras as well as the M series cameras. Unlike the loser Sony old lenses for mirror cameras and Nikon as well there are a very limited that fully function on their new mirrorless mounts. Guess canon destroys the competition there. PS if you want to be a pro get the EF system and grow with 100% compatibility to the RF system. Or just go straight to the RF system and use ALL the old lenses and new ones that yes are different because you CANNOT do those designs on a mirror body but you seem to have slept through that class as well.


Just more of the same nonsense. Canon's new flagship professional lens trinity doesn't mount on any of Canon's existing flagship professional bodies nor will they mount on the expected Flagship 1DX Mark III or 5D Mark IV. Those lenses with IS are something pro photgraphers have been requesting for years and they can't use them unless they commit to an R which is a significant downgrade from the pro bodies. You can talk around that fact all you like but that won't change anything. I'm not spilling any secrets here. Anybody with any sense figure all this out for themselves a long time ago.


----------



## slclick (Oct 16, 2019)

Nothing wrong with having the glass come before the body, unless you're really impatient. The bodies they do have are no slouches btw. Be happy the lenses are there, better than nothing...boy, some people are so damn hard to please.


----------



## BeenThere (Oct 16, 2019)

slclick said:


> Nothing wrong with having the glass come before the body, unless you're really impatient. The bodies they do have are no slouches btw. Be happy the lenses are there, better than nothing...boy, some people are so damn hard to please.


Yep, competitive posting has become de rigueur.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2019)

ChockstoneMike said:


> 5DSR nearly tempted me, but the lack of improved low ISO DR stopped me.



Man...you missed out on an awesome camera with that reasoning.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

dolina said:


> It'll ship in limited quantities by July 2020 for the Tokyo Olympics at an even higher MSRP than the debut price of the Mark IV.



I really doubt Canon sees the 5D Mark V as an "Olympics" camera. They'll still be in full 1D X Mark III promotion mode.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 16, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> ephotozine: "There's a clear increase in detail captured when compared to the Canon EOS 80D, however, despite the additional pixels on the sensor, and therefore smaller pixels, the noise performance of both cameras is quite similar," Is the only key 'image quality' comment I can find.
> Cameralabs: "The image quality, as you’ve seen, certainly has the potential to beat 24 Megapixel rivals, but not by a huge margin and crucially only when fitted with a quality lens."
> digital camera world: "Canon’s new sensor does not provide the definitive step up in resolution that the figures left us hoping for. Worse, the increased pixel density does appear to have had an effect on the EOS 90D high ISO performance."
> 
> ...



There's also faster readout that allows higher video frame rates without cropping to only the center of the sensor. That's a big part about what DPR was gushing about over this sensor compared to competing 24MP APS-C sensors in competing cameras.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 16, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Just more of the same nonsense. Canon's new flagship professional lens trinity doesn't mount on any of Canon's existing flagship professional bodies nor will they mount on the expected Flagship 1DX Mark III or 5D Mark IV. Those lenses with IS are something pro photgraphers have been requesting for years and they can't use them unless they commit to an R which is a significant downgrade from the pro bodies. You can talk around that fact all you like but that won't change anything. I'm not spilling any secrets here. Anybody with any sense figure all this out for themselves a long time ago.



SO?
News flash. There is a great 15-35, 24-70 and 70-200 in EF mount.
Go to the Canon web site and you will easily find them there.
Canon made the insane and stupid move, I guess in your opinion, of duplicating these or similar lenses for the RF mount with features that can not be done on the EF mount like the control ring seeing as over 30 year old technology and fewer communication pins and a larger flange to sensor distance of the EF mount. But you seem to know best and avoid the point that your Sony or Nikon or what ever system is not backward compatible either so you sound like you are wanting to Troll Canon. Does not work. Your apparent bitterness against the superiority of the Canon system over all is showing through. So sad.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You have a very interesting workflow for a landscape photographer.



You mean the workflow used by the majority of landscape photographers over the past 4-5 decades?



> 99% of time I can't use the viewfinder on my 5DIV for landscapes, it's so inconvenient. In the Live View I have histogram, exact composition in exposure simulation, level indicator. Dusk/dawn, early sunset and late sunrise are nearly impossible to compose in the OVF. You just see no shadows.



Dusk/dawn aren't all that tricky exposure wise. It's not one of the situations where I consider exposure preview to be a significant advantage. I have no issue composing or visualizing dusk/dawn landscapes through an OVF. If I use LV it's typically because I'm on a tripod and the height makes LV more convenient.

My 5Ds has OVF level indicators, did Canon drop that from the 5D IV?



> OVF is useful sometimes in composing night shots as LV may go almost completely dark. Yet I can use LV for focusing on the stars, it shows bright stars.



LV will show the very brightest stars, but you can see and compose the Milky Way in an OVF with a fast prime. (Assuming you're at a site where the Milky Way is not light polluted away to begin with.)


----------



## amorse (Oct 16, 2019)

slclick said:


> Nothing wrong with having the glass come before the body, unless you're really impatient. The bodies they do have are no slouches btw. Be happy the lenses are there, better than nothing...boy, some people are so damn hard to please.


It would have been the same complaint the other way around too. Bring out a professional body first and no professional glass and people would again be frustrated - see Nikon's Z series. Most of the criticism I see on those bodies is linked to either card slots or glass. And I guess Fro's concern over the lack of a battery grip with controls.

I think Canon knew very well that there would be strong reactions to their first body offering, but maybe they weren't sure which features would and would not resonate. They may have taken in all of that feedback to guide the professional body development; stuff they couldn't figure out before release of the R. For argument's sake, let's hypothesize how things would have gone if a professional R camera was released instead of the R that was released - i.e. without all the consumer/reviewer feedback they got from the R:

Had the R been more of a 5D equivalent with dust/weather sealing, a second card slot, and a faster burst rate, people would still lament the touch bar. Canon also would of had to release a professional camera whose focus system wasn't as good as they knew it could be (i.e. before the most recent firmware update), and they may not have had a sensor ready with sufficient read speeds to hit their burst rate expectations while using DPAF. Canon would have still been criticized for all the same things it is being criticized for now, but it would be a harder business decision to quickly release an updated body with all the fixes in place because it would hold the same market space or be a better camera in a lower price tier. Instead we have got a very capable R body with some irritants for some users, and Canon is positioned to release a more professional body (at a higher price point) which won't compete directly with the R, but with designed informed by reactions to the R. 

In the end, I suspect we get a better professional camera out of this path than jumping right to a professional body.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 16, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Good explanation, however looks like this per-image DR doesn't make much sense. Simply put, cropping doesn't blow highlights out and un-cropping doesn't recover highlights. ss.



On the shadow side DR is bound by noise. Noise is not perfectly uniform. A quad of pixels occupying the same space as a single larger pixel are more likely to detect something of value near their noise limits. If you increase the number of samples (pixels) that contribute to a given view size, you are in fact increasing the signal against the noise and thereby improving DR. When you crop a higher MP image to a lower MP one, you're throwing away signal and decreasing DR. As you crop further you bring DR closer and closer to the DR of a single pixel.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 16, 2019)

dolina said:


> It'll ship in limited quantities by July 2020 for the Tokyo Olympics at an even higher MSRP than the debut price of the Mark IV.


Love it when people state their opinions as fact. It would be the first time Canon linked the 5D series to the Olympics and given recent pricing by Canon, I doubt it will come in much if any higher than the 5DIV at introduction.


----------



## Cryhavoc (Oct 16, 2019)

miketcool said:


> The humidity in the eyepiece condenses when temperatures change suddenly. It’s obnoxious when you’re trying to use the viewfinder. I’m not sure what the solution is here, as latent humidity is the real culprit.



Never had that issue with my R. The only thing that fogs up on me is the objective lens. 

Taking the camera and kit out from our hotel room set to 65-68 degrees immediately to 85 and high humidity in Kauai for a week, and the eyepiece never fogged up internally. Only externally as one would expect


----------



## miketcool (Oct 16, 2019)

Cryhavoc said:


> Never had that issue with my R. The only thing that fogs up on me is the objective lens.
> 
> Taking the camera and kit out from our hotel room set to 65-68 degrees immediately to 85 and high humidity in Kauai for a week, and the eyepiece never fogged up internally. Only externally as one would expect



Those temps aren’t extreme enough to cause internal fogging. This would be going out into 40-50° weather in the rain and getting that to happen. Doesn’t happen on the 5Dmkiv, but happens on the EOS R. I suspect the heat from the EVF has something to do with it along with the lack of full weather sealing gaskets.


----------



## rotte (Oct 16, 2019)

With the m6ii and the eos90 we saw, that much development was put into the mirrorless technology and transferred to the eos90d, where it was possible (new sensor, better live view tracking etc). We didn't see much improvement in pure DSLR technology like better AF tracking when using the OVF.

I think that the 5dV could also be a spin off camera with technology developed for mirrorless. That said, parts of the new AF technology developed for the new 1dx might find its way into the new 5d.

I don't think that canon is dogmatic in terms of productcykles for the EOS R. I could see them relsase a new EOS R as soon as their technology is ready. I could also see room fortwo cameras: One for professionals and one for enthusiasts.


----------



## amorse (Oct 16, 2019)

Honestly, if Canon is able to implement that hybrid viewfinder in a 5DV (i.e. OVF and EVF in one eye-hole) I could see them keeping the DSLR bodies active much longer. They still sell a ton of DSLRs, and if that patent fleshes out you could get a lot of those mirrorless advancements on a 5DV body, minus the new mount/glass of course. I could see that being quite attractive to people who are on the fence over transitioning to mirrorless


----------



## navastronia (Oct 16, 2019)

amorse said:


> Honestly, if Canon is able to implement that hybrid viewfinder in a 5DV (i.e. OVF and EVF in one eye-hole) I could see them keeping the DSLR bodies active much longer. They still sell a ton of DSLRs, and if that patent fleshes out you could get a lot of those mirrorless advancements on a 5DV body, minus the new mount/glass of course. I could see that being quite attractive to people who are on the fence over transitioning to mirrorless



I dunno how they would design that, given there is no space for a mirror to reflect the the image back and to the photographer's eye like there is with a DSLR.

So, how about a viewfinder/EVF hybrid? 

EDIT: I can't read. Sorry. You said DSLR, not mirrorless.


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 16, 2019)

gouldopfl said:


> I would replace my R with mk ii if it has 2 uhs-II card slots larger meg pixels and a fully water tight body. I was hoping that this would be the EOS R pro and be available before the Olympics i 2020.


Canon has only specified "dust and weather resistance" previously for 7D/5D/1D series to my knowledge. "Fully water tight" is a far different category whether snorkeling depths of ~15m... where there are various fixed lens products rated without additional housings (up to Leica X-U @~USD3k) To scuba diving depths of <60m where a housing is mandatory and can cost a minimum of the same camera body cost (eg Ikelite) or multiple times the body cost for machined aluminium versions (eg Nauticam).... without strobe costs!


----------



## slclick (Oct 16, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> Canon has only specified "dust and weather resistance" previously for 7D/5D/1D series to my knowledge. "Fully water tight" is a far different category whether snorkeling depths of ~15m... where there are various fixed lens products rated without additional housings (up to Leica X-U @~USD3k) To scuba diving depths of <60m where a housing is mandatory and can cost a minimum of the same camera body cost (eg Ikelite) or multiple times the body cost for machined aluminium versions (eg Nauticam).... without strobe costs!


With front filter! lol


----------



## Cryhavoc (Oct 16, 2019)

miketcool said:


> Those temps aren’t extreme enough to cause internal fogging. This would be going out into 40-50° weather in the rain and getting that to happen. Doesn’t happen on the 5Dmkiv, but happens on the EOS R. I suspect the heat from the EVF has something to do with it along with the lack of full weather sealing gaskets.



Extreme enough to cause the objective lenses to fog up big time and I had to let the two lenses acclimate and normalize outside for an hour. The humidity was off the charts.

And extreme enough that I did not want to be out in it. lol


----------



## David - Sydney (Oct 17, 2019)

slclick said:


> With front filter! lol


FIlters can be added either to the lens within a housing or wet filters applied outside of the housing. Internal filters such as close up or dichroic "excitation filter" plus a yellow "barrier filter" for fluorescence night diving. Wet filters are normally for macro or super-macro options and can be used or not used. Internal lens filters can't be changed underwater


----------



## slclick (Oct 17, 2019)

David - Sydney said:


> FIlters can be added either to the lens within a housing or wet filters applied outside of the housing. Internal filters such as close up or dichroic "excitation filter" plus a yellow "barrier filter" for fluorescence night diving. Wet filters are normally for macro or super-macro options and can be used or not used. Internal lens filters can't be changed underwater


I had to say something


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2019)

Side note: Wouldn't it be great if an RF L lens was $50? Just trying to lighten things up.


----------



## notasurfer (Oct 17, 2019)

Variable screen? I doubt it!


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2019)

Sporgon said:


> I think he’s actually left about four or five times now. Isn’t this the latest reincarnation of AvTvM ?


I'll never understand the constant carping by some. They should just get what they want and have at it. Sitting around and bitching that a Canon is not the Sony they want is mentally deranged. Some of then do it year after year after year. Stupid. They accuse us of being fanboys, yet they are the one's sticking around and complaining without switching... though they talk about switching for years. %$#&@$%^ leave. I have been here for several years now. It is always the same idiots or new accounts.


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 17, 2019)

mpmark said:


> Sony has a way to go to make cameras that feel right, dont have little quirks and are actually durable. I for one hate the aragonmics, the cheap feel and the crappy basttery life, delay on startup, I could keep going. Have a look at any major sporting event, find me one Sony. Canon is doing this the right way and the DSLR still has a lot of life in it, you do know it shoots digital images dont you? You may like the EVF but speak for yourself, I still prefer a OVF.



I find it funny the way Friends of Sony (DPR) wait until the newest model to finally reveal their true reservations towards the outgoing model to pump it up. Sony is fine but I need a 50mm F1.2 and 85mm F1.2.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'll never understand the constant carping by some. They should just get what they want and have at it. Sitting around and bitching that a Canon is not the Sony they want is mentally deranged. Some of then do it year after year after year. Stupid. They accuse us of being fanboys, yet they are the one's sticking around and complaining without switching... though they talk about switching for years. %$#&@$%^ leave. I have been here for several years now. It is always the same idiots or new accounts.



I highly suspect most of them do not own a FF or advanced APS-C camera in either brand. They've either got a Rebel or an α6xxx with a (few) cheap kit lens(es) or they do not have an ILC at all. They're arguing about which brand of camera they'll never be able to afford they want to drool after.


----------



## Ozarker (Oct 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I highly suspect most of them do not own a FF or advanced APS-C camera in either brand. They've either got a Rebel or an α6xxx with a (few) cheap kit lens(es) or they do not have an ILC at all. They're arguing about which brand of camera they'll never be able to afford they want to drool after.


What is weird is that I am very low income, but make a lot of sacrifices for what I have. One would think these twits could do better. I live on $1,600 a month. It isn't how much money one has. It is how one manages it.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

Kit. said:


> No, they shouldn't. You are losing all the higher-frequency components of the signal (the Nyquist-Shannon theorem). Also, from the whole sensor exposed to the same "2-pixel" scene, you can recover lower signal levels for your "2-pixel" frequency (so, basically, a constant to half cycle signal) if the noise is the photon shot noise (or another kind of additive white noise).



Even a single pixel has its own dynamic range and it's not 1/30000000 of the whole sensor's DR.



Kit. said:


> That's the whole point. The DR is a measure of the amount of information you can get about the original scene.



DR is related to the information but it's defined differently. It is not the amount of information. It's the difference between the darkest and brightest parts the sensor can capture. It's a contributing factor but definitely not the amount of information.



Kit. said:


> We measure DR on a kind of image we consider as a "signal". We are typically interested in the information that has lower spatial frequencies than the Nyquist limit - otherwise we would be using the wrong instrument to the task.
> 
> No, it's the other way around: the parameters of the lens we use to measure _the sensor's_ DR are chosen to be up to the task.



In Photostophotos method, they also use some arbitrary constants like size of the print seen a certain distance. So changing the distance or print size changes the DR. If we make the prints bigger, the DR will drop. That sounds odd doesn't it?


----------



## SecureGSM (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Even a single pixel has its own dynamic range and it's not 1/30000000 of the whole sensor's DR.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here is where confusion originated:

They are talking about a Dynamic Range of an image and then all their methods totally make sense and you are on about sensor / pixel level dynamic range. Obviously not the same thing. Agree?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> On the shadow side DR is bound by noise. Noise is not perfectly uniform. A quad of pixels occupying the same space as a single larger pixel are more likely to detect something of value near their noise limits. If you increase the number of samples (pixels) that contribute to a given view size, you are in fact increasing the signal against the noise and thereby improving DR. When you crop a higher MP image to a lower MP one, you're throwing away signal and decreasing DR. As you crop further you bring DR closer and closer to the DR of a single pixel.



Yep I get that concept. The only little issue is, you change the DR by changing the amount of downsampling, or, in terms of Photonstophotos method, by changing the viewing distance and/or the print size. So as I said above, their 'photographic' DR may be usable for relative comparisons (e.g. yay Sony is better than Canon), but absolute values of measured DR are meaningless.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

SecureGSM said:


> Here is where confusion originated:
> 
> They are talking about a Dynamic Range of an image and then all their methods totally make sense and you are on about sensor / pixel level dynamic range. Obviously not the same thing. Agree?



Yes, they're different, I agree. My point is as in my message above, "their 'photographic' DR may be usable for relative comparisons (e.g. yay Sony is better than Canon), but absolute values of measured DR are meaningless."


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> You mean the workflow used by the majority of landscape photographers over the past 4-5 decades?



Depends on the equipment. With the large format film cameras, they'd use the rear screen, pretty close to the Live View, only upside down.



dtaylor said:


> Dusk/dawn aren't all that tricky exposure wise. It's not one of the situations where I consider exposure preview to be a significant advantage. I have no issue composing or visualizing dusk/dawn landscapes through an OVF. If I use LV it's typically because I'm on a tripod and the height makes LV more convenient.



OVF is great for action shooting, LV for landscapes. Obviously it's not impossible to use OVF for landscape photography, but LV is so much better. To me it does provide a significant advantage. Especially with a tripod, as you said. 99% of my landscape shots are taken from a tripod. Very rarely I'd shoot a landscape handheld, in such cases I might use the OVF. 



dtaylor said:


> My 5Ds has OVF level indicators, did Canon drop that from the 5D IV?



No they didn't but in-OVF level indicator seems to be less accurate, also not visible in the dark. Also OVF on 5DIV only covers 97-98% of the frame and.



dtaylor said:


> LV will show the very brightest stars, but you can see and compose the Milky Way in an OVF with a fast prime. (Assuming you're at a site where the Milky Way is not light polluted away to begin with.)



I can set focus on a bright star in the LV (and I won't be able to focus on the stars reliably in the OVF). Mlky Way itself can be positioned in the frame using the OVF, but if you care about your foreground, you'll see nothing through the OVF. What I normally do is shooting samples at a very high ISO so I can see the composition and the foreground, then adjust the camera iteratively until the satisfactory result. In this case, the OVF can be used for initial rough composition.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So as I said above, their 'photographic' DR may be usable for relative comparisons...



It more closely approximates the human experience than the measurement of a single pixel.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> It more closely approximates the human experience than the measurement of a single pixel.


You normally watch images as 8"x10" prints?


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> You normally watch images as 8"x10" prints?



I normally look at _images_ and not at individual _pixels_. Anything smaller than pixel peeping (100%, 1:1) is going to represent an increase in DR over the strict DR of a single pixel measurement.


----------



## Joules (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's the difference between the darkest and brightest parts the sensor can capture.


How do you define the darkest part your sensor can capture? Is it true black (pixel value of 0 for each channel)? Would that not lead to every sensor having almost exactly 14 stops of DR?

My understanding of Photons to Photos definition of this is the part where the noise transitions from being not to distracting too distracting. How visible the noise is is clearly related to your viewing distance / enlargement. So he adjusts the measured SNR to take this into account. And then the point where the adjusted SNR drops below his threshold is what he defines as his "darkest part".

I don’t understand how your concept of this part works. Could you please elaborate or give some site that uses that way of measuring?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I normally look at _images_ and not at individual _pixels_. Anything smaller than pixel peeping (100%, 1:1) is going to represent an increase in DR over the strict DR of a single pixel measurement.



But again what does the _absolute _DR value from Photostophotos tell you? Say for 5DSr it's 9.8 at ISO 100. And you're putting an image on Instagram. But that DR is calculated for a 8"x10" print.


----------



## Joules (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> And you're putting an image on Instagram. But that DR is calculated for a 8"x10" print.


The dynamic range we are talking about is the maximum that you could pull out of a given raw file. Measuring doesn't tell you how much DR is in your output or how much of it can be displayed on the device / medium used to view it. I personally don't care about that either, when I look at measurements like this I want to know what my gear is capable of. If I or the people viewing my images can make use of that is a seperate thing and probably much harder to measure.


----------



## ChockstoneMike (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> OVF is great for action shooting, LV for landscapes. Obviously it's not impossible to use OVF for landscape photography, but LV is so much better. To me it does provide a significant advantage. Especially with a tripod, as you said. 99% of my landscape shots are taken from a tripod. Very rarely I'd shoot a landscape handheld, in such cases I might use the OVF.



For me, I like to eye ball landscape compositions through the OVF. I might do that off and on for hours or even days whilst scouting with no battery drain and not a single shot fired. Then if the light actually plays ball, I'll set up the tripod and engage LV to take the shots, and retake until the best light is gone with all the benefits of live histogram and contrast AF. 

The problem with pre-dawn is that whilst I can see the scene with my eyes, and through the OVF, the LV is totally black or just a silhouette even at 30 sec F2.8. Right now, using OVF I can compose in the near dark before dawn, focus, and be all set on the tripod ready to simply adjust exposure and hit the shutter if it's worth it in a few minutes time. That's the method I suspect would be an issue with a mirrorless system, and one reason a 5DV DSLR would be useful at least to me.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

Joules said:


> How do you define the darkest part your sensor can capture? Is it true black (pixel value of 0 for each channel)? Would that not lead to every sensor having almost exactly 14 stops of DR?



The sensor's DR is not about absolute brightness values but about the difference. Roughly speaking, if a scene has 15 stops between the darkest and brightest parts, and your camera only has 12 stops of DR, you can adjust your exposure and capture either the first darkest 12 stops, or the last brightest 12 stops, or in the middle. Beyond those 12 stops, your sensor doesn't capture any detail.



Joules said:


> My understanding of Photons to Photos definition of this is the part where the noise transitions from being not to distracting too distracting. How visible the noise is is clearly related to your viewing distance / enlargement. So he adjusts the measured SNR to take this into account. And then the point where the adjusted SNR drops below his threshold is what he defines as his "darkest part".
> 
> I don’t understand how your concept of this part works. Could you please elaborate or give some site that uses that way of measuring?


I don't have a concept, it's their concept. My critique is that their measurements can be used for relative comparison (again as above, Sony vs Canon) but the absolute DR values on that site are meaningless as they're only applicable to specific downsampling ratio.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

Joules said:


> The dynamic range we are talking about is the maximum that you could pull out of a given raw file. Measuring doesn't tell you how much DR is in your output or how much of it can be displayed on the device / medium used to view it. I personally don't care about that either, when I look at measurements like this I want to know what my gear is capable of. If I or the people viewing my images can make use of that is a seperate thing and probably much harder to measure.



No, we were talking about specific DR measurement method from http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
Those charts don't tell you the maximum you could pull out of your raw files. The charts are based on a model where you print the image on 8"x10" paper and view it from a certain distance (I understand it's just the math model - they don't actually print the images).


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Oct 17, 2019)

What about... 

What about, a normal DSLR with an OVF.

But..

You can plug VR goggles into it and they become your EVF!

Boom.


----------



## pwp (Oct 17, 2019)

With any luck it will have red illuminated focus points. I couldn't tell you how many shots I've missed in fast moving dynamic situations with the 5D3 and 5D4 with their almost useless black focus points. 

-pw


----------



## JP (Oct 17, 2019)

Partial Spec List based on logic & experience:

Shutter lag will be so slightly improved that it won't make any difference.
Expect 40MP and an S or R version to be about 100 MP after a year or so..
1/200ths of a sec, top sync with dedicated strobes.. All other lights, like studio lighting will be 1/125ths, tops!
Expect no swivel screen.
7.7fps (since the 5D2 was 3.9fps, they couldn't even do a solid 4fps, so sorry, no 8fps... it will fall short on that too, just to annoy you!) 
The AF system will remain the same layout, with a nice small little area of AF coverage. If you want more AF coverage, then buy a nifty new 90D, (which is not a combo of the 80D and 7D2 line... just a minor update to the 80D)..
No brightly illuminated AF point, so you'll have to dink around with trying to locate which AF sensor is selected, while you miss shots.
If you want a better performing camera, then buy a 1DX3, for more than 2x as much!
Expect a short burst of RAW photos...maybe 2.5 secs, tops!
It will use the same batteries as always... nothing new there, so at least all your old batteries will still work..
Expect a new flash for 900.00 with such slightly better performance, you'll only buy one if you find a good deal on a used one, from someone who gave up on Canon and switched to either Sony or Nikon... who have capable 2nd tier cameras, that totally out perform anything Canon has to offer...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

ChockstoneMike said:


> For me, I like to eye ball landscape compositions through the OVF. I might do that off and on for hours or even days whilst scouting with no battery drain and not a single shot fired. Then if the light actually plays ball, I'll set up the tripod and engage LV to take the shots, and retake until the best light is gone with all the benefits of live histogram and contrast AF.



It's a good technique but as you said, you're doing the actual shooting with the LV.



ChockstoneMike said:


> The problem with pre-dawn is that whilst I can see the scene with my eyes, and through the OVF, the LV is totally black or just a silhouette even at 30 sec F2.8.



Agree, there are cases when the LV fails and the OVF works, but they're quite rare. In manual, I'd just increase ISO until the preview is bright enough, so I can compose. However it still fails in very dark conditions. Disabling exposure simulation may help although it also disables the histogram.



ChockstoneMike said:


> Right now, using OVF I can compose in the near dark before dawn, focus, and be all set on the tripod ready to simply adjust exposure and hit the shutter if it's worth it in a few minutes time. That's the method I suspect would be an issue with a mirrorless system, and one reason a 5DV DSLR would be useful at least to me.



I'd rather have a flip screen. Also there are reviews on the EVF in EOS R and they say it works very good at night.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Oct 17, 2019)

I glad to learn about Canon is working on EOS 5D Mark V, but it was not one that I need from Canon. Where is your plan for ultra-high-resolution EOS 5DS R Mark II included full 4K video mode with encrypted WiFi, GPS, and Bluetooth 4.0?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 17, 2019)

peters said:


> I think its 4 years on the top of the line models.
> I agree with you, though its not that drastic. I got the 1DX II and it feels a bit "dated" in some of its features. Another codec option and a better touch integration (cant use touch in menu, which is silly) would be good. Also intervallometer and 4k HDMI output (only FHD). Waiting one more year for the next model feels a bit long for me.
> I am in the silly situation where a C200 would be a bit overkill (I do photo AND video work, so I would love a good hybrid) but the 1DX II is a bit lacking the video front. And sadly the 5D IV, while great in photo, is quite a disaster in video mode. I think a 5D V right now would be great. A bit more resolution, a bit better video features and it would be great improvement. But waiting nearly 2 more years? brr



It's currently the tenth month of 2019. Feb/March 2021 is only 16-17 months away. That's not even a year and one-half.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 17, 2019)

Joules said:


> How do you define the darkest part your sensor can capture? Is it true black (pixel value of 0 for each channel)? Would that not lead to every sensor having almost exactly 14 stops of DR?
> 
> My understanding of Photons to Photos definition of this is the part where the noise transitions from being not to distracting too distracting. How visible the noise is is clearly related to your viewing distance / enlargement. So he adjusts the measured SNR to take this into account. And then the point where the adjusted SNR drops below his threshold is what he defines as his "darkest part".
> 
> I don’t understand how your concept of this part works. Could you please elaborate or give some site that uses that way of measuring?



Equating 1-bit to one stop of DR is just as misinformed as equating each zone in Adams' Zone System to one stop. The whole point of the zone system was to stretch or compress the DR of the scene into the DR of the display medium.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Equating 1-bit to one stop of DR is just as misinformed as equating each zone in Adams' Zone System to one stop. The whole point of the zone system was to stretch or compress the DR of the scene into the DR of the display medium.



But 1 extra bit does mean 1 extra stop of the DR. Only that it adds to the theoretical limit, and in practice 14-bit sensors have less than 14 stops of the DR.


----------



## Joules (Oct 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Equating 1-bit to one stop of DR is just as misinformed as equating each zone in Adams' Zone System to one stop. The whole point of the zone system was to stretch or compress the DR of the scene into the DR of the display medium.


I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Adam and his Zone System I think. 

And for linear RAW data, why is 1 bit different than 1 stop of DR, if noise is ignored?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Canon seems to see the M series as a niche market.


Lol. APS-C cameras far outsell FF, and the M series is the bestselling MILC. But it’s a niche market. Sure.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Even a single pixel has its own dynamic range


Yes, but it lacks spatial information, which is essential for photography.



Quarkcharmed said:


> DR is related to the information but it's defined differently. It is not the amount of information. It's the difference between the darkest and brightest parts the sensor can capture. It's a contributing factor but definitely not the amount of information.


For a single pixel, yes. For a photography, no. Every spatial frequency has its own DR.



Quarkcharmed said:


> In Photostophotos method, they also use some arbitrary constants like size of the print seen a certain distance. So changing the distance or print size changes the DR. If we make the prints bigger, the DR will drop. That sounds odd doesn't it?


No, it doesn't. They effectively measure the weighted DR across the spatial frequencies that they think are contributing to the photography. While their weights are somewhat arbitrary, they are still more suitable for the task than measuring a single-pixel DR.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But 1 extra bit does mean 1 extra stop of the DR. Only that it adds to the theoretical limit, and in practice 14-bit sensors have less than 14 stops of the DR.


Theoretically, that's only true for linear sensors. A sensor with a concave [monotonic] transfer function (log, softly saturating...) can record a higher dynamic range of the scene. So, in the case of Adams, it was definitely false for b&w negative film.


----------



## victorshikhman (Oct 17, 2019)

One likely downside to a more rapid product cycle is that Canon will start to hold back on software updates to the EOS R to create product segmentation with the next generation of 5DV/Rii. IBIS and BSI are the only two significant technologies Canon has yet to implement. Is there anything else on the horizon that most photographers would care about? After these two, it's going to be a long time of very minimal, iterative hardware improvements, like with the iPhone, and increasingly more complex AI software updates.


----------



## koenkooi (Oct 17, 2019)

victorshikhman said:


> One likely downside to a more rapid product cycle is that Canon will start to hold back on software updates to the EOS R to create product segmentation with the next generation of 5DV/Rii. IBIS and BSI are the only two significant technologies Canon has yet to implement. Is there anything else on the horizon that most photographers would care about? After these two, it's going to be a long time of very minimal, iterative hardware improvements, like with the iPhone, and increasingly more complex AI software updates.



Global shutter would be a big one, but AFAICT that still comes with the downside of soaking up a stop of light.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Theoretically, that's only true for linear sensors. A sensor with a concave [monotonic] transfer function (log, softly saturating...) can record a higher dynamic range of the scene. So, in the case of Adams, it was definitely false for b&w negative film.


So how many bits and what type of ADC did Adams have in his b&w negative film?


----------



## Kit. (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So how many bits and what type of ADC did Adams have in his b&w negative film?


Practically any type that you can use to scan a B&W negative film.


----------



## diegopisante (Oct 17, 2019)

Canon doesn't follow anyone, they follow Canon!
Said that they know EOS R series was a punch in sales, but a lot photographers (not filmmakers) still going with DSLR.
I use EOS R for everything including filmmaking, but when I need to photograph soccer or NFL I back to 5DMkIV...because everyone knows if EOS RX comes will cost around $5.900, and that I'm not able to afford than probably I will still going with 5DMkV.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 17, 2019)

Kit. said:


> No, it doesn't. They effectively measure the weighted DR across the spatial frequencies that they think are contributing to the photography. While their weights are somewhat arbitrary, they are still more suitable for the task than measuring a single-pixel DR.



Because of this arbitrariness, they're suitable for comparisons between different sensors, but again - the absolute DR values are meaningless. They only make sense when you print 8"x10" a view at a certain distance. or when you accidentally view the image with the same scaling on your screen.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So how many bits and what type of ADC did Adams have in his b&w negative film?


His recording medium, at best, was 11 stops of DR. His reproduction medium, photographic paper, at the very best with whiteners and good lighting 7 stops of DR. Of course if you digitize it the argument is you don't need more then the 11 stops of the original capture medium but it is nice to have some headroom. But basically any modern digital camera or scanner could be used to digitize any of Adams work without loss of quality.

Having said that if you used a 16 bit process and 8,000 pixels per inch you'd be at the level of resolving the film grain and have a decent enough headroom in bit depth to save any lurking shadow details deep in the negatives.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Because of this arbitrariness, they're suitable for comparisons between different sensors, but again - the absolute DR values are meaningless. They only make sense when you print 8"x10" a view at a certain distance. or when you accidentally view the image with the same scaling on your screen.


Of course its arbitrary, ultimately it has to be because as a visual medium it is, by definition, different for every person looking at it. That is why dof is rated at 'acceptably in focus'. Similarly the bottom value, if it isn't zero which isn't realistic, is also arbitrary and can vary by scene and luminosity. But manufacturers measure to zero which is why they say this or that camera has 15 stops of DR, which technically it does, but we can't use more than 12 because all the signal below x% is drowned in noise. But at what point is too much noise too much, that is dependent on the viewer, arbitrary.


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 17, 2019)

So what the numbers are giving you is a constant, if you find the value to be acceptable then anything with that same value will appear similar, anything above it will look better and anything below it will look worse. If you find the value to be too high or low you can still use the figures because you know what other sensors are like in comparison.


----------



## amorse (Oct 17, 2019)

sfeinsmith said:


> I glad to learn about Canon is working on EOS 5D Mark V, but it was not one that I need from Canon. Where is your plan for ultra-high-resolution EOS 5DS R Mark II included full 4K video mode with encrypted WiFi, GPS, and Bluetooth 4.0?


All of the rumours have suggested that the 5DSR II is not coming and a comparable camera would be released in mirrorless. I probably wouldn't hold my breath for a 5DSR II, but I am hoping that the mirrorless equivalent will hold true to the 5DSR's build quality.


----------



## snoke (Oct 17, 2019)

New R lens better than EF but EF camera better selling.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. APS-C cameras far outsell FF, and the M series is the bestselling MILC. But it’s a niche market. Sure.



In japan


----------



## scottburgess (Oct 17, 2019)

I know folks expect a 5DV to come in 2020-2021, but I would generally expect the prosumer bodies to come out less frequently from now on. The road maps have to extend quite a distance into the future, perhaps to 2029 or beyond today for existing camera lines given the development cycles involved, so just because something appears on a road map does not mean its release is imminent. 

The business case for extended time between releases appears strong to me. Technology improvement is not progressing as fast as it was, driven in part by limitations in chip manufacturing. Bodies are more durable and satisfy customers for a long time. Canon probably needs a larger technology gap between EF body versions to induce enthusiasts to upgrade; that particular challenge is increased with the mirrorless line now released. The reasonable business response is to extend the time between bodies in the 5D line to once every 6-7 years instead of every 4 and make the upgrades as substantial as possible (I think a lower frequency than that plays havoc with consumer expectations). So perhaps a 5DSR body will make it out for Christmas of 2021, but I would expect the 5D Mark V closer to the late 2022/ early 2023 time frame. The latter makes sense to me given the enthusiast propensity for spring purchases and the need for a wider gap between the 5D and 5DSR body release dates. 

On the plus side, I would expect the new models to demonstrate one or two intriguing new features and some respectable incremental improvements in image quality, and that the interchangeability of grips and similarity of menus/buttons will be retained in the 5D lineup release pairs.

If I were Canon, I would also consider carefully leaking a little information to enthusiasts via interviews provided to sites like Canon Rumors and Canon News as release times approach. I tend to believe that letting enthusiasts know that a new camera is expected in the next year or year and a half can whet their appetites and keep them from jumping ship, especially when revealing details of a highly desired feature. It also shows appreciation for prosumer enthusiasm for Canon products by sharing the information where they hang out. It also wouldn't hurt if company executives explained changes in release cycles in the manner I've done above so enthusiasts better understand the industry.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But again what does the _absolute _DR value from Photostophotos tell you?



Note that I am not defending any particular site or measurement methodology. In general I am highly critical of the way DR tests are presented and the way they are interpreted by the average person. I'm only pointing out that by reducing image size you can in fact increase dynamic range. This is a very real thing and at the extremes can be used to turn visible light sensors into ionizing radiation detectors.

These "absolute" and "precise" measurements and scores have little bearing on real world photography, as does arguing about pixel DR vs 8x10 print DR. In the real world you have to perfectly expose to the right to maximize DR, which on most cameras means clipping some highlights according to the camera histogram and shot review. Cameras typically base these off the JPEG, not the RAW, which means you have to be tethered to a PC or intuitively know your sensor's true range and how far over you can go. 

In the real world the noise floor that is acceptable in the pushed shadows is going to vary with subject matter, view size, and audience. There is no "absolute" reference. What's acceptable in an 8x10 urban print is not the same as what's acceptable in a 24x36" landscape print. 

And in the real world post processing, especially NR, has a significant impact on final recoverable DR.

Lots of people read these scores and pat themselves on the back (if their badge says Sony or Nikon) or worry (if their badge says Canon). Yet when I directly challenge people obsessed with these scores I find that their images do not exploit the DR that could be found on any of Canon's old 18mp APS-C models. You have to know how to exploit a sensor's DR to actually get its DR. Most people obsessing over these tests do not.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Canon seems to see the M series as a niche market.



I don't know how Canon sees the M, but the original M killed any future P&S purchases for me. It's just as small and convenient as most P&S bodies but with far better IQ.

Perhaps that is in fact the reason for the M's success. Cell phones are killing the low end of the P&S market. Perhaps people who might have been in the market for a higher end P&S in the past are looking at the M and thinking why not jump to an interchangeable lens APS-C camera?


----------



## Maximilian (Oct 17, 2019)

scottburgess said:


> I know folks expect a 5DV to come in 2020-2021, but ...


Thanks, Scott, for trying to get back on topic  but ...

Oh, I love it when a thread gets hijacked.

Thread title is: "The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]"

16 pages full of DR (that topic will never die), 90D, EOS M, EOS R and anything in between *lol* 
I think we can be optimistic by subtracting 2 pages about an upcoming 5D5 

But it's okay... bring chips... bring beer... let the fun begin...


----------



## knight427 (Oct 17, 2019)

masterpix said:


> You forgot the mirror. The RF lenses focus is shorter than that of the EF lenses. the 5D therefore can not have RF mount.



Unless the 5DV has a removable mirror box and was then both EF and RF compatible.

remember this?








Canon is Developing a Mirrorless-to-DSLR 'Converter': Report


One of Japan's largest newspapers has published a report that contains two very interesting tidbits for Canon mirrorless shooters. First, they claim that




petapixel.com


----------



## slclick (Oct 17, 2019)

We'll take you back to the currently airing program...

Wish List for 5DV:

Lose weight ala 5D4 > 5D3 (60 grams)
Same dual cards (CF)
Illuminated buttons
Keep the Joystick
Keep the mp's in the 30's
Tilty Flippy great but I understand
same battery
AF point brightness control


----------



## Lurker (Oct 17, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Thanks, Scott, for trying to get back on topic  but ...
> 
> Oh, I love it when a thread gets hijacked.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the recap. I didn't understand how this rumor had gotten/could get to 16 pages and now I don't have to go looking.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 17, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> Thread title is: "The Canon EOS 5D Mark V is in the works [CR2]"



Wait...we were talking about the 5D mark V? 

Well then...it better have 20 stops of DR (as measured in an 8x10 print) and 24p video or *CANON. WILL. BE. *******.*


----------



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Lol. APS-C cameras far outsell FF, and the M series is the bestselling MILC. But it’s a niche market. Sure.



Well, to be honest, all dedicated cameras are niche products today.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 17, 2019)

scottburgess said:


> I know folks expect a 5DV to come in 2020-2021, but I would generally expect the prosumer bodies to come out less frequently from now on. The road maps have to extend quite a distance into the future, perhaps to 2029 or beyond today for existing camera lines given the development cycles involved, so just because something appears on a road map does not mean its release is imminent.
> 
> The business case for extended time between releases appears strong to me. Technology improvement is not progressing as fast as it was, driven in part by limitations in chip manufacturing. Bodies are more durable and satisfy customers for a long time. Canon probably needs a larger technology gap between EF body versions to induce enthusiasts to upgrade; that particular challenge is increased with the mirrorless line now released. The reasonable business response is to extend the time between bodies in the 5D line to once every 6-7 years instead of every 4 and make the upgrades as substantial as possible (I think a lower frequency than that plays havoc with consumer expectations). So perhaps a 5DSR body will make it out for Christmas of 2021, but I would expect the 5D Mark V closer to the late 2022/ early 2023 time frame. The latter makes sense to me given the enthusiast propensity for spring purchases and the need for a wider gap between the 5D and 5DSR body release dates.
> 
> ...


Generally I agree. But I think there is an unknown that could affect this assessment. We really don't have any idea what the development and production costs are for interchangeable lens cameras. 

With nearly 100 years of single lens reflex manufacturing under their belt, it's possible Canon has reduced costs to the minimum, so that the increased investment for new camera models may be much less than we suspect. It's possible that as manufacturers try to squeeze every dollar possible out of the enthusiast market, they find that producing more variations more frequently can actually increase their profitability. 

One example: many people on this forum claim that they skip every other generation of a particular model. If Canon finds that to be a typical pattern for enthusiasts, they may elect to offer new models every three years, instead of every four, thus putting enthusiasts on a six-year replacement cycle as opposed to an eight-year replacement cycle. 

It is also possible that Canon may try to further subdivide the market by offering more models, rather than less. I'm not suggesting that this will happen, I'm simply suggesting that we don't know if it would yield more profit to have several variations of basic DSLR and Mirrorless models. Certainly, Canon and Nikon both followed that philosophy with their APS-C DSLRs. In that case, it was driven by price point. It's possible they could follow a similar strategy based on features -- megapixels, video functionality, autofocus system, etc.

We don't have enough information to know if longer cycles with more significant upgrades will yield more profit than shorter cycles with less significant upgrades. But, I'm guessing Canon has a pretty good idea of which is more profitable.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Note that I am not defending any particular site or measurement methodology. In general I am highly critical of the way DR tests are presented and the way they are interpreted by the average person. I'm only pointing out that by reducing image size you can in fact increase dynamic range. This is a very real thing and at the extremes can be used to turn visible light sensors into ionizing radiation detectors.



But how so? By shrinking you reduce what they call the 'photographic' DR. It doesn't change the actual DR or physical characteristics of the sensor. For the most FF sensors, there's a hard limit of 14 stops, and resizing can only change the DR within about 2-4 darkest stops where the noise is.



dtaylor said:


> And in the real world post processing, especially NR, has a significant impact on final recoverable DR.



Noise reduction = loss of detail, apart form improving the visual representation, I have never been able to actually 'recover' anything using the NR.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But how so?



That's been explained more than once by more than one person in this thread. I admit I had a hard time visualizing it at first to and, years ago, initially questioned the different DR ratings for screen and print at DxO. But it's an observable fact.

You're right that for pictorial photography you're only going to gain so much. DxO scores only change by 1-1.5ev from screen to print. But if you're willing to sacrifice most or all spatial detail for luminance detail, you can detect some incredibly weak signals.



> Noise reduction = loss of detail, apart form improving the visual representation, I have never been able to actually 'recover' anything using the NR.



Noise reduction = loss of some spatial detail, but it can also increase the recoverability / usability of color and luminance detail. I've had several shots were the pushed shadows were unacceptable for print before NR, and perfectly fine after.


----------



## Romain (Oct 18, 2019)

I was crying to have a 90d and a 5DV, then everybody here was laughing at me... I've said that the near future was the DSLRs, then everybody here was laughing at me... And now, people realizes that DSLRs had 10 years more to live... Shut up with miroless, respect Kodak please!.. 97D and 5dVI will come mates!!!! I love my 135L and my 100L macro more than ever with this fresh rumor


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 18, 2019)

Joules said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Adam and his Zone System I think.
> 
> And for linear RAW data, why is 1 bit different than 1 stop of DR, if noise is ignored?



Because there is no 1:1 correspondence between the bit depth of a digital sensor and the maximum DR it can do. It's a fallacy that has been around since the dawn of the digital age.

A "digital"sensor is really a collection of a bunch of analog charge collectors. When the analog charges accumulated by each detector are converted to digital information, how much distance is one "step" (that is, how much more charge is needed to increase a digital value by "one") is strictly arbitrary. The difference between the noise floor and full well capacity can be divided between as little as one bit (it's either "off" or "on" at some arbitrary charge level) or as many bits as one desires. Sure, the bit depth can limit the _number of expressible steps between a minimum and maximum digitally recorded value,_ but there's nothing that says the difference between 0 and 16,383 that requires 14-bits has to be exactly 14 stops. We can choose to assign "0" to an analog voltage value that is half full well capacity and "16,383" to an analog value that is three-quarters of FWC. Anything less than half of FWC is recorded as "0" during ADC, and anything more than 75% of FWC is recorded as 16383 during ADC.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 18, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> So how many bits and what type of ADC did Adams have in his b&w negative film?



The chemistry of film is, ironically, more "digital" than the collection of analog charge collectors we call a "digital" sensor. "Digital" images are analog electrical charges until analog-to-digital conversion transforms those analog electrical charges into digital information.

How many photons are needed for each crystal of the chemicals in a film's emulsion to react and chemically change determines its photographic sensitivity. The crystals are primarily made of a silver halide. That is, a salt that contains silver and one of the group VII halogens. For photographic use the three used are silver iodide (AgI), silver chloride (AgCl), and silver bromide (AgBr).

Emulsions that are more sensitive to light require less exposure to transform bits of the silver halide crystals they contain into small specks of silver we call _sensitivity specks_. Emulsions that are less sensitive to light require more exposure to transform bits of the silver halide crystals they contain into small specks of silver we call _sensitivity specks._ These bits of silver are what we consider to be the _latent image_. When a chemical reaction to the photons that make up visible light change a bit of a silver halide crystal into a sensitivity speck on the surface of a silver halide crystal that change can not be visually observed. Only when chemical developer is added does the silver in the _sensitivity speck_ react with the developer to transform the entire silver halide crystal of which it is a part into atomic silver that is visible in the negative.

Each silver halide crystal has a threshold of how many photons must be absorbed by any specific sensitivity speck on its surface before it will react with the developer. If a sensitivity speck absorbs one photon less than needed, it does not react to the developer in an way differently than a sensitivity speck that absorbed no photons. If a sensitivity speck absorbs the needed number of photons, it will react the same way as any similar specks that have absorbed the same or any greater number of photons. Each silver halide crystal in a film emulsion is truly digital: it's either "on" or "off". If it is "on", the developer frees _all_ of the group VII halogen atoms it contains and leaves atomic silver. If it is "off", _none _of the group VII halogen atoms it contains is freed and the entire crystal does not react with the developer.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 18, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> In japan



Globally. As in all sales anywhere added together.

Far more APS-C cameras are sold globally than FF cameras are sold globally.
More Canon mirrorless cameras are sold globally than any other manufacturers mirrorless cameras.

One has to restrict the category to "only FF mirrorless cameras" sold globally before Canon is no longer #1 in global sales.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 18, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I don't know how Canon sees the M, but the original M killed any future P&S purchases for me. It's just as small and convenient as most P&S bodies but with far better IQ.
> 
> Perhaps that is in fact the reason for the M's success. Cell phones are killing the low end of the P&S market. Perhaps people who might have been in the market for a higher end P&S in the past are looking at the M and thinking why not jump to an interchangeable lens APS-C camera?



Totally agree. If I can save enough it is a camera I would like to get. The M6 disappointed me though as I would have like to have a built in viewfinder with IBIS.


----------



## Architect1776 (Oct 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Globally. As in all sales anywhere added together.
> 
> Far more APS-C cameras are sold globally than FF cameras are sold globally.
> More Canon mirrorless cameras are sold globally than any other manufacturers mirrorless cameras.
> ...



  Perhaps because they have only recently gotten seriously into it with the RF mount.
Let us see how those figures shake out in 4-5 years.


----------



## riker (Oct 18, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I am certainly not crying about buying a 90D and not having an M6 II. The 90D has the best of both worlds, enabling me to do very well indeed the nature photography I want using the OVF, high fps with real time view and little black out, and having the ergonomics to hold large lenses. And I am using also in liveview for portrait work with eye AF and for some landscapes. It's one of the best DSLRs ever made and maybe a way for the future.



....although M6II has higher FPS by default, plus u have RAW burst which gives you 30 FPS. So your demand for high FPS and little blackout is better served by the M6II than the 90D.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 18, 2019)

riker said:


> ....although M6II has higher FPS by default, plus u have RAW burst which gives you 30 FPS. So your demand for high FPS and little blackout is better served by the M6II than the 90D.


The 30 fps in burst mode is only an18 Mpx crop of the crop and 12 bit vs 14 bit, and something I would not use very frequently, if ever. Blackout for a DSLR is not determined by fps - it's a very small fraction of the time between frames, which you don't notice because you are looking at real time events for the majority of the time. With mirrorless, you are often looking at a slide of the previous frame and not real time. 10 fps is enough for me - I can do 24 fps on my Sony but never use it.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 18, 2019)

knight427 said:


> Unless the 5DV has a removable mirror box and was then both EF and RF compatible.
> 
> remember this?
> 
> ...



For some reason, I don't see that going to happen. The main point is that in order to do so, you need to stick the mirror as back as possible, not touch the sensor, yet lock it firmly in place. So you need to make a non rotating unit that will lock into the camera bionet while rotating and you need to do all that in a very limited space cause if you look into the DSLR, the mirror is almost the side of the bionet.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 18, 2019)

analoggrotto said:


> I find it funny the way Friends of Sony (DPR) wait until the newest model to finally reveal their true reservations towards the outgoing model to pump it up. Sony is fine but I need a 50mm F1.2 and 85mm F1.2.



agreed, the funniest part, for someone who loves their Sony so much seems to have to come to a canon forum and tell themselves that. Pretty sad to be honest.


----------



## mpmark (Oct 18, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> Exactly. Canon remains the clear and overwhelming choice of most professionals.
> 
> I’ll never get it.
> 
> ...




HAHA, well said and agreed! Sony seems to be going after numbers, and the non photographers are falling for it, coming on here to tell us how great their cameras are, how much DR and MP they have, if its so great then why are they hear telling us this crap?

I've played with a Sony, the menus are horrid, the feel is cheap, the agronomics are horrible. Its just feels and looks cheap.

They are so badly desperate for numbers that I looked into how the A9II can shoot 20 FPS, and really it can only shoot 12 FPS in RAW format, to get to 20 FPS it shoots in "compressed RAW", like WTF! Who the hell spends that kind of money to get a compressed RAW file? The 4 year old 1DXii still shoots faster in uncompressed RAW.

This is what I'm talking about, its a numbers game for them

I could care less if it has one more stop of DR or more MP, that in the end means the least to me. I know my 5d4 feels good in the hands, has easy menu system. Is robust and durable. Those are the most important factors for me. 
In the end a capable photographer can get any shot they want with this camera or the Sony, its not the camera that is the limitation, Sony crowd think they are better just by a numbers war. This is a horrible misconception and beleif to have.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 18, 2019)

These constant battles of Canon vs Nikon vs Sony are just so tedious. They are only cameras, tools for a job. If people can get so worked up over such trivia, no wonder different groups are killing each other over race, religion, territory and politics.


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 18, 2019)

mpmark said:


> They are so badly desperate for numbers that I looked into how the A9II can shoot 20 FPS, and really it can only shoot 12 FPS in RAW format, to get to 20 FPS it shoots in "compressed RAW", like WTF! Who the hell spends that kind of money to get a compressed RAW file? The 4 year old 1DXii still shoots faster in uncompressed RAW.


Now now... no sane person shoots uncompressed when there are lossless compressed options (most manufacturers use lossless compressed raw formats, Canon included).

It's that Sony used to shoot only lossy compressed raws... then they included "uncompressed" because that lossy format had some drawbacks. Aand they still have only those two as options.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 18, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> Perhaps because they have only recently gotten seriously into it with the RF mount.
> Let us see how those figures shake out in 4-5 years.



The point is, even without a FF mirrorless, Canon was already selling more total mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras than anyone else.
Sony's claim that they sold more than Canon is only true within a miniscule part of the total market: FF MILCs.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> These constant battles of Canon vs Nikon vs Sony are just so tedious. They are only cameras, tools for a job. If people can get so worked up over such trivia, no wonder different groups are killing each other over race, religion, territory and politics.



We'll know things are bad when Congress demands troops at Nikon or a regime change at Canon.


----------



## scottburgess (Oct 19, 2019)

unfocused said:


> It is also possible that Canon may try to further subdivide the market by offering more models, rather than less. I'm not suggesting that this will happen, I'm simply suggesting that we don't know if it would yield more profit to have several variations of basic DSLR and Mirrorless models. Certainly, Canon and Nikon both followed that philosophy with their APS-C DSLRs. In that case, it was driven by price point. It's possible they could follow a similar strategy based on features -- megapixels, video functionality, autofocus system, etc.



Canon has been employing this common strategy for years, as has been discussed in the Forums previously. If you look at the EOS Timeline, you'll see the steady growth in DSLR bodies offered by Canon.

I doubt the development costs for a DSLR are a large fraction of the price: if they were, by now most of the small manufacturers would be out of business. Most of the cost is the sensor, with the processor likely taking second or third place.


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 19, 2019)

mpmark said:


> agreed, the funniest part, for someone who loves their Sony so much seems to have to come to a canon forum and tell themselves that. Pretty sad to be honest.



I've often hypothesized that they are all from some sort place that never fully recovered and moved on from the cold war.


----------



## MadScotsman (Oct 19, 2019)

analoggrotto said:


> I've often hypothesized that they are all from some sort place that never fully recovered and moved on from the cold war.



Someone else on here put forth the hypothesis that they don't actually own a camera. 

I made a snide comment about the Sony customer culture, and their reply was along the lines of "they'd have to actually buy the camera to qualify as a customer". Which struck me as very true. If you actually owned the camera you thought was so much better, why would you be wasting your time trolling?

You wouldn't, ergo, you don't.


----------



## slclick (Oct 19, 2019)

I've shared and compared various past time and professional forum behavior with friends who frequent other sites and it is clear that among boats, cycling, fishing, photo, automobile, running, music, musical instrument, gun, political and religious that the most mean spirited and close minded are the gun and politic forums (that should go without saying) but in a close 2nd place is cars. Canon vs Nikon is nothing compared to Ford trucks vs Chevy trucks. 

From my personal history, the road cycling and drum forums I have been on are far more uplifting, positive, helpful and understanding than most camera sites. Still, CR is in itself the most friendly of all the camera forums and I have dabbled in others always to leave and never come back. Ignorance (usually chest thumping over products they never used or owned) and downright derisive opinions of anyone with film history or true experience and knowledge of the industry just burns me up.

Some folks love to burst into a hobby, spend a ton of cash and instantly prop themselves up in their own minds as if the credit card bill gives them cred. The internet fuels this persona. Seriously...your bad images, failures in the field, silly mistakes and poor gear choices make you a better photographer, we all go through it, some of us every single time. Believing that the gear can propel you from 1st time noob to pro shooter is a pathetic lie many tell themselves and is glaringly obvious. I am very glad that is much more of a thing over at DPR and not so much here. There are quite a few amazing and learned participants on this site and I am glad to have their experience to grow from. (Just don't talk about sensor science all day long for 16 pages, ugh just shoot me)


----------



## analoggrotto (Oct 19, 2019)

MadScotsman said:


> Someone else on here put forth the hypothesis that they don't actually own a camera.
> 
> I made a snide comment about the Sony customer culture, and their reply was along the lines of "they'd have to actually buy the camera to qualify as a customer". Which struck me as very true. If you actually owned the camera you thought was so much better, why would you be wasting your time trolling?
> 
> You wouldn't, ergo, you don't.



There's another good point, who is really buying what and what are they using it for. 

I throughly and almost bitterly regret not getting the 5D4 the day it was released and selling my 5D3 as it's replacement was arriving, but I let the DPR goofuses convince me that it wasnt a major step up, but it is. And its still not that far behind Sony's finest over at PhotonstoPixels.

Here's the killer : the A7 was released about a year after the 5D3 (2012) and that camera had poor low light AF, poor DR and and almost nonexistent tracking AF. Six years later, barely 1 year after Canon's Full Frame Mirrorless and we are only 1 notch behind in those categories and we have F1.2 Lenses while the 90D's sensor wins praise from Sony's-R-Us. Canon is just getting started.

Canon is that woman that doesnt care about makeup, wears whatever she found on the floor but is still a total endurance freak in bed.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 20, 2019)

All the papers I've read so far on digital sensors point out they're linear. A single pixel can have more than 14 stops of well capacity, but it's then clamped and converted lineary in ADC. So the number of bits in ADC is the upper bound for the resulting dynamic range.



Michael Clark said:


> Because there is no 1:1 correspondence between the bit depth of a digital sensor and the maximum DR it can do. It's a fallacy that has been around since the dawn of the digital age.
> 
> A "digital"sensor is really a collection of a bunch of analog charge collectors. When the analog charges accumulated by each detector are converted to digital information, how much distance is one "step" (that is, how much more charge is needed to increase a digital value by "one") is strictly arbitrary. The difference between the noise floor and full well capacity can be divided between as little as one bit (it's either "off" or "on" at some arbitrary charge level) or as many bits as one desires. Sure, the bit depth can limit the _number of expressible steps between a minimum and maximum digitally recorded value,_ but there's nothing that says the difference between 0 and 16,383 that requires 14-bits has to be exactly 14 stops. We can choose to assign "0" to an analog voltage value that is half full well capacity and "16,383" to an analog value that is three-quarters of FWC. Anything less than half of FWC is recorded as "0" during ADC, and anything more than 75% of FWC is recorded as 16383 during ADC.


----------



## Joules (Oct 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> When the analog charges accumulated by each detector are converted to digital information, how much distance is one "step" (that is, how much more charge is needed to increase a digital value by "one") is strictly arbitrary.


Which is why I specifically mentioned linear RAW data. In that case, the analog charge step is constant. Going from a digital value of a to a+1 should be a step as big as going from b to b+1 for any 0 <= a, b < 2^14. Right? I'd like to get it right if I'm wrong, so please correct me if that is the case. But my understanding is this:

An exposure increase by one stop means the analog charge value is doubled. In a linear conversion to digital, my digital value must also double. So if you want to allow the recorded brightness to double n times, you must also double your maximal digital value n times. Doubling a digital value means shifting it by one bit obviously and so to keep your numbers from being cut off, your bit count has to increase by one.

If we're not talking about a linear conversion between charge and digital values, it is clear that there is not limit for how much DR fits into any given number of bits. But I was talking about linear data, as that is what we are used to in camera sensors. And for those, does my above reasoning not hold up for the claim that a 14 bit file holding linearly converted data can't exceed 14 stop DR?


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> All the papers I've read so far on digital sensors point out they're linear. A single pixel can have more than 14 stops of well capacity, but it's then clamped and converted lineary in ADC. So the number of bits in ADC is the upper bound for the resulting dynamic range.



The number of bits in ADC set the upper bound for the number of steps possible between the analog charge value assigned to "0" and the analog charge value assigned to 2^_n_. There's nothing that says how large or small each of those steps have to be. Nor is there anything that says how far above an absolute "zero" analog charge (that doesn't really exist) an analog charge should be set as the "0" digital value. There's also nothing that says the 2^_n_ digital value can only be assigned to a full well value.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with Adam and his Zone System I think.
> 
> And for linear RAW data, why is 1 bit different than 1 stop of DR, if noise is ignored?






Joules said:


> Which is why I specifically mentioned linear RAW data. In that case, the analog charge step is constant. Going from a digital value of a to a+1 should be a step as big as going from b to b+1 for any 0 <= a, b < 2^14. Right? I'd like to get it right if I'm wrong, so please correct me if that is the case. But my understanding is this:
> 
> An exposure increase by one stop means the analog charge value is doubled. In a linear conversion to digital, my digital value must also double. So if you want to allow the recorded brightness to double n times, you must also double your maximal digital value n times. Doubling a digital value means shifting it by one bit obviously and so to keep your numbers from being cut off, your bit count has to increase by one.
> 
> If we're not talking about a linear conversion between charge and digital values, it is clear that there is not limit for how much DR fits into any given number of bits. But I was talking about linear data, as that is what we are used to in camera sensors. And for those, does my above reasoning not hold up for the claim that a 14 bit file holding linearly converted data can't exceed 14 stop DR?



The vast majority (maybe all) of consumer cameras (consumer in the sense that includes even "pro" cameras used to make photos instead of take scientific measurements) do not ignore noise and they do some noise processing to the analog signal before it is digitized. Some do it more than others, which is why some of them have reputations as "star eaters" when they eliminate the signal from weak stars as noise. There's no true "0" analog value for a photosite that collects no electrical charge from photons. By the time the analog signal from such photosites reach the ADC, some of the values can even be negative. So even in the most simplistic methods the starting point for where the first amount of analog charge that is assigned a digital value greater than "0" is more or less arbitrary.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The number of bits in ADC set the upper bound for the number of steps possible between the analog charge value assigned to "0" and the analog charge value assigned to 2^_n_. There's nothing that says how large or small each of those steps have to be. Nor is there anything that says how far above an absolute "zero" analog charge (that doesn't really exist) an analog charge should be set as the "0" digital value. There's also nothing that says the 2^_n_ digital value can only be assigned to a full well value.



The number of electrons and therefore the voltage in a pixel is a linear function of number of photons, and the voltage is then converted to a digital value via ADC. Now with the steps, they're normally defined as the smallest detectable level of the signal, effectively the noise, and the DR is defined as max level/noise level, so by definition a linear ADC can't produce a DR larger than its bitness.


----------



## Joules (Oct 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The number of bits in ADC set the upper bound for the number of steps possible between the analog charge value assigned to "0" and the analog charge value assigned to 2^_n_.


Yes, I see where I got confused now. I had assumed a proportionality of 1 between analog and digital, but you are clearly right on that this assumption is flawed. You can express a linear function that maps an analog to a digital value for any given range of analog and digital values. 

d(a) = (a - cMin) * 2^n / (cMax - cMin)

where a is the analog value, d(a) the digital equivalent, cMin and cMax the min and max value for a we want to record and n is the number of bits.

Glad you brought that up, thanks.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The number of electrons and therefore the voltage in a pixel is a linear function of number of photons, and the voltage is then converted to a digital value via ADC. Now with the steps, they're normally defined as the smallest detectable level of the signal, effectively the noise, and the DR is defined as max level/noise level, so by definition a linear ADC can't produce a DR larger than its bitness.


The problem with this approach is that if the number of photons in the signal as measured by such a linear sensor can be _exactly_ zero, the DR is infinite.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 20, 2019)

Kit. said:


> The problem with this approach is that if the number of photons in the signal as measured by such a linear sensor can be _exactly_ zero, the DR is infinite.


But it cannot...


----------



## Kit. (Oct 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> But it cannot...


Why not? What if the sensor accumulates _exactly_ zero photoelectrons?

You cannot avoid that problem without treating signal quantization as a sort of sensor's nonlinearity by itself.


----------



## BillB (Oct 20, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why not? What if the sensor accumulates _exactly_ zero photoelectrons?
> 
> You cannot avoid that problem without treating signal quantization as a sort of sensor's nonlinearity by itself.


The practical problem would seem to be constructing the ADC to return a bit value if no photons are detected. Wouldn't a simple "if measured value is less than n photons, then return 0" get you out of the theoretical box?


----------



## Kit. (Oct 20, 2019)

BillB said:


> The practical problem would seem to be constructing the ADC to return a bit value if no photons are detected.


It practically _is_ doable, but then we get a theoretical infinity in our definition of "DR".



BillB said:


> Wouldn't a simple "if measured value is less than n photons, then return 0" get you out of the theoretical box?


Then our sensor is not linear anymore, and the chosen value of n will determine its DR.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 20, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Why not? What if the sensor accumulates _exactly_ zero photoelectrons?
> 
> You cannot avoid that problem without treating signal quantization as a sort of sensor's nonlinearity by itself.



It's not possible, there's no physical systems without noise. As far as I understand, zero value after applying 7 hi ADC represents the noise level or is close to it. After a 14-bit ADC, the highest value 16383 has to be interpreted as 14 stopsbrighter than the lowest value and all values are linear (raw files are gamma 1.0).


----------



## Kit. (Oct 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> It's not possible, there's no physical systems without noise. As far as I understand, zero value after applying 7 hi ADC represents the noise level or is close to it. After a 14-bit ADC, the highest value 16383 has to be interpreted as 14 stopsbrighter than the lowest value and all values are linear (raw files are gamma 1.0).


That would mean that the DR of your sensor is 7 stops.

However, you are mistaken in the assumption that the level of noise does not depend on the level of the signal. When we are talking about photon shot noise, a signal with full 14 bits of value will be accompanied with ~7 bits of noise; a much lower signal with 8 bits of value will be accompanied with ~4 bits of noise, and a total darkness (a signal with all bits equal 0 on a linear sensor) will have no photon shot noise at all (there will still be dark current noise, of course, but t can be very small and not flip the lowest bit most of the time).


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 21, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> The number of electrons and therefore the voltage in a pixel is a linear function of number of photons, and the voltage is then converted to a digital value via ADC. Now with the steps, they're normally defined as the smallest detectable level of the signal, effectively the noise, and the DR is defined as max level/noise level, so by definition a linear ADC can't produce a DR larger than its bitness.



There's no "voltage" collected by a pixel, there is an amount of energy properly defined as a charge. Photons vibrating at different wavelengths of light release slightly different amounts of energy when they are absorbed by a photosite. The full well capacity of many cameras is well beyond the maximum number of steps possible with 14 bits. The EOS 1D X, for instance, has FWC of over 90K electrons, which requires 17 bits to allow a unique digital value for each increase of one electron. That's 5.5X more information than can be expressed in 14 bits.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> That would mean that the DR of your sensor is 7 stops.
> 
> However, you are mistaken in the assumption that the level of noise does not depend on the level of the signal. When we are talking about photon shot noise, a signal with full 14 bits of value will be accompanied with ~7 bits of noise; a much lower signal with 8 bits of value will be accompanied with ~4 bits of noise, and a total darkness (a signal with all bits equal 0 on a linear sensor) will have no photon shot noise at all (there will still be dark current noise, of course, but t can be very small and not flip the lowest bit most of the time).



Further, in the real world there can be some charges that are negative by the time the information reaches the ADC, because the system has absorbed more energy than the sensor produced for that particular photosite. Other photosites that collected the same amount of charge can still be positive when that information reaches the ADC. That's why we call the variability of the effect the system has on the analog signal between each pixel well and the ADC "noise".


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> There's no "voltage" collected by a pixel, there is an amount of energy properly defined as a charge. Photons vibrating at different wavelengths of light release slightly different amounts of energy when they are absorbed by a photosite. The full well capacity of many cameras is well beyond the maximum number of steps possible with 14 bits. The EOS 1D X, for instance, has FWC of over 90K electrons, which requires 17 bits to allow a unique digital value for each increase of one electron. That's 5.5X more information than can be expressed in 14 bits.



Yes, but after ADC the limiting factor is the bitness of the ADC, which was my original point.





__





Clarkvision: Digital Camera Review and Sensor Performance Summary






clarkvision.com


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 21, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yes, but after ADC the limiting factor is the bitness of the ADC, which was my original point.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But the bitness only limits the distance between each step for the same total distance between "0" and 2^_n_ - 1. It doesn't require that each doubling of the number of steps means a doubling of the total brightness between "0" and 2^_n_ - 1. A 2:1 or 1:2 slope is still just as linear as a 1:1 slope is.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Oct 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> But the bitness only limits the distance between each step for the same total distance between "0" and 2^_n_ - 1. It doesn't require that each doubling of the number of steps means a doubling of the total brightness between "0" and 2^_n_ - 1. A 2:1 or 1:2 slope is still just as linear as a 1:1 slope is.



But that paper (and other papers on this matter that I saw) suggests/implies that the slope is 45 degrees, i.e. 1:1. The standard for raw files is to use gamma 1.0, which is a straight line at a 45-degree slope:




__





Understanding Gamma Correction







www.cambridgeincolour.com





I agree it doesn't have to be. But it is in the current sensor implementations, as far as I can see.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 21, 2019)

Anthny said:


> In addition to the features already mentioned for the 5D Mark V the addition of focus bracketing would be very useful for in field macro photography. If it has this feature and some increase in resolution among other improvements I would upgrade from my 5D mark IV.


That could help sometimes. Often for macro, you want the lens left alone and the camera moved on a rail.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 21, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> All the papers I've read so far on digital sensors point out they're linear. A single pixel can have more than 14 stops of well capacity, but it's then clamped and converted lineary in ADC. So the number of bits in ADC is the upper bound for the resulting dynamic range.



The highest ranked cameras at DxO have sub-14ev DR scores in their screen test. Only the print test scores exceed 14ev. We know their print scores come from downsampling (which is valid methodology). But it would appear that today's best sensors, in terms of base ISO DR, would not exceed 14-bits with a linear ADC. They're not >14 stops at the pixel level.

(And I'm kicking myself because I've debated this very topic before, assuming ADCs were linear, then assuming they couldn't be perfectly linear, then realizing my own mistake and actually checking the scores that weren't downsampled.)


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The full well capacity of many cameras is well beyond the maximum number of steps possible with 14 bits. The EOS 1D X, for instance, has FWC of over 90K electrons, which requires 17 bits to allow a unique digital value for each increase of one electron. That's 5.5X more information than can be expressed in 14 bits.



I don't think the ADC spits out a unique digital value for every single-electron increase. ETTR is a thing precisely because it maximizes the tonal steps as there are more steps dividing the highlight stops than the shadow stops. (Luminous Landscape has a page somewhere explaining this.)

Clark reported the read noise as 35.2 and the FWC as 88,600, for a (per pixel) DR of 11.3.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 21, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> I don't think the ADC spits out a unique digital value for every single-electron increase.


An "ideal" one does.



dtaylor said:


> ETTR is a thing precisely because it maximizes the tonal steps as there are more steps dividing the highlight stops than the shadow stops.


ETTR is a thing mostly because while the absolute shot noise is directly proportional to the square root of luminous energy, the relative shot noise is _inversely_ proportional to the square root of luminous energy.


----------



## dtaylor (Oct 21, 2019)

Kit. said:


> ETTR is a thing mostly because while the absolute shot noise is directly proportional to the square root of luminous energy, the relative shot noise is _inversely_ proportional to the square root of luminous energy.



When ETTR first hit sites like LL, any benefits related to noise or shadow push were mentioned as a side note if they were mentioned at all. It was all about tonal separation, which is an observable benefit.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 22, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> When ETTR first hit sites like LL, any benefits related to noise or shadow push were mentioned as a side note if they were mentioned at all. It was all about tonal separation, which is an observable benefit.


Probably because the early non-FF digital cameras were really poor at it?


----------



## stevelee (Oct 22, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> No, we were talking about specific DR measurement method from http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm
> Those charts don't tell you the maximum you could pull out of your raw files. The charts are based on a model where you print the image on 8"x10" paper and view it from a certain distance (I understand it's just the math model - they don't actually print the images).


At best, subtractive colors on a piece of paper will not have a great dynamic range.


----------



## tron (Oct 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> At best, subtractive colors on a piece of paper will not have a great dynamic range.


So it seems that practically these are imaginary numbers (neither in screen nor in paper)! The real DR is less for all camera models.


----------



## JohnC (Oct 22, 2019)

tron said:


> So it seems that practically these are imaginary numbers (neither in screen nor in paper)! The real DR is less for all camera models.



If printing yes. Pigment inks also have less range than dye inks but in general they also have more lightfastness. Having said that I have due prints hangin in my office for over a decade that look great. 

With monitors you have more range, although that can be limited by the specific shot OR the capabilities of the monitor.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> At best, subtractive colors on a piece of paper will not have a great dynamic range.


If you consider them as _the origin_ of the signal, then yes.

Otherwise you can compress the dynamic range of the original signal before printing, although the result will not always look "natural".


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> At best, subtractive colors on a piece of paper will not have a great dynamic range.


That misses one of the many points entirely. Capture medium DR and display medium DR are entirely different and the fact that display mediums don't have anything like the range of capture mediums is irrelevant. A lower DR display medium is more than capable of representing a higher range capture, the point is where we choose to put the various tones within the real scene into our output. 

Hey maybe we are onto something there? We could divide the scene into 11 sections and choose which section we wanted in which areas of our display medium. If we were smart we could do this as we are taking the picture, we could look at the scene, maybe meter it with a spot meter, and knowing how our sensor records light we could make allowances to our exposure to optimize the capture of the tonality in the scene in a way that would best be presented in our output medium. Almost like we had the print (or output medium) in mind at capture. Why don't we call it the Section System.

People focus on a single aspect of what we are doing to such a degree that they lose sight of the actual picture (pun intended). Whenever we think about technical aspects of photography we should consider the context of that analysis with regards its impact on our actual finished output.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 22, 2019)

Or we could call it a “mapping system.”


----------



## cayenne (Oct 22, 2019)

AlanF said:


> These constant battles of Canon vs Nikon vs Sony are just so tedious. They are only cameras, tools for a job. If people can get so worked up over such trivia, no wonder different groups are killing each other over race, religion, territory and politics.



Yep...what's next?

vi vs emacs?
(or is that too geeky a reference?)


C


----------



## AlanF (Oct 22, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Yep...what's next?
> 
> vi vs emacs?
> (or is that too geeky a reference?)
> ...


Yes (to too geeky).


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Oct 22, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> That misses one of the many points entirely. Capture medium DR and display medium DR are entirely different and the fact that display mediums don't have anything like the range of capture mediums is irrelevant. A lower DR display medium is more than capable of representing a higher range capture, the point is where we choose to put the various tones within the real scene into our output.
> 
> Hey maybe we are onto something there? We could divide the scene into 11 sections and choose which section we wanted in which areas of our display medium. If we were smart we could do this as we are taking the picture, we could look at the scene, maybe meter it with a spot meter, and knowing how our sensor records light we could make allowances to our exposure to optimize the capture of the tonality in the scene in a way that would best be presented in our output medium. Almost like we had the print (or output medium) in mind at capture. Why don't we call it the Section System.
> 
> People focus on a single aspect of what we are doing to such a degree that they lose sight of the actual picture (pun intended). Whenever we think about technical aspects of photography we should consider the context of that analysis with regards its impact on our actual finished output.


I like that - I think you might be into something here.. Just need someone to develop it a bit further (pun intended) and then write a book make a YouTube Vid about it for the rest of us..


----------



## SteveC (Oct 22, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Yep...what's next?
> 
> vi vs emacs?
> (or is that too geeky a reference?)
> ...



vi is the editor I used to code my own editor, so it does function, after a fashion.

(That ought to win the "geeky" contest right there.)


----------



## Kit. (Oct 22, 2019)

cayenne said:


> Yep...what's next?
> 
> vi vs emacs?
> (or is that too geeky a reference?)


emacs? Is that a set of macros for TECO?


----------



## cayenne (Oct 23, 2019)

Kit. said:


> emacs? Is that a set of macros for TECO?



I think real men still use "ed"....
;P


----------



## stevelee (Oct 23, 2019)

Wasn’t the EMac an Apple computer for kids, or something like a prototype for modern-day tablets?


----------



## Kit. (Oct 23, 2019)

cayenne said:


> I think real men still use "ed"....
> ;P


Nah, that's a Unix kludge.


> *Real Men* Use VMS, and write everything in FORTRAN


----------



## SteveC (Oct 23, 2019)

Kit. said:


> Nah, that's a Unix kludge.
> 
> 
> 
> > *Real Men* Use VMS, and write everything in FORTRAN



Hmm...well I did FORTRAN on VMS, then FORTRAN on a Unix box...and now I'm not doing FORTRAN any more, so I guess that means I got progressively castrated.


----------



## Kit. (Oct 23, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Hmm...well I did FORTRAN on VMS, then FORTRAN on a Unix box...and now I'm not doing FORTRAN any more, so I guess that means I got progressively castrated.


Falling testosterone levels and/or gained experience can turn a real man into a real roleplayer.

When I was a real man, I wrote a chart printing library in MACRO-11. That was stupid. It worked, but that was still stupid. There was nothing wrong in writing it in FORTRAN.


----------



## Quirkz (Oct 24, 2019)

SteveC said:


> vi is the editor I used to code my own editor, so it does function, after a fashion.
> 
> (That ought to win the "geeky" contest right there.)



Pfffft. I magnetized individual bits using a magnetisms needle against a hard drive platter to write my editor. 

(Although when I tried to boot it up, the computer bluescreened. It was a stupid idea. )


----------



## cayenne (Oct 24, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Pfffft. I magnetized individual bits using a magnetisms needle against a hard drive platter to write my editor.
> 
> (Although when I tried to boot it up, the computer bluescreened. It was a stupid idea. )



I once installed Linux on an abacus......and then had to take a year off for therapy to get my hands back in working order....



C


----------



## SteveC (Oct 24, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Pfffft. I magnetized individual bits using a magnetisms needle against a hard drive platter to write my editor.
> 
> (Although when I tried to boot it up, the computer bluescreened. It was a stupid idea. )



I wasn't joking, actually. I'm going to turn around shortly and start using the editor.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 26, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Hmm...well I did FORTRAN on VMS, then FORTRAN on a Unix box...and now I'm not doing FORTRAN any more, so I guess that means I got progressively castrated.



Programmed Fortran on VMS for several years. Those were the days...


----------



## SteveC (Oct 26, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Programmed Fortran on VMS for several years. Those were the days...



Oh, yes, I "owned" about a third of a 300 MB hard drive at work (it was a big unit in a rack), so I was constantly having to manage "huge" (for the day) files.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 26, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Oh, yes, I "owned" about a third of a 300 MB hard drive at work (it was a big unit in a rack), so I was constantly having to manage "huge" (for the day) files.



One of the systems I worked on had several 60MB drives, each the size of a small bath. As all had identical file layout, and files had to be contiguous (the drives were dual ported, connected to another computer, too primitive to handle non-contiguous files), which led to a practical limitation was they also had to be free of any bad sectors. The system was dumped in favor of a new one when the disk manufacturer sent a notice the drive is being discontinued, and encouraged us to make a last order before it went out of stock.


----------



## stevelee (Oct 27, 2019)

I did FORTRAN on an IBM 1620. I punched the programs into cards.


----------



## SteveC (Oct 27, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I did FORTRAN on an IBM 1620. I punched the programs into cards.



I just barely avoided ever having to work with cards. My intro Computer Science class, I was put into the one out of three sections that was experimenting with doing things on a microprocessor. The other two got to use punch cards. (And that "micro"processor was two times the size of the original IBM PC and had two 8 inch floppies!)


----------



## stevelee (Oct 28, 2019)

SteveC said:


> I just barely avoided ever having to work with cards. My intro Computer Science class, I was put into the one out of three sections that was experimenting with doing things on a microprocessor. The other two got to use punch cards. (And that "micro"processor was two times the size of the original IBM PC and had two 8 inch floppies!)


I didn’t have access to a computer after 1968 until I bought an Apple II+ in 1980. Then I used my FORTRAN skills to program in Basic.


----------



## BillB (Oct 28, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Just more of the same nonsense. Canon's new flagship professional lens trinity doesn't mount on any of Canon's existing flagship professional bodies nor will they mount on the expected Flagship 1DX Mark III or 5D Mark IV. Those lenses with IS are something pro photgraphers have been requesting for years and they can't use them unless they commit to an R which is a significant downgrade from the pro bodies. You can talk around that fact all you like but that won't change anything. I'm not spilling any secrets here. Anybody with any sense figure all this out for themselves a long time ago.


Some people seem to find the R camera useful with RF lenses. The main limitations of the R seem to be related to the demands of action photography. Most of the new RF lenses aren't exactly geared for action photography anyway, except maybe for the upcoming 70-200.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Oct 28, 2019)

BillB said:


> Some people seem to find the R camera useful with RF lenses. The main limitations of the R seem to be related to the demands of action photography. Most of the new RF lenses aren't exactly geared for action photography anyway, except maybe for the upcoming 70-200.


Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.

However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.

It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 29, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.
> 
> However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.
> 
> It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.



Shortly after the release of more pro-oriented RF mount cameras, I'm sure Canon will release an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS! LOL


----------



## YuengLinger (Oct 29, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.
> 
> However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.
> 
> It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.



I 100% agree with you about the EOS R not being suitable for action. But I'm curious why you think it would not be good for situations that call for IS...If the subject is moving around a lot, the IS helps only a little, in my experience. (Some claim not at all, but that is total nonsense. Think it through--reducing motion at one point helps reduce the total amount of motion blur in a still image. If the camera shakes AND the subject moves, the blur effect is compounded in most cases.)

What I mean is, if IS means so much to your photography, as it does to me when I'm taking portraits or detail shots, how would the R be a problem for these cases? My problem with the R is that it just doesn't offer enough versatility--it really works best for static and slow moving subjects, the ones most helped by IS.

Then again, panning IS might be kind of wasted on the current R. 

Sigh. We really need a leap in EVF tech!!! In the meantime, R for portraits, dSLR's for everything?


----------



## trounds (Nov 5, 2019)




----------



## darnsmall (Dec 29, 2019)

venusFivePhotoStudio said:


> Every 4 years another 5D appears! In 2020 after 4 years of 5D IV, there will be another 5D V released, now that comes as a surprize
> 
> Don't tell me it will have 1 stop iso improvement ?! That can't be true )



I love that...One Stop improvement in 4 years...absolute gold!!!!


----------



## darnsmall (Dec 29, 2019)

Bob Howland said:


> Outstanding! I tend to skip generations in the 5D series and currently own a 5D3. A (nearly) simultaneous introduction of a similar R camera would also be most welcome.



Same, I just bought my 2nd 5D Mk ii to keep me going until the 5D V blows me away.
Otherwise I'll consider just getting a 5D iv.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 29, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> I just swallowed my coffee the wrong way! Ok, I can hold onto those EF lenses a bit longer. Oh, how I fretted they'd be paperweights by now.  Actually, crow tastes ok if you marinate it in enough hot sauce for a day, then get drunk before eating it with rice.


For the real gourmet, an old French recipe.
You need: a medium-sized crow, a small solid- steel anvil, a big pot, and of course, lots of water.
Once the water starts to boil, put in the crow and the anvil.
As soon as the anvil is cooked (soft); you can eat the crow.
Bon appetit!


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 29, 2019)

darnsmall said:


> I love that...One Stop improvement in 4 years...absolute gold!!!!


Now that Sensors are in the 80 percent efficiency range, the odds of getting a 1 stop improvement are astoundingly low.


----------



## slclick (Dec 29, 2019)

I don't think DR ever crosses my mind when shooting, in a GAS sort of way. Now, I haven't always been this free and liberated from tech frenzy but you work with what you have, sharpen your saw and remember to bring a tripod.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 29, 2019)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> Yes I agree for the most part. The early releases were portrait lenses and the EF equivalents had a history of focus issues. Those make a lot of sense on an R where you are getting better critical focus using DPAF.
> 
> However, I think that the three trinity f2.8L IS Zooms are a different case. There are still a lot of top Journos and event photographers that use 1 series bodies and I bet they would love to have those IS 15-35 and 24-70 f2.8's. They are also very popular sideline lenses for indoor sports. Posters have been asking Canon for EF IS 2.8L's for years and now Canon drops them as RF's that can't be used on the pro bodies. I have the 24-70 f4 because I need IS and it's not a great lenses. I would have traded up for a 2.8L IS in a heartbeat. Now I can't because the existing R doesn't work for me.
> 
> It will probably sort itself out once Canon releases pro build mirrorless bodies. The R has fine image quality for stills but I don't think it's up to being a daily driver for servo AF use.


 I still don't get this argument. If you are shooting sports then IS is basically irrelevant as it only compensates for camera shake at slow shutter speeds. If you are shooting basketball at 1/20sec then I wonder why you are there. An indoor sports shooter needs a fast lens. Not IS. IS is for slow paced photography. Not action photography. And yes. I am a wildlife photographer and I do understand that at times I get a static subject where I can slow the shutter speed in order to lower my ISO but those occasions are the exception and not the rule


----------



## slclick (Dec 29, 2019)

Portrait lenses....hmm. It's only a portrait lens if you use it as such. I do not like labeling glass as such. I frequently use telephoto lenses for landscape work. You get the gist.


----------



## SecureGSM (Dec 30, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> I still don't get this argument. If you are shooting sports then IS is basically irrelevant as it only compensates for camera shake at slow shutter speeds. If you are shooting basketball at 1/20sec then I wonder why you are there. An indoor sports shooter needs a fast lens. Not IS. IS is for slow paced photography. Not action photography. And yes. I am a wildlife photographer and I do understand that at times I get a static subject where I can slow the shutter speed in order to lower my ISO but those occasions are the exception and not the rule


This. Thank you.


----------



## puffo25 (Jan 3, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



Hi all, I am very interested to see if Canon will release either a EOS Mark V or a newer mirrorless R model in the middle of 2020? What do you think will release first? And do you think both bodies will be released in year 2020?


----------



## tron (Jan 3, 2020)

I believe that they will relase 5DV between 2020Q3 and 2021Q1 but this is speculation and nothing else (based on previous releases in conjunction with 1Dx) Regarding EOS R I cannot even speculate.


----------



## afolickman (May 18, 2020)

Is there any new news on the 5D Mark V because i keep checking and nothing new has been posted sine October 2019.


----------



## Cryhavoc (May 18, 2020)

afolickman said:


> Is there any new news on the 5D Mark V because i keep checking and nothing new has been posted sine October 2019.



Yes, it is called the Eos R5 and is due out next month.


----------



## Aussie shooter (May 18, 2020)

Tbh I am a little surprised. I honestly thought that with the economic devastation atm that canon would have shelved(or at least substantially delayed) a 5Dv.


----------



## Sharlin (May 18, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Tbh I am a little surprised. I honestly thought that with the economic devastation atm that canon would have shelved(or at least substantially delayed) a 5Dv.



This is an old rumor. Nothing has been heard about a 5D5 recently.


----------



## Darrell Cadieux (May 18, 2020)

jdale273 said:


> I'd love to see somewhere between 35-40


If it shares a sensor with the coming R5 it will come in at 44M.


----------



## slclick (May 18, 2020)

I truly hope they keep making them, some of us aren't interested in EVF's and all that wizardry.


----------



## unfocused (May 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> I truly hope they keep making them, some of us aren't interested in EVF's and all that wizardry.


I am confident they will. DSLRs will always be better at some things. Even in a shrinking market, I believe there will be room for at least two full frame bodies as there are likely to always be a substantial percentage of customers that don't want mirrorless and Canon is in the business of selling cameras, not telling people what they should buy. The 1Dx is a very specialized body, so it makes sense that Canon will keep an all-around body available for those who don't like mirrorless. 

They need to keep the EF lens line going because it is the only universal mount they have, so it makes sense that they keep a line of cameras available to use the mount natively. Some people just don't care for adapters.

Finally, single lens reflex technology isn't going to sit still. The new thumb focus button on the 1Dx III shows that Canon will continue to innovate with SLRs.

I'm not sure the 6D will survive, but it might if Canon thinks they need an entry-level full frame SLR. Still, I'm pretty sure the 5D will be around for a long time to come.

I thought they might announce the new 5D when they announce they R5, but with all the marketing they have been doing for the R5, I now think they will wait before announcing the 5DV. They don't want one to be overshadowed by the other, when they get a boost out of both.


----------



## cayenne (May 18, 2020)

puffo25 said:


> Hi all, I am very interested to see if Canon will release either a EOS Mark V or a newer mirrorless R model in the middle of 2020? What do you think will release first? And do you think both bodies will be released in year 2020?



IMHO...I'd not hold my breath or put money down on a DSLR 5D5 coming out.....<P>
I think the 5D4 replacement WILL be the R5 mirrorless version. I don't think there will be a 5D5 produced.

At least, that's where I'd put my money down on a bet......

cayenne


----------



## tpatana (May 18, 2020)

cayenne said:


> IMHO...I'd not hold my breath or put money down on a DSLR 5D5 coming out.....<P>
> I think the 5D4 replacement WILL be the R5 mirrorless version. I don't think there will be a 5D5 produced.
> 
> At least, that's where I'd put my money down on a bet......
> ...



I agree with you. Canon is obviously pushing for RF, so I doubt they will make 5D5. Maybe they had it on roadmap earlier, but this point I doubt it'll ever come.


----------



## slclick (May 18, 2020)

It's all a guessing game. No one knows anything. Please don't act like you do. You don't. (that includes me)


----------



## Cryhavoc (May 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> It's all a guessing game. *No one knows anything*. Please don't act like you do. You don't. (that includes me)



some people know..they just aren't saying yet.


----------



## slclick (May 18, 2020)

Cryhavoc said:


> some people know..they just aren't saying yet.


Yeah you're right, just no one here works at Canon. Bummer, right?


----------



## Cryhavoc (May 18, 2020)

slclick said:


> Yeah you're right, just no one here works at Canon. Bummer, right?




could be. But there are lurkers everywhere that probably do have insight, but are unable to say.

In my outsider opinion, I think the top two camera's in the DLSR format, the 1D and the 5D series stay in the lineup alongside their mirrorless equivalents. Have both for those who prefer one or the other. 

Makes business sense to me to cater to your customer's needs rather than visa versa.


----------



## David - Sydney (May 18, 2020)

Cryhavoc said:


> could be. But there are lurkers everywhere that probably do have insight, but are unable to say.
> 
> In my outsider opinion, I think the top two camera's in the DLSR format, the 1D and the 5D series stay in the lineup alongside their mirrorless equivalents. Have both for those who prefer one or the other.
> 
> Makes business sense to me to cater to your customer's needs rather than visa versa.


I still believe that a 5D5 will come out. Similar to 90D/M6ii, it would share the inards of the R5. Makes sense (to me) and completes the APC-S/5D/1D last DLSR versions. The mirror flipping mechanism could come from the 1DXii (maybe limited in speed for less oil splatters), body the same as the current version with sensor/IBIS/computation from the R5. Effectively making it from current parts with minor changes. It would (similar to the 1DXiii) have more features in liveview but provides for better battery from the OVF if needed. I can't see new technology like a hybrid OVF/EVF being implemented but more than happy for Canon to surprise me.


----------



## unfocused (May 19, 2020)

tpatana said:


> I agree with you. Canon is obviously pushing for RF, so I doubt they will make 5D5...





Cryhavoc said:


> Makes business sense to me to cater to your customer's needs rather than visa versa.



These two quotes pretty much sum up the different viewpoints. 

One group thinks Canon wants to drive people toward mirrorless technology. Another group thinks Canon just wants to sell cameras and doesn't care if you buy mirrorless or mirrored as long as it has a Canon nameplate on it.

I'm firmly in the second camp. Others are firmly in the first. Only time will tell.


----------



## stevelee (May 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> One group thinks Canon wants to drive people toward mirrorless technology. Another group thinks Canon just wants to sell cameras and doesn't care if you buy mirrorless or mirrored as long as it has a Canon nameplate on it.
> 
> I'm firmly in the second camp. Others are firmly in the first. Only time will tell.



And whichever it is that Canon wants, that doesn't necessarily mean that is what will happen. But they should be in position to react to changing realities.

As for me, my current cameras meet my perceived needs quite well, so I don't have any idea of what I would buy next. Besides my DSLR, I use the G5X II for travel. I bought it before my trip in the fall and took 3200 pictures by the time I got back home. I've been quite pleased with it for its purposes. Perhaps if they make more than an incremental improvement to it in a few years, and I am back to traveling, I will consider an upgrade. As for interchangeable-lens bodies. I don't see what would attract me to a newer model. Lenses may be a different story. There are over 70 EF lenses I don't have, though I think I'm pretty well covered now. I rented the 24mm TS-E lens not long ago, and I have the 17mm version right now. They've been fun to mess with and learn how to use, but I don't feel any need to own them for no more use than they would get. Now that I know what I can do with them, I can rent one on occasion and still come out ahead. If a realtor offered me steady work, that calculation would change. I've had better luck with the 24mm lens, but that may say more about me than about the merits of the lenses. And it is hard to predict the timing or content of a GAS attack, I admit. One thing about having a good, pocketable camera is that I feel not need to upgrade my phone to get a better phone camera.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 19, 2020)

Aussie shooter said:


> Tbh I am a little surprised. I honestly thought that with the economic devastation atm that canon would have shelved(or at least substantially delayed) a 5Dv.



Canon has NEVER made an official announcement about a product they will not be selling. It doesn't matter how much a product has been rumored, Canon has not announced they will not make such a cameras or lens. They only make official press releases and announcements about products they have decided to sell.

Case in point: During an interview a while back that ranged on a lot of Nikon products and plans, a Nikon official went on the record that they have no plans to make a successor to the D500. Canon representatives have been comically notorious for several decades for giving near identical canned responses to any questions regarding possible future products that have not been already covered by development announcements or product introductions: "I'm not at liberty to comment on what products the company may choose to offer in the future."

Canon has been totally mum about any possible 7D Mark II replacement. They'll never mention such a camera in any official communication unless they miraculously decide to make it.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 19, 2020)

Cryhavoc said:


> some people know..they just aren't saying yet.



Even Canon may not be 100% sure at this point.


----------



## cayenne (May 19, 2020)

unfocused said:


> These two quotes pretty much sum up the different viewpoints.
> 
> One group thinks Canon wants to drive people toward mirrorless technology. Another group thinks Canon just wants to sell cameras and doesn't care if you buy mirrorless or mirrored as long as it has a Canon nameplate on it.
> 
> I'm firmly in the second camp. Others are firmly in the first. Only time will tell.



Well, one other thing to throw into the mix.

With the pandemic and SO many people losing jobs and economic stagnation (to put it lightly)....the market for higher end cameras may be shrinking even more than before.

So, possibly, Canon might have to make a decision....choose between 5D5 or R5. At this point IF that is the case....since R5 is already close to crossing the finish line to get into the public....which do you think they would choose?

Of course this is all purely conjecture......but economically, this choice of 1vs the other might seriously come into play at this point.

C


----------



## unfocused (May 19, 2020)

cayenne said:


> Well, one other thing to throw into the mix.
> 
> With the pandemic and SO many people losing jobs and economic stagnation (to put it lightly)....the market for higher end cameras may be shrinking even more than before.
> 
> ...


Again though, it's all a matter of conjecture and point of view. 

I would argue that in a shrinking market, Canon doesn't want to leave any buyers on the table. This would be the worst possible time to abandon the huge chunk of the market that prefers a single lens reflex. It's still a substantial part of the market and many of those buyers are never going to switch to mirrorless. 

Which represents more lost profit to the company? Only Canon knows. But, keep in mind that the development costs for a 5DV are likely to be much less than for an R5 and Canon has already sunk a lot costs into the 1Dx III that can be spread out over the larger market of a 5D V. 

I think the real body at risk is the mythical R1. It's a purely speculative body with an unproven market. If the R5 is anywhere are good as the hype about it, then the R1 becomes less relevant, as it's success is dependent on convincing the most loyal single lens reflex buyers (1D series) with the biggest investment in EF glass to switch to an untried format. 

It's just my opinion, but I think it makes more business sense to release a 5DV which will have guaranteed sales in early 2021 and push off the R1 which has no pre-existing market, until 2022 if they need to conserve resources. (Which none of us knows if they need to do or not.)


----------



## slclick (May 19, 2020)

Just how far off the 5D4 production line would the Mark5 be? Not very. Tooling and other expenses have been recouped long ago. The 5D5 is a no brainer.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 20, 2020)

slclick said:


> Just how far off the 5D4 production line would the Mark5 be? Not very. Tooling and other expenses have been recouped long ago. The 5D5 is a no brainer.



That also depends on how many 5D Mark IV bodies are in existing inventory worldwide. Canon has cut the price for the 5D Mark IV significantly, but they'll still wait until most of those have moved before releasing a successor. In the past it has been fairly obvious at times that they were holding off on releasing a newer version of a lens or body until existing inventories of the predecessor could be liquidated.


----------



## unfocused (May 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That also depends on how many 5D Mark IV bodies are in existing inventory worldwide. Canon has cut the price for the 5D Mark IV significantly, but they'll still wait until most of those have moved before releasing a successor. In the past it has been fairly obvious at times that they were holding off on releasing a newer version of a lens or body until existing inventories of the predecessor could be liquidated.


I'd like to have an example of Canon holding off on a new version while waiting for existing inventory to be liquidated. 

I don't believe too many manufacturers these days stockpile much inventory. Canon is a pretty sophisticated manufacturer and I would bet they avoid keeping excess inventory on hand. Retailers may have inventory, but that's not Canon's problem.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 20, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I'd like to have an example of Canon holding off on a new version while waiting for existing inventory to be liquidated.
> 
> I don't believe too many manufacturers these days stockpile much inventory. Canon is a pretty sophisticated manufacturer and I would bet they avoid keeping excess inventory on hand. Retailers may have inventory, but that's not Canon's problem.



Retailer inventory is a more complex subject than you seem to be aware of. There are often agreements in place that basically allow authorized dealers to swap inventory of an older model for inventory of a newly introduced replacement model at a ratio (say 30 older bodies for 20 of the newer model). There are also sales per time period incentives, much like those used in the new auto retail environment, that affect the final price a dealer pays for a block of inventory. Canon also offers "instant rebates", which are actually structured as discounts/credits on future inventory purchases, to encourage dealers to sell remaining inventory rather than returning it to the regional Canon distribution network (e.g. Canon USA, Canon Hong Kong, etc.). In the end a dealer's inventory of Canon products is somewhere between consignment and outright purchase.


----------



## unfocused (May 20, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> Retailer inventory is a more complex subject than you seem to be aware of. There are often agreements in place that basically allow authorized dealers to swap inventory of an older model for inventory of a newly introduced replacement model at a ratio (say 30 older bodies for 20 of the newer model). There are also sales per time period incentives, much like those used in the new auto retail environment, that affect the final price a dealer pays for a block of inventory. Canon also offers "instant rebates", which are actually structured as discounts/credits on future inventory purchases, to encourage dealers to sell remaining inventory rather than returning it to the regional Canon distribution network (e.g. Canon USA, Canon Hong Kong, etc.). In the end a dealer's inventory of Canon products is somewhere between consignment and outright purchase.


Yes, it is complex. But, back to the main point -- I would like to hear an example of when Canon held off on introducing a new version in order to reduce inventory on an older model.


----------



## afolickman (May 20, 2020)

Cryhavoc said:


> Yes, it is called the Eos R5 and is due out next month.



No, EOS R5 is mirrorless. Not the same camera. Completely different line.


----------



## cayenne (May 20, 2020)

afolickman said:


> No, EOS R5 is mirrorless. Not the same camera. Completely different line.



I believe his position was that there will be no more DSLR line of the "5" series...that the 5D4 will be the last one, and no 5D5 will come out....and that the "5" series is now going to be mirrorless and the first one will be the R5.

That's kinda how I'm guessing, but who knows....

HTH,

C


----------



## Sporgon (May 20, 2020)

cayenne said:


> I believe his position was that there will be no more DSLR line of the "5" series...that the 5D4 will be the last one, and no 5D5 will come out....and that the "5" series is now going to be mirrorless and the first one will be the R5.
> 
> That's kinda how I'm guessing, but who knows....
> 
> ...


When you look at how popular the 5 series has been, and how many have been sold, it is inconceivable that 100% of that market would change to mirrorless in one generation of camera moving forward, and therefore there would be a loss of potential sales. So for this reason I'm sure there will eventually be a 5DV. I also think that there will continue to be high end dslrs anyway, though they may well become more expensive if the number of units sold falls.


----------



## unfocused (May 20, 2020)

Sporgon said:


> When you look at how popular the 5 series has been, and how many have been sold, it is inconceivable that 100% of that market would change to mirrorless in one generation of camera moving forward, and therefore there would be a loss of potential sales. So for this reason I'm sure there will eventually be a 5DV. I also think that there will continue to be high end dslrs anyway, though they may well become more expensive if the number of units sold falls.


Completely agree. And, actually I think there will continue to be low end single lens reflex Rebels for many years as well. For many people, buying a "real" camera means an slr. Enthusiasts may climb on the mirrorless train, but many people shopping for a camera to take on their post-Coronavirus vacation will continue to choose a two-lens Rebel kitted with a standard zoom and a 75-300 zoom for under $500.


----------



## stevelee (May 20, 2020)

My 6D2 seems to be more than adequate for my needs and interests right now. If I felt an urge to upgrade, I would find the falling prices for the 5D4 attractive. If a 5D V appears, the price drop on the 4 might start to seem too good to pass up. If there were to be a scare that DSLRs were going away, I might panic into buying one. I have nothing against mirrorless cameras as such, but I'm going to want an OVF for a long time to come. Maybe I don't really need one, but the idea of looking directly through the actual lens seems too cool to give up. 

Alternatively, if the 5D V is leaps and bounds better than the 4, I might be tempted to do one last camera splurge in my lifetime, especially if my retirement funds do really well, and I'm panicked into a last-ditch purchase. There apparently are really great R lenses, but I don't see myself investing heavily into them, so I don't see the point for me in getting a camera just to use them.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 21, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Yes, it is complex. But, back to the main point -- I would like to hear an example of when Canon held off on introducing a new version in order to reduce inventory on an older model.



A lot of folks thought that was the reason the 7D Mark II didn't release until very late in 2014. It was the successor to the 7D that was introduced over five years earlier on September 1, 2009 and was shipping to buyers before the end of September. Most models that Canon has introduced in the later half of August or first few days of September are out in the wild by the end of September so as to be available for sale by Photokina that was held in the second half of September from the 1950s through 2018 before being moved to a Spring date.

They announced the 7D Mark II on September 15, 2014. They didn't begin shipping the 7D until mid-November.


----------



## unfocused (May 22, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> A lot of folks thought that was the reason the 7D Mark II didn't release until very late in 2014. It was the successor to the 7D that was introduced over five years earlier on September 1, 2009 and was shipping to buyers before the end of September. Most models that Canon has introduced in the later half of August or first few days of September are out in the wild by the end of September so as to be available for sale by Photokina that was held in the second half of September from the 1950s through 2018 before being moved to a Spring date.
> 
> They announced the 7D Mark II on September 15, 2014. They didn't begin shipping the 7D until mid-November.


Never heard that theory. Not sure I'm buying it. As much time as transpired between the 7D and 7DII, I doubt there was much excess inventory to reduce by that point.


----------



## slclick (May 22, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Never heard that theory. Not sure I'm buying it. As much time as transpired between the 7D and 7DII, I doubt there was much excess inventory to reduce by that point.


Sounds more like a typical Canon release cycle instead of a sales theory made up to make a mundane thing seem more interesting which if even true is still, well, mundane.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 23, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Never heard that theory. Not sure I'm buying it. As much time as transpired between the 7D and 7DII, I doubt there was much excess inventory to reduce by that point.



That excess inventory probably stretched back to about 2012 when sales of the 7D nosedived because a lot of folks were expecting the imminent release of a replacement. Even when Canon announced a major firmware update for the 7D in early 2012, many thought they were only trying to extend the life of the 7D by a few months until Canon could get the 7D Mark II to market a "few months behind schedule."

From January 2012 until mid-2014 the price from authorized dealers in the U.S. fluctuated quite a bit back and forth between about $1,300 and $1,500 with holiday prices dipping to $1,200 for a week or two each year. When a price fluctuates that much, it usually indicates they're trying to manage excess inventory while still maximizing overall revenue for the product. They offer "limited time" instant factory rebates hoping potential buyers will pull the trigger out of fear that the price will go back up soon.






On July 1, 2014, Canon dropped the price to $1,000 and left it there until well into 2015, when they started offering additional "perpetual" instant factory rebates. Historically, at the time Canon tended to do this from about six to eight weeks before a replacement product was announced which preceded actual availability by another three to four weeks. Thus, a July 1 drop from (nominal) $1,500 to $1,000 should have indicated a mid-August to September 1 announcement with availability to coincide with the opening of Photokina in late September. Instead, they made a September 15 announcement and the camera didn't actually hit the market for another eight weeks, four and one half months after the "list" price for the 7D dropped from $1,499 to $999.


----------



## unfocused (May 23, 2020)

Michael Clark said:


> That excess inventory probably stretched back to about 2012 when sales of the 7D nosedived because a lot of folks were expecting the imminent release of a replacement. Even when Canon announced a major firmware update for the 7D in early 2012, many thought they were only trying to extend the life of the 7D by a few months until Canon could get the 7D Mark II to market a "few months behind schedule."
> 
> From January 2012 until mid-2014 the price from authorized dealers in the U.S. fluctuated quite a bit back and forth between about $1,300 and $1,500 with holiday prices dipping to $1,200 for a week or two each year. When a price fluctuates that much, it usually indicates they're trying to manage excess inventory while still maximizing overall revenue for the product. They offer "limited time" instant factory rebates hoping potential buyers will pull the trigger out of fear that the price will go back up soon.
> 
> ...


Still not buying it. Your original statement was "In the past it has been fairly obvious at times that they were holding off on releasing a newer version of a lens or body until existing inventories of the predecessor could be liquidated."

Just because Canon dropped the price of the 7D well into its life cycle (fairly common) and did not announce the 7DII until a month after some people _thought_ they should, hardly means they "delayed" the release of the 7DII to clear out inventory of the 7D. There are 1,000 other explanations, most of which are more logical and plausible.


----------



## Michael Clark (May 26, 2020)

unfocused said:


> Still not buying it. Your original statement was "In the past it has been fairly obvious at times that they were holding off on releasing a newer version of a lens or body until existing inventories of the predecessor could be liquidated."
> 
> Just because Canon dropped the price of the 7D well into its life cycle (fairly common) and did not announce the 7DII until a month after some people _thought_ they should, hardly means they "delayed" the release of the 7DII to clear out inventory of the 7D. There are 1,000 other explanations, most of which are more logical and plausible.



I don't expect you to buy it. Obviously Canon will never confirm nor deny such a theory. But there were more than a few industry watchers at the time (including one friend who was a district manager for a well known but now defunct chain of camera stores that was an authorized Canon retailer in the U.S. at the time) that felt that might be the case.


----------



## yungfat (Jun 29, 2020)

I hope there will be 5d mark V and I’m in. 1DX mark III is too heavy to carry around. 
I don’t mind if it’s the last DSLR, but I know mirrorless is not for me.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 29, 2020)

yungfat said:


> I hope there will be 5d mark V and I’m in. 1DX mark III is too heavy to carry around.
> I don’t mind if it’s the last DSLR, but I know mirrorless is not for me.


For me there are features I like about mirrorless and features I hate in it, DSLR’s give you the ability to choose the better feature when you want it which I prefer. Also I see no radical advantage to the much bigger and more expensive RF lenses over the much bigger and mature range of EF lenses.

if I can only have one camera body it will be a DSLR, if I can have two it will be one of each.


----------



## slclick (Jun 29, 2020)

privatebydesign said:


> For me there are features I like about mirrorless and features I hate in it, DSLR’s give you the ability to choose the better feature when you want it which I prefer. Also I see no radical advantage to the much bigger and more expensive RF lenses over the much bigger and mature range of EF lenses.
> 
> if I can only have one camera body it will be a DSLR, if I can have two it will be one of each.


I'm with you. One other thing I think will be expedited quicker than other past launches is the Early Adopter Plethora of Reviews and Letdowns with the R5. Seems to be an overwhelming expectation that this body will exhibit no flaws or shortcomings.
As we know, photographers, well, at least those who frequent Photography forums and would could possibly actually take photographs (jury is still out on that) love to whine and complain. The bandwidth needs will be gargantuan I am sure. With a DSLR, it's a bit more straightforward. Especially when you don't have it heavily weighted towards budding Coen Brothers and Coppolas. Oh the maths!

Time to buy more CR server farm space Craig!


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 30, 2020)

After seeing what will come (R5/6) after reading what it will cost, a 5D4 bcomes more and more attractive to me. 
IF a 5D5 comes - I'm not sure about that anymore - I suppose Canon will go steeply upwards with it's price compared to the MRSP of the 5D4.

Time will tell.


----------



## tron (Jun 30, 2020)

Altough I do have EOS R and 4 lenses the first camera I wish for is 5D5 and the second 5DsRII. I know the later will not happen so I sold my 5DsR and got a … new one! EOS R5 can wait. No rush!


----------



## brad-man (Jun 30, 2020)

tron said:


> Altough I do have EOS R and 4 lenses the first camera I wish for is 5D5 and the second 5DsRII. I know the later will not happen so I sold my 5DsR and got a … new one! EOS R5 can wait. No rush!


For less than $1400, why not? I have a 5DIV and an R, so I don't really "need" the R5. I would, however, like a high-rez R (R5sR?) with improved sensor, electronic shutter and a gazillion focus points.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 1, 2020)

Maximilian said:


> After seeing what will come (R5/6) after reading what it will cost, a 5D4 bcomes more and more attractive to me.
> IF a 5D5 comes - I'm not sure about that anymore - I suppose Canon will go steeply upwards with it's price compared to the MRSP of the 5D4.
> 
> Time will tell.


What did a 5D MK IV cost when it first came out? $3499 USD. Over time, as development costs are paiid off and people are less willing to pay full price, the price of virtually any product drops. You can save lots of $ by getting last years model car when a new one comes out, and the 5D MK IV is now ~4 years old. 

Some people think they should get the same discount as a 4 year old product, it is not going to happen. The new models go up in price every year on top of that.


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 1, 2020)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> ...
> Some people think they should get the same discount as a 4 year old product, it is not going to happen. The new models go up in price every year on top of that.


And that is why* I was refering to the MRSP* that is getting higher and higher and not to the street price.


Maximilian said:


> IF a 5D5 comes ... I suppose Canon will go steeply upwards with it's price compared to the MRSP of the 5D4 (_edit for a better understanding: ) at launch._


So I am not one of those "some people".
Of course you can put in inflation, and exchange rates, shrinking markets then I put in cost saving R&D, higher efficiency and productivity and so on.
And in the end we have a free enterprise and Canon sets the price as they think. And you and I can talk about MRSP and decide if we are willing to pay...


----------



## yungfat (Jul 3, 2020)

tron said:


> Altough I do have EOS R and 4 lenses the first camera I wish for is 5D5 and the second 5DsRII. I know the later will not happen so I sold my 5DsR and got a … new one! EOS R5 can wait. No rush!



Surprised that there really people sold the camera and bought the same model new, this make me curious how good the 5DSR is aside from high MP.

Cheers


----------



## tron (Jul 3, 2020)

yungfat said:


> Surprised that there really people sold the camera and bought the same model new, this make me curious how good the 5DSR is aside from high MP.
> 
> Cheers


Yes! Actually I bought first a second 5DsR and a few months later sold the 1st one to get a Nikon 500mm 5.6PF for less.
I do like it a lot. It is my goto excursion camera that can get a 100-400 a 400DOII or a 500II equally good.


----------



## Avenger 2.0 (Sep 2, 2020)

bitterbin said:


> We think it makes a lot of sense to see another iteration of the EOS 5D DSLR, along with a similarly specced EOS R Mark II.


Would love to see a last 5DV with proper 4k.
Doubt we will see a EOS R Mark II. Is there still a place between the RP (II) and R6? You cannot place it between the R6 and R5 since it has only one sd card slot and a stupid touch bar instead of a joystick.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 2, 2020)

Avenger 2.0 said:


> Would love to see a last 5DV with proper 4k.
> Doubt we will see a EOS R Mark II. Is there still a place between the RP (II) and R6? You cannot place it between the R6 and R5 since it has only one sd card slot and a stupid touch bar instead of a joystick.



Why would a hypothetical R2 retain the touch bar or a single card slot? But agreed that it wouldn’t really fit anywhere in the lineup.


----------



## kcfp (Sep 5, 2020)

bitterbin said:


> The EOS 5D Mark V apparently appeared on an internal roadmap, along with an EOS R Mark II, the source did not provide the timeline of the roadmap.
> 
> We think it makes a lot of sense to see another iteration of the EOS 5D DSLR, along with a similarly specced EOS R Mark II.
> 
> ...


I hope so with all the new EF glass still available and especially the specialty lenses like super telephotos and tilt shift lenses, I think there is still a lot of life left for a new high end DSLR from Canon. It will take some time for Canon to round out the RF glass line up.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 6, 2020)

bitterbin said:


> The EOS 5D Mark V apparently appeared on an internal roadmap
> ...
> the source did not provide the timeline of the roadmap.


Thanks for sharing that info. 

Questions are, 

how old that info is and
if that roadmap is already outdated.
I'd still love to see a 5D5 but it seems that Craig has other information than your source. 
And he decided to rate that information as [CR2] (_"good information from a known source_").


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 6, 2020)

unfocused said:


> I’m not surprised. I’ve never bought the DSLRs are dead hype.


Let me ask you: apart from (arguably) superior battery life and a very limited OVF advantage, what are other 5D5 qualities that may steer 5D4 owners clear from joining the R5 revolution?
EF lenses evidently work better on RF mount cameras. A genuine question.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 6, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> Let me ask you: apart from ... a *very limited OVF advantage*,
> ...


Genuine Questions:
Have you ever shot sports, BIF and/or dragonflies in flight?
Have you ever tried out a Canon EVF?

I did both, though not the EVF of the R5 as I have no access to one yet. I am eagerly waiting for that.
But with EVFs I know (from Oly, Sony, the R or the RP) I wouldn't call the difference in time lag and refresh rate "*very limited*".
I honestly call it "*essential*", especially if I would own my money with that pics.

That keeps me from joining and still hoping for a 5D5.
Maybe the EVF from the R5 is so very much better but that needs to be proven.
And then I would need the money to spend.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 6, 2020)

+++ Have you ever tried out a Canon EVF?. did both, *though not the EVF of the R5 *as I have no access to one yet. I am eagerly waiting for that.

A.M.: I agree with you. The R EVF sucks for a fast action / tracking type of shooting . R5 EVF is though improved to the point where viewfinder latency is no longer an issue. Yes, there is an overwhelming evidence exist that R5 EVF is well suited for a fast action shooting.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 6, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> R5 EVF is though improved to the point where *viewfinder latency is no longer an issue*. Yes, there is an overwhelming evidence exist that R5 EVF is well suited for a fast action shooting.


Thanks for that info.

I am hoping for something like that and that you are right, but please understand that* I want to try that out first* before I give my opinion on that.
Still there is nothing faster than light, as far as we know (apart from some strange effects in nuclear physics).

I see a lot of advantages in the R5, esp. the much more versatile and faster AF (yet to be seen, what an 5D5 could offer here).
So you see I am quite open minded but first of all the VF has to be fast enough.
And not too much battery consuming, but that's not so much my concern. As a hobbyist I can take my time for swapping batteries.


----------



## SecureGSM (Sep 6, 2020)

+++


Maximilian said:


> Thanks for that info.
> 
> I am hoping for something like that and that you are right, but please understand that* I want to try that out first* before I give my opinion on that.
> Still there is nothing faster than light, as far as we know (apart from some strange effects in nuclar physics).
> ...


++++ As a hobbyist I can take my time for swapping batteries.

A.M. exactly my point. One may argue that swapping batteries every couple of hours may be uncomfortable. sure. To what degree though.
it takes me 5 seconds only to swap batteries in my 5D4s. Hence, personally, I do not see this being an issue.The only issue that stops me from an immediate2 x 5D4 to 2x R5 transition is: R5 retail price in Australia 
5D5? I do not see this being a strong upgrade proposition for me anymore.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 6, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> +++
> 
> ++++ As a hobbyist I can take my time for swapping batteries.
> 
> ...


Right, and would 5D5 be less expensive if it came to fruition? Probably not.


----------



## Maximilian (Sep 6, 2020)

SecureGSM said:


> ...
> The only issue that stops me from an immediate2 x 5D4 to 2x R5 transition is: R5 retail price in Australia
> 5D5? I do not see this being a strong upgrade proposition for me anymore.


I have two reasons not to swap - apart from the open EVF question:

Retail price (and that thrice):
I as a hobbyist cannot justify any body beeing that expensive.
(so would be the 5D5, too, I suppose)
Availability:
Here in Germany nobody gives you a promise of delivery before mid of October, but that's change over time.
But this also means I won't get my hands on any R5 soon.



BeenThere said:


> Right, and would 5D5 be less expensive if it came to fruition? Probably not.


Correct. 
But depending on features it could be.


----------

