# Rumors of a Canon EOS R5c and EOS R5s [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 21, 2020)

> While we have had numerous mentions of a high-resolution EOS R camera coming down the pipeline, Canon Watch is reporting than Canon will also introduce a video focused EOS R camera, which will be different than the upcoming EOS C50 and EOS C70.
> I’m calling the cameras ‘EOS R Video’ and ‘EOS R high-resolution’.
> *A direct quote of specifications:*
> 
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## DBounce (Sep 21, 2020)

A video focused version would make sense. I guess would be the hybrid of choice for most shooters on the Canon system. I wonder if it will include a fan?


----------



## xps (Sep 21, 2020)

Hmmmm.... An high resolution body with IBIS and 12 FPS... You are welcome!!
80MP with an (double) IBIS - this will be usable - even handheld with moderate shutter speeds.
An higher DR and better low light capacity... 

5500 € for this monster body?

I wonder, how Canon will fix my/the heat problem with my/the R5. Maybe, an modification is possible. But I am in fear Canon will ignore this and say the newer bodies will get an heat update.


----------



## Stig Nygaard (Sep 21, 2020)

Combining high resolution with "speed" sounds impossible. It of course depends on how you interprets the term "speed". But already 12fps sounds unrealistic in my ears?
Somebody's wishful thinking?


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

And newly developed heat sinks! Someone is listening  (Although this comment comes from a stills only shooter to tell the truth!)


----------



## SteB1 (Sep 21, 2020)

The reason I am sceptical about this is the CanonWatch report contains the alternative designation of 3 instead of 5. Anyone familiar with rumours about Canon cameras for the last 12 years or so is familiar with the fabled 3 series of cameras that would fit between the 1D cameras and the 5D line. The thing is they never materialised. Maybe Canon was considering it, but when they bought out the 5Ds line, they still kept the 5. Which is what made me think the whole mythical 3 series was a figment of wishful thinking, and not based on anything Canon was ever really considering. This is what makes me sceptical about any mention of 3. Yes, Canon could slot in another line of camera, but that isn't what they actually did with the 5D line. What actually happened, is that Canon upped the specification of the 5D line, so they became tougher, gained AF systems close to the 1D line, rather than Canon creating a whole new line of cameras. The original 5D was prosumer type camera, and even the 5D mkII didn't have a top flight AF system. This is what the original 3 rumour was about, a full professional FF, none 1D camera. But the 5D mkIII and mkIV were that camera, not a 3.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

OK! Now where are my 5DMkV and 5DsR MkII ?


----------



## padam (Sep 21, 2020)

It does not make much sense to me considering the two crop sensor Cinema cameras that are coming and also the existence of the EOS R6 (and also 1DX III)
That's just what people would like think about when they look at the A7SIII, but Canon won't make a camera exactly like that.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> The reason I am sceptical about this is the CanonWatch report contains the alternative designation of 3 instead of 5. Anyone familiar with rumours about Canon cameras for the last 12 years or so is familiar with the fabled 3 series of cameras that would fit between the 1D cameras and the 5D line. The thing is they never materialised. Maybe Canon was considering it, but when they bought out the 5Ds line, they still kept the 5. Which is what made me think the whole mythical 3 series was a figment of wishful thinking, and not based on anything Canon was ever really considering. This is what makes me sceptical about any mention of 3. Yes, Canon could slot in another line of camera, but that isn't what they actually did with the 5D line. What actually happened, is that Canon upped the specification of the 5D line, so they became tougher, gained AF systems close to the 1D line, rather than Canon creating a whole new line of cameras. The original 5D was prosumer type camera, and even the 5D mkII didn't have a top flight AF system. This is what the original 3 rumour was about, a full professional FF, none 1D camera. But the 5D mkIII and mkIV were that camera, not a 3.


Maybe you are right and this is wishful thinking. After all, with so many cameras and lenses announced and starting to sell there are not many new rumors anyway and clicks have to continue....


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

However a supercharged R6 (with heatsinks) would make sense just to shut the Sony fanboys...


----------



## BroderLund (Sep 21, 2020)

> EOS R Video: has the same sensor technology as the EOS R5 but with half the resolution


45/2=22.5, essentially the same as the R6. So what would be the real difference between the R5V and R6? One can do 4K120 and the other 4K60? R5V has active cooling so it wont overheat? Kind of what we see S1H and C70?


----------



## docsmith (Sep 21, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Combining high resolution with "speed" sounds impossible. But it of course depends on how you interprets the term "speed". But already 12fps sounds unrealistic in my ears?
> Somebody's wishful thinking?


A couple of us did the math in another thread. There would likely be limitations, but it appears that the Digic X can handle 10 fps on a 90 MP sensor. So, some slight adjustments, 12 fps on an 80 MP sensor.

Current R5: 45 MB x 20 fps = 900 MB/sec
80 MB x 12 fps = 960 MB/sec.

These are essentially the same (and for the purists, the MB increases with ISO, so the Digic X can actually handle >1 TB/sec). 

Basically, Canon took a huge leap forward with the Digic X and we will likely reap the rewards moving foward.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 21, 2020)

BroderLund said:


> 45/2=22.5, essentially the same as the R6. So what would be the real difference between the R5V and R6? One can do 4K120 and the other 4K60? R5V has active cooling so it wont overheat? Kind of what we see S1H and C70?


The rumor actively suggests a 45/(2*2) =~ 12 MPix sensor.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 21, 2020)

To me, we are continuing to circle around the M6II/90D sensor scaled up to 82.5 MP. But, it also allows you to shoot FF at 82.5 MP, but the ability to shoot crop at 32 MP. So, for example, shoot landscapes at 82.5 MP but then push a button and shoot wildlife on crop and still have 32 MPs at 12 fps. That will interest a lot of people.


----------



## fingerstein (Sep 21, 2020)

R5H... R5 with heatsink


----------



## padam (Sep 21, 2020)

tron said:


> However a supercharged R6 (with heatsinks) would make sense just to shut the Sony fanboys...


It still wouldn't do 4k120p and it would eat into the 1DX III as well (which will be firmware updated alongside the R5) and it would cost as much as the R5 as well, which overall has a better base for video.
So it makes very little sense.


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 21, 2020)

Kit. said:


> The rumor actively suggests a 45/(2*2) =~ 12 MPix sensor.



It also mentions 2.8k oversampling, which is 20-ish MP  That's in crop mode, that makes even less sense.


----------



## amorse (Sep 21, 2020)

I don't know - this doesn't smell right to me. The R5 high resolution I can believe (I guess?) but the R5 video seems to make less sense to me. Wouldn't a half resolution R5 with R5 sensor tech just be an R6 with a heat sink? And maybe I'm missing something (very possible), but I'm not seeing why a 2.8k supersampling in super35 would be useful - is that just to get high quality 1080?


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

I find more attractive a 80 Mpixel instead of a 90Mpixel sensor. 80 has to be enough!


----------



## Rocksthaman (Sep 21, 2020)

Would buy fast


----------



## DBounce (Sep 21, 2020)

xps said:


> Hmmmm.... An high resolution body with IBIS and 12 FPS... You are welcome!!
> 80MP with an (double) IBIS - this will be usable - even handheld with moderate shutter speeds.
> An higher DR and better low light capacity...
> 
> ...


I think the ignore option is the one they will select. This concern is why I returned my R5.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 21, 2020)

docsmith said:


> A couple of us did the math in another thread. There would likely be limitations, but it appears that the Digic X can handle 10 fps on a 90 MP sensor. So, some slight adjustments, 12 fps on an 80 MP sensor.
> 
> Current R5: 45 MB x 20 fps = 900 MB/sec
> 80 MB x 12 fps = 960 MB/sec.
> ...


And digic X plus must be coming?


----------



## knight427 (Sep 21, 2020)

Sounds like the R6 is completely worthless now. But no worries, I'm willing to take that hunk of junk off your hands at 1/2 MSRP. Just let me know.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 21, 2020)

If Canon can standardize on a couple of body designs ( like car makers do), then maybe they can widen their Camera offerings with different sensors and electronics tweaks at little increase in production costs. Otherwise it is hard to see how they will make money by fractionating their offerings into so many niche pockets.


----------



## Joules (Sep 21, 2020)

CR1 sounds about right, if not too generous.

If super 35 means using a 26 mm wide section of the sensor, and this gives 2.8 thousand pixels along that edge, that puts the total horizontal resolution of the sensor at (36 mm / 26 mm) * 2.8 = 3.9 and the entire sensor comes out to be about 10 MP. That's less than half the R5 resolution, even if you talk about linear resolution. Either the wording here is bad or the rumor contradicts itself.

Also: Newly developed heatsinks? WTH? Either bad wording again, or simply BS. The heat has to be removed from the body's. A heat sink on its own won't do the trick. If this is bad wording for active cooling, fine. But why New ones? Any active cooling will be better than none, which is what the R6 and R5 have. So why call it new? The R6 and R5 didn't get 'new IBIS'. They got IBIS. If Canon introduces stills cameras with active cooling, it won't be new active cooling. It will be active cooling. Period.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 21, 2020)

Based on the R5 pre-orders these should begin shipping in 2025. Pre-order now!


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

docsmith said:


> A couple of us did the math in another thread. There would likely be limitations, but it appears that the Digic X can handle 10 fps on a 90 MP sensor. So, some slight adjustments, 12 fps on an 80 MP sensor.
> 
> Current R5: 45 MB x 20 fps = 900 MB/sec
> 80 MB x 12 fps = 960 MB/sec.
> ...


Except that this rate (45 x 20) is possible with 12 bit raw files!


----------



## knight427 (Sep 21, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> If Canon can standardize on a couple of body designs ( like car makers do), then maybe they can widen their Camera offerings with different sensors and electronics tweaks at little increase in production costs. Otherwise it is hard to see how they will make money by fractionating their offerings into so many niche pockets.



This is an interesting idea to consider. Another analogy would be laptops. Pick your form factor (traditional, 2-in-1, tablet) then select your specs (CPU, RAM, screen quality/resolution). The computing industry has mastered the art of squeezing profits out of incremental upgrades. As the camera industry approaches what appears to some physics based limitations on sensor technology and a shrinking market, this approach would make a lot of sense.


----------



## BroderLund (Sep 21, 2020)

Kit. said:


> The rumor actively suggests a 45/(2*2) =~ 12 MPix sensor.


In that case we are talking about a direct A7SIII competitor. Low light will be especially interesting to me personally.


----------



## lbeck (Sep 21, 2020)

This is exactly what Sony does with their A7 series, and there is no shame in Canon following that product lineup. The problem is high end video and high end photography require two different sets of focused technology inside the camera. So yeah, this makes perfect sense to have a video focused version and photo focused version.


----------



## Inspired (Sep 21, 2020)

So let me get this straight, half the resolution so we're looking at somewhere close to 24mp.
Same features as R5 but with heat sinks to help with cooling? 
Perfect hybrid for wedding images and video clips.


----------



## mpmark (Sep 21, 2020)

tron said:


> I find more attractive a 80 Mpixel instead of a 90Mpixel sensor. 80 has to be enough!



30 is plenty is you know what you're doing


----------



## docsmith (Sep 21, 2020)

tron said:


> Except that this rate (45 x 20) is possible with 12 bit raw files!


I have not seen anyone claim that files from 20 fps are significantly smaller than the files taken on the R5 at 12 fps. Matter of fact, most evidence that I've seen indicate that they are not, such as TDP looking at buffer capacity at 12 fps and 20 fps. It actually indicates that the file sizes are larger at 20 fps, which means the Digic X is processing more than I estimated above.

Just playing with that dataset, at 12 fps TDP had 151 files written to a UHS-I card before the buffer filled (12.6 sec) and 182 images written onto a UHS II card (15 sec) but only 110 files before the buffer filled at 20 fps (5.5 sec) to a UHS II card. Playing with the math, assuming that the UHS-I card wrote at 60 MB/sec and the UHS-II card wrote at 180 MB/sec (observed on EOS-R), and the file size of the 20 fps files actually need to be significantly larger than the file size at 12 fps.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2020)

2.8k as a direct sample from a ‘Super 35’ crop of the full sensor points to a 13.2 MP FF sensor.

13.2 MP puts 4,480 pixels on the long side, the R5 is 8,192 readable so the numbers are pretty close when you factor in the dark edge.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

mpmark said:


> 30 is plenty is you know what you're doing


Why 30? The 1 series have 20. 20 is plenty if you know what you are doing


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

tron said:


> Why 30? The 1 series have 20. 20 is plenty if you know what you are doing


And the birds like you and come close to you for a chat or a cup of coffee


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

docsmith said:


> I have not seen anyone claim that files from 20 fps are significantly smaller than the files taken on the R5 at 12 fps. Matter of fact, most evidence that I've seen indicate that they are not, such as TDP looking at buffer capacity at 12 fps and 20 fps. It actually indicates that the file sizes are larger at 20 fps, which means the Digic X is processing more than I estimated above.
> 
> Just playing with that dataset, at 12 fps TDP had 151 files written to a UHS-I card before the buffer filled (12.6 sec) and 182 images written onto a UHS II card (15 sec) but only 110 files before the buffer filled at 20 fps (5.5 sec) to a UHS II card. Playing with the math, assuming that the UHS-I card wrote at 60 MB/sec and the UHS-II card wrote at 180 MB/sec (observed on EOS-R), and the file size of the 20 fps files actually need to be significantly larger than the file size at 12 fps.


So it has to be a processing issue otherwise Canon would keep the 14bit raw files. Traditionally lowering the bits from 14 to 12 has been a Nikon trick up to now!


----------



## jeanluc (Sep 21, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Based on the R5 pre-orders these should begin shipping in 2025. Pre-order now!


Exactly. Let’s try making what we already have released in quantity first, THEN make more models...


----------



## SteveC (Sep 21, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> The reason I am sceptical about this is the CanonWatch report contains the alternative designation of 3 instead of 5. Anyone familiar with rumours about Canon cameras for the last 12 years or so is familiar with the fabled 3 series of cameras that would fit between the 1D cameras and the 5D line. The thing is they never materialised. Maybe Canon was considering it, but when they bought out the 5Ds line, they still kept the 5. Which is what made me think the whole mythical 3 series was a figment of wishful thinking, and not based on anything Canon was ever really considering. This is what makes me sceptical about any mention of 3. Yes, Canon could slot in another line of camera, but that isn't what they actually did with the 5D line. What actually happened, is that Canon upped the specification of the 5D line, so they became tougher, gained AF systems close to the 1D line, rather than Canon creating a whole new line of cameras. The original 5D was prosumer type camera, and even the 5D mkII didn't have a top flight AF system. This is what the original 3 rumour was about, a full professional FF, none 1D camera. But the 5D mkIII and mkIV were that camera, not a 3.



Speculation I've heard: The main reason they didn't use the number 3 is then there would have been a "3D" camera, which of course has another meaning.

And if you think Canon caught a metric tonne of flung feces for the heating issue, imagine what they'd have taken for a "3D" camera that still took flat pictures.

Not an issue with a potential "R3" name.


----------



## eat-sleep-code (Sep 21, 2020)

I am pretty sure the high resolution "R5s" camera is coming, that one has been rumored for a while and makes a lot of sense for studio shooting, landscapes, etc.

But, I don't see the purpose of a dumbed down video-focused "R5c" camera if the video resolution specs are lower? What, just to get 4K 120 for longer record times? Why are you recording slow motion for longer than 25 minutes? Nobody wants to watch your half-hour long documentary in slow motion. 

The C50 and C70 will fill the video needs of folks wanting an RF-mount video camera. 

I also don't see anything being labeled a 5-series without weather sealing. The only way to keep the heat down is to get the heat out. The only way to get the heat out is by venting (i.e. no weather sealing) or externally exposed heat sinks (maybe anodized red with big "do not touch" labels on them?). Internal heat sinks will not get the heat out of the body.


----------



## Joel C (Sep 21, 2020)

In full honesty, I purchased the R6 to handle all of the photography demands that my video making process requires. In that aspect it has done really, really well. I did not buy the R5 as it seemed to just not really be a capable video shooting camera, and if this rumor is at all true, it would make sense for me to get an R5 VIDEO version of the camera. Yet, here we are again having to look at the prospect of cost, and that is going to be an issue if they do release a video version, what is the cost going to be with the new Cine line coming out?


----------



## nchoh (Sep 21, 2020)

eat-sleep-code said:


> I also don't see anything being labeled a 5-series without weather sealing. The only way to keep the heat down is to get the heat out. The only way to get the heat out is by venting (i.e. no weather sealing) or externally exposed heat sinks (maybe anodized red with big "do not touch" labels on them?). Internal heat sinks will not get the heat out of the body.



Canon does have an patent on an adaptor that circulates air and yet keeps the body sealed. The use of that adaptor calls for a body that a heat pipe to move the heat to where the adaptor takes the heat. Perhaps, that is what is meant by heat sink in this rumor.


----------



## eat-sleep-code (Sep 21, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Canon does have an patent on an adaptor that circulates air and yet keeps the body sealed. The use of that adaptor calls for a body that a heat pipe to move the heat to where the adaptor takes the heat. Perhaps, that is what is meant by heat sink in this rumor.



But, if you extend that distance on the focal plane (by inserting an adapter between the back of the lens and the sensor), pretty sure you can't use an RF lens -- unless the adaptor is also introducing another glass element to change the focal point. What is that going to do to the image quality?

Also, I don't think that design can be sealed -- as soon as you have vents there will be risk of water / dust ingress. The last place I want dust ingress is anywhere near my lens and sensor. This shows air being sucked in from the bottom of the adapter and ejected out the top.




I am pretty sure that utility patent is to keep others from developing anything like that as a "solution" and don't think they plan on bringing anything like that to market. 

If they do, it would likely be for the EOS Ra -- where you likely are strapping the camera on the back of a telescope (not an RF lens) and where getting the sensor as cool as possible is important for reducing noise in the images.


----------



## Viggo (Sep 21, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Combining high resolution with "speed" sounds impossible. It of course depends on how you interprets the term "speed". But already 12fps sounds unrealistic in my ears?
> Somebody's wishful thinking?


45 mp at 20 fps in the R5 already achieved this though.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Sep 21, 2020)

tron said:


> Why 30? The 1 series have 20. 20 is plenty if you know what you are doing


1Ds II was 16 and actually 16 is more than enough if you really know what your are doing. 
hmm... Though the original 5D was 13 and come to think about it. Can you actually do something with 16 that you can't do with 13?
I say 13 is plenty.


----------



## gavinz (Sep 21, 2020)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Since Canon makes a video line, they certainly know how to keep sensor cool enough to shoot long videos. The real question is how they view their product line up and where the $$$ are. Users of course wants a camera that does everthing for free as usual....


----------



## Jim Corbett (Sep 21, 2020)

"R" for video makes perfect sense, because it's full frame(low light), and mostly because A7SIII exist. From a competitive point of view, Canon needs to demonstrates it's Digic X AF prowess for video. "Yes, but Sony have that low light beast" argument should be countered.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 21, 2020)

DBounce said:


> A video focused version would make sense. I guess would be the hybrid of choice for most shooters on the Canon system. I wonder if it will include a fan?


Good point - Canon's bitten the bullet and going after Sony to establish it self as No 1 FF Mirrorless + system along with Cinema line. Although wouldn't want Canon to spread itself too thin (by doing too many models) and potentially get into financial losses / difficulties - especially in a declining camera and video market.


----------



## The3o5FlyGuy (Sep 21, 2020)

Canon should have just done everything right the first time. Adding another camera to the R line to combat the overheating just makes you lose more faith with consumers. I don't want to have to buy a whole new camera just because Canon didn't get it right the first time


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Canon should have just done everything right the first time. Adding another camera to the R line to combat the overheating just makes you lose more faith with consumers. I don't want to have to buy a whole new camera just because Canon didn't get it right the first time


That is simply so naive it beggars belief, one camera cannot possibly be optimized for all users needs, some people need MP, some don't. Some people, very vocal ones, need good clean long form video with excellent high iso performance. You can't make a sensor optimized for both and in-between those extremes are all kinds of people who value things like price, size, weight etc etc over either MP or video, why should those purchasers be forced into choices not necessary?

Canon did get the R5 right, it is blowing away all expectations for every photographer who has used it, it breaks new ground for high quality video in the form factor too, but for those needing long form video it has technological limitations and compromises required of all cameras that size with that level of weatherproofing. But the R5 doesn't suit every user, neither should it.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 21, 2020)

The availability of Canon RF mount bodies when I upgrade my R in a few years will be fantastic.


----------



## sfericean (Sep 21, 2020)

Is there any possibility that this alleged R5 Video is just information on the next firmware? Seems like it would make more sense to give the R5 added capabilities rather than create a camera that out classes it in video. Please note: I have no evidence or peer reviewed clinical trials to back up my statement...all of it is crazy talk.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 21, 2020)

eat-sleep-code said:


> But, if you extend that distance on the focal plane (by inserting an adapter between the back of the lens and the sensor), pretty sure you can't use an RF lens -- unless the adaptor is also introducing another glass element to change the focal point. What is that going to do to the image quality?
> 
> Also, I don't think that design can be sealed -- as soon as you have vents there will be risk of water / dust ingress. The last place I want dust ingress is anywhere near my lens and sensor. This shows air being sucked in from the bottom of the adapter and ejected out the top.
> 
> ...


Yes, the adaptor will require the use of EF lenses. Other than that it would be a great design.

As I said, the adaptor keeps the body sealed. I see no reason to expect the adaptor to leak. Perhaps you can elaborate?

The adaptor getting dust in the air chamber can't be an issue either, can it? 

Furthermore, as the user has to attach the adaptor in order to use it, user safety issues are mitigated as a user has to take positive action in order to use the adaptor.


----------



## tron (Sep 21, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> 1Ds II was 16 and actually 16 is more than enough if you really know what your are doing.
> hmm... Though the original 5D was 13 and come to think about it. Can you actually do something with 16 that you can't do with 13?
> I say 13 is plenty.


I think the original 1Ds was 11. I say 11 is plenty


----------



## tpatana (Sep 21, 2020)

If I knew for sure R5s was coming in <7...9 months, I'd switch my R5 order to R6 and get R5s then later.


----------



## SilverBox (Sep 21, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> The reason I am sceptical about this is the CanonWatch report contains the alternative designation of 3 instead of 5. Anyone familiar with rumours about Canon cameras for the last 12 years or so is familiar with the fabled 3 series of cameras that would fit between the 1D cameras and the 5D line. The thing is they never materialised. Maybe Canon was considering it, but when they bought out the 5Ds line, they still kept the 5. Which is what made me think the whole mythical 3 series was a figment of wishful thinking, and not based on anything Canon was ever really considering. This is what makes me sceptical about any mention of 3. Yes, Canon could slot in another line of camera, but that isn't what they actually did with the 5D line. What actually happened, is that Canon upped the specification of the 5D line, so they became tougher, gained AF systems close to the 1D line, rather than Canon creating a whole new line of cameras. The original 5D was prosumer type camera, and even the 5D mkII didn't have a top flight AF system. This is what the original 3 rumour was about, a full professional FF, none 1D camera. But the 5D mkIII and mkIV were that camera, not a 3.


I have an Eos 3 I picked up used on a lark and I can say its AF performance rivals the current 1D bodies


----------



## iamjhil (Sep 21, 2020)

Lets hope it doesn't take another year to come out. I've been waiting


----------



## Kit. (Sep 21, 2020)

amorse said:


> I don't know - this doesn't smell right to me. The R5 high resolution I can believe (I guess?) but the R5 video seems to make less sense to me. Wouldn't a half resolution R5 with R5 sensor tech just be an R6 with a heat sink? And maybe I'm missing something (very possible), but I'm not seeing why a 2.8k supersampling in super35 would be useful - is that just to get high quality 1080?


I think it's for "fake" 4K like in ALEXA Mini.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 21, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> 1Ds II was 16 and actually 16 is more than enough if you really know what your are doing.
> hmm... Though the original 5D was 13 and come to think about it. Can you actually do something with 16 that you can't do with 13?
> I say 13 is plenty.


I shot with my 1D for years, it was 4.1MP. Joe McNally managed to convince National Geographic to embrace digital with big prints from a 4MP Nikon. But as always some things suit some users completely opposite things are needed by others.

What I am happy to say at this point in my life is that what is good enough for me is not necessarily good enough for somebody else and that doesn't mean their output is 'better' than mine. I sometimes go on outings with a camera club. It never ceases to amaze me that you can have 20 photographers in the same place at the same time and end up with more than 20 completely different interpretations of the location, and never once on reviewing them have I thought _'hmm that image needed more MP or a better lens'_, content is king, technique and equipment are distant cousins.


----------



## jam05 (Sep 21, 2020)

I wouldn't hold any credence to what Canon Watch is reporting. A heat sink doesn't do a darn thing without a fan or dissipation. Period. And Canon knows that. Most everyone else in electronics does also. So the crap about heat sink is pretty much BS. Without a vent, space, or fan, it would pretty much be useless. Besides there's already a thin heatsink inside the tightly sealed R5 body, discovered during a recent teardown. Very little it does without dissipation of fast rising internal temperatures. Reach inside your PC and disconnect the fan and see how much that heat sink will do on its own when you start processing any video. Smartphones have heat sinks, and gamers still have to use external peltier smarphone radiator coolers.


----------



## BobbyMillette (Sep 21, 2020)

This is what they should of done from the jump, a photo and video version of the r5 instead of an r5 and r6.


----------



## Bert63 (Sep 21, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Canon should have just done everything right the first time. Adding another camera to the R line to combat the overheating just makes you lose more faith with consumers. I don't want to have to buy a whole new camera just because Canon didn't get it right the first time



Those who live in the real world understand limitations and believe Canon did the R5 “right” the first time.

From what I’ve read the only people disappointed in the R5 are people who bought in to the hype (mostly driven by click whores on YouTube) that drove expectations beyond realistic capabilities.

Nobody forced anyone to buy the R5. If people bought it based on their own expectations prior to release and real world testing they have no one to blame except themselves.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 21, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> If Canon can standardize on a couple of body designs ( like car makers do), then maybe they can widen their Camera offerings with different sensors and electronics tweaks at little increase in production costs. Otherwise it is hard to see how they will make money by fractionating their offerings into so many niche pockets.


Canon is reusing bodies, image sensors, and image processors.
It also seems like they reuse a lot of the same software.
Canon is a huge company that makes a lot of unrelated products.
I am not sure that several camera product lines would be a big problem for them.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 21, 2020)

The3o5FlyGuy said:


> Canon should have just done everything right the first time. Adding another camera to the R line to combat the overheating just makes you lose more faith with consumers. I don't want to have to buy a whole new camera just because Canon didn't get it right the first time



Canon did not get the R5 right the first time how??? The R5 is firstly a stills camera and is also the first mirrorless stills camera that has 8K video. What other camera has that?

Canon is now, according to this rumor, putting out another camera that is more video focused. How does that make customers lose faith when that is how things are done? Have people lost faith in Sony or Panasonic when they put out different cameras for different purposes?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 21, 2020)

jam05 said:


> I wouldn't hold any credence to what Canon Watch is reporting. A heat sink doesn't do a darn thing without a fan or dissipation. Period. And Canon knows that. Most everyone else in electronics does also. So the crap about heat sink is pretty much BS. Without a vent, space, or fan, it would pretty much be useless. Besides there's already a thin heatsink inside the tightly sealed R5 body, discovered during a recent teardown. Very little it does without dissipation of fast rising internal temperatures. Reach inside your PC and disconnect the fan and see how much that heat sink will do on its own when you start processing any video. Smartphones have heat sinks, and gamers still have to use external peltier smarphone radiator coolers.


I looked at the design of the S1H and the heatsink appears to be in a vented chamber outside of the weather sealing.
It basically looks like the Tilta R5 cooling unit inside of a chamber.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 21, 2020)

Bert63 said:


> Those who live in the real world understand limitations and believe Canon did the R5 “right” the first time.
> 
> From what I’ve read the only people disappointed in the R5 are people who bought in to the hype (mostly driven by click whores on YouTube) that drove expectations beyond realistic capabilities.
> 
> Nobody forced anyone to buy the R5. If people bought it based on their own expectations prior to release and real world testing they have no one to blame except themselves.


I can forgive those people because the video in R5 is just useful enough to be frustrating.
There are no video modes in the R6 that can't be recorded externally without overheating.
Even then it is not so straight forward.
The fact that it turned into YouTube outrage against a conspiracy is another matter entirely.


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 21, 2020)

I think it's great that Canon will (hopefully) come out with a lower-res video R camera, as well as a higher-res stills/hybrid R camera. We're lucky that they are coming out with so many bodies. I've always thought that I'd like to have 2 bodies so that I could have my 2 main lenses on them for quick access. The higher res stills/hybrid body might be just what I want to go along with the R5. I also think it's great that many others can get the new video R camera which should avoid the heat issues and make them happy. Everybody wins!

Now, as always, there's always new RF lenses I wish they'd come out with, like a 17-70L or 24-200L or whatever everybody else wants, too.


----------



## nchoh (Sep 21, 2020)

jam05 said:


> I wouldn't hold any credence to what Canon Watch is reporting. A heat sink doesn't do a darn thing without a fan or dissipation. Period. And Canon knows that. Most everyone else in electronics does also. So the crap about heat sink is pretty much BS. Without a vent, space, or fan, it would pretty much be useless. Besides there's already *a thin heatsink* inside the tightly sealed R5 body, discovered during a recent teardown. Very little it does without dissipation of fast rising internal temperatures. Reach inside your PC and disconnect the fan and see how much that heat sink will do on its own when you start processing any video. Smartphones have heat sinks, and gamers still have to use external peltier smarphone radiator coolers.



Curious... this is a rumor of a new camera, so can we really say that they wouldn't add a fan somehow. It is possible, that they might just use the patented adaptor to evict the heat.

A thin heatsink... technically wrong. Thermodynamically a heat sink should have mass to "pull" in the heat. Then from there you push air over the heat sink to remove the heat from the heat sink. So when I saw the teardown video, I know that the video creators did not understand what they were seeing. Sadly, there was so much mis-information put out.


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 21, 2020)

jam05 said:


> I wouldn't hold any credence to what Canon Watch is reporting. A heat sink doesn't do a darn thing without a fan or dissipation. Period. And Canon knows that. Most everyone else in electronics does also. So the crap about heat sink is pretty much BS. Without a vent, space, or fan, it would pretty much be useless. Besides there's already a thin heatsink inside the tightly sealed R5 body, discovered during a recent teardown. Very little it does without dissipation of fast rising internal temperatures. Reach inside your PC and disconnect the fan and see how much that heat sink will do on its own when you start processing any video. Smartphones have heat sinks, and gamers still have to use external peltier smarphone radiator coolers.


 If they made a metal conductor that went from the hot parts inside to the outside of the body - physically extended through the shell as a continuous piece - with a heat sync on the exposed part, the natural convection of just normal air, or better yet wind if outside, would help. If you put an active fan on that or a peltier device, it would go even better. But you'd have an inherent water vulnerability. You could weather seal around it, but in the event of a failure there its literally a conduit for water right where you don't want it. It would not be as good as a fan inside blowing directly on hot parts but with a way for fresh air to enter the body space. 

-Brian


----------



## dwarven (Sep 21, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Combining high resolution with "speed" sounds impossible. It of course depends on how you interprets the term "speed". But already 12fps sounds unrealistic in my ears?
> Somebody's wishful thinking?



We know mechanical shutters can work that fast. The bottleneck is data throughput. An uncompressed RAW file out of that camera would probably be around 150MB, so the image processor would have to work at 1.8 GB/s to get the full 12 FPS. Certainly not impossible with modern day CPUs. But I doubt it would shoot uncompressed RAW that fast. It would probably have to be 12-bit or lower to get the maximum speed.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 21, 2020)

BobbyMillette said:


> This is what they should of done from the jump, a photo and video version of the r5 instead of an r5 and r6.


Actually, I don't see myself buying these rumored cameras if I can buy the R5.

YMMV.


----------



## Besisika (Sep 21, 2020)

tron said:


> OK! Now where are my 5DMkV and 5DsR MkII ?


I didn't realize they belong to you, I thought they belong to the past.
No provocation intended, just curiosity. What is so valuable that you need to own a newly designed DSLR in 2020-2025? There must be some special reason, I just don't know.


----------



## storioni (Sep 21, 2020)

Besisika said:


> I didn't realize they belong to you, I thought they belong to the past.
> No provocation intended, just curiosity. What is so valuable that you need to own a newly designed DSLR in 2020-2025? There must be some special reason, I just don't know.


An OVF maybe, for the nostalgic amongst us. And great battery life....


----------



## Ph0t0 (Sep 21, 2020)

tron said:


> I think the original 1Ds was 11. I say 11 is plenty


After reviewing some older photos I found some nice shots made with Canon 10D. So I take back what I wrote in my earlier post and hereby declare: 6MP is plenty enough if you know what you are doing!


----------



## tron (Sep 22, 2020)

storioni said:


> *An OVF *maybe, for the nostalgic amongst us. *And great battery life*....


+1000 
And :

not only for the nostalgic but for bird shooters as well...
no adaptors for the EF lenses...


----------



## goldenhusky (Sep 22, 2020)

This is the first time ever I see a CW rumor in CR without calling it BS  but I think the video oriented R5 or R3 or whatever is just BS. I will bet my money on Cannot ain't making a video oriented R5 type mirror less camera. If Canon really wanted to deliver such a camera they would have made the R5 and R6 without overheating issues


----------



## tron (Sep 22, 2020)

But, but EOS R5 MkII would certainly be more video oriented....


----------



## snappy604 (Sep 22, 2020)

I just hope the added models don't create so much fragmentation they lose focus on fixing/augmenting things via firmware.


----------



## David - Sydney (Sep 22, 2020)

snappy604 said:


> I just hope the added models don't create so much fragmentation they lose focus on fixing/augmenting things via firmware.


I can't understand why the Rate and Lock buttons can't be reassigned on the R5. I would not use them for their default purpose but I need to change between VF and LCD underwater and there aren't many options to do that as the face sensor is permanently blocked by the housing :-(


----------



## canonnews (Sep 22, 2020)

nchoh said:


> Curious... this is a rumor of a new camera, so can we really say that they wouldn't add a fan somehow. It is possible, that they might just use the patented adaptor to evict the heat.
> 
> A thin heatsink... technically wrong. Thermodynamically a heat sink should have mass to "pull" in the heat. Then from there you push air over the heat sink to remove the heat from the heat sink. So when I saw the teardown video, I know that the video creators did not understand what they were seeing. Sadly, there was so much mis-information put out.


They could add a fan yes, but then the entire body would change - not just a heatsink.

so if they go a vented approach which would have most likely been indicated versus saying a "better heatsink"

even in the worse translated japanese, there is just too much fundamentally wrong with that rumor.


----------



## MrToes (Sep 22, 2020)

This High Res camera is my waiting for camera.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 22, 2020)

It could be heat sink that's better connected to the outer shell, thus improving the dissipation from the body.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 22, 2020)

tpatana said:


> It could be heat sink that's better connected to the outer shell, thus improving the dissipation from the body.


except then it burns you.

not an option really.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 22, 2020)

MrToes said:


> This High Res camera is my waiting for camera.


YES!
me too actually. I'd prefer over 100 mp .. but I'll suffer with 80


----------



## tpatana (Sep 22, 2020)

canonnews said:


> except then it burns you.
> 
> not an option really.



Naturally depends on how hot it gets. I recall consumer limit for metal surface was 45C, and was plastic 55C? Of course it'd be uncomfortable to use already way beyond those, but still I think that might be one option how they improve the heat management while still keeping the body sealed.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 22, 2020)

tpatana said:


> Naturally depends on how hot it gets. I recall consumer limit for metal surface was 45C, and was plastic 55C? Of course it'd be uncomfortable to use already way beyond those, but still I think that might be one option how they improve the heat management while still keeping the body sealed.


uncomfortable? you get what is called low temperature burns. anything over around 58c will cause serious permanent harm. over around 48c it will cause pain. that's not alot of wiggle room when the internals of the camera go above 60c. the only way of doing this is with active cooling where the heat is forcably removed from the internal, and also at the same time, the camera body itself.

then again, this "c" camera whatever the specs may be won't be trying to do 4K oversampled from 8k either.


----------



## PerKr (Sep 22, 2020)

SteB1 said:


> The reason I am sceptical about this is the CanonWatch report contains the alternative designation of 3 instead of 5. Anyone familiar with rumours about Canon cameras for the last 12 years or so is familiar with the fabled 3 series of cameras that would fit between the 1D cameras and the 5D line.



Actually, a 3 series made sense back when the 5D was originally released as the 5D back then was not the high quality camera it became later, being in many ways closer to the later 6D. Historically, the EOS 3 replaced the EOS 5 and sat in exactly the spot, relative to the 1-series, that the current iteration of the 5D sits in.

Putting a 3-series inbetween the 5 and 1 stopped making sense once the 5D got similar AF as the 1-series and the 6-series was introduced (which also pushed the 5D into the higher price bracket where there was previously room for a 3-series). Also, for naming reasons there could never be an "EOS 3D" as that would just be too ridiculous unless it came with 3D capabilities.

Of course, there might still be room for a 3-series. But it's hard to see what might fit in when we do not know what the R1 will bring. Besides, with the price of the R5 as it is and the R1 probably coming in around where the 1D sits...


----------



## landon (Sep 22, 2020)

The R5 will get firmware update soon (Clog, lower bit rates, HD120), will be GOOD for hybrid. 
The R1? will be GREAT for hybrid, probably be Canon's SH1. 
The high MP is coming/announce early next year or so.


----------



## Kane Clements (Sep 22, 2020)

Bit of a question here. Has Canon decided that video is where the money, for them, is.

I ask because it strikes me that people who are wholly or largely stills shooters probably‘ I guess, don‘t change or upgrade their kit as often as video people who still seem to be chasing the road of innovation to some ‘holy grail’ camera.

I’f I’m right (and I make no wild claims here) then there will come a point at which stills becomes a bit of a backwater in the product line.

I know the R6 and R5 are very good stills cameras marketed for video. Perhaps the marketing is a message of intent. Most of the noise and action from Canon and on the web seems to be about video. Maybe that is how they see the way forward.


----------



## docsmith (Sep 22, 2020)

Kane Clements said:


> Bit of a question here. Has Canon decided that video is where the money, for them, is.
> 
> I ask because it strikes me that people who are wholly or largely stills shooters probably‘ I guess, don‘t change or upgrade their kit as often as video people who still seem to be chasing the road of innovation to some ‘holy grail’ camera.
> 
> ...


I would guess there is a bit of yes here, but mostly no. From Canon's perspective, when they launched the cinema lineup, it was "Market Adjacent" to their core market. In other words, using a few tweaks, it was a whole new market they could play and grow in whereas they were top dog in the stills market. So, stills photography is likely considered their "core" business, but they will always be looking for adjacent markets that they can grow.

A good company does not neglect their core market, but I have seen many hype the newer markets a bit.

As for the marketing of the R5/R6. I think this is a matter of people hearing what they wanted and Canon in a bit of a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario. Starting with Canon, where they supposed to not mention 8K? I guess everyone expected them to say 8K but have a pharmaceutical like voice over in the commercials talking about heat? Not typically how marketing works. As for hearing what you want, the R5 is not part of the cinema lineup. It is part of the stills lineup. Sure they talked about the video features of a stills camera, but even during the hype, many video shooters seemed to thing it was "too good to be true" and guess what? It isn't a cinema lineup camera. From at least this still shooters perspective, I shoot 1080 and occasionally 4K. So, I heard the 8K go by, but mostly focused on the stills photography specs like the 12 fps, potential buffer size, AF speed, and the benefits of "Eye-AF" as those are about the only places I feel limited by my 5DIV (a great camera). The R5 has actually exceeded my expectations, especially in the reported AF speed, animal Eye-AF, and buffer size. 

Also, on the video side....check out this comparison:





As is all too common, Canon releases something....many people jump on it....and eventually many people conclude it is actually very usable if not a great product.


----------



## Phil (Sep 22, 2020)

Joel C said:


> In full honesty, I purchased the R6 to handle all of the photography demands that my video making process requires. In that aspect it has done really, really well. I did not buy the R5 as it seemed to just not really be a capable video shooting camera, and if this rumor is at all true, it would make sense for me to get an R5 VIDEO version of the camera. Yet, here we are again having to look at the prospect of cost, and that is going to be an issue if they do release a video version, what is the cost going to be with the new Cine line coming out?



Love your Profile pic, did you draw/digitally paint that yourself? If so awesome skills bud!


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 22, 2020)

dwarven said:


> We know mechanical shutters can work that fast. The bottleneck is data throughput. An uncompressed RAW file out of that camera would probably be around 150MB, so the image processor would have to work at 1.8 GB/s to get the full 12 FPS. Certainly not impossible with modern day CPUs. But I doubt it would shoot uncompressed RAW that fast. It would probably have to be 12-bit or lower to get the maximum speed.


But wouldn't compressing a raw file or otherwise down grading it add to the processor intensity? The data flows from each pixel, the processor has to eliminate some of that data and make the file, then write to card. I would have assumed an uncompressed file would be the least processor intensive, and the ONLY way to get fast. 

But maybe the limit isn't in the crunching of the data, but instead in the writing to the card? In that case a smaller file would be helpful, assuming the processor can stay far enough ahead to keep up. 

-Brian


----------



## Anthny (Sep 22, 2020)

canonnews said:


> YES!
> me too actually. I'd prefer over 100 mp .. but I'll suffer with 80


I'm also waiting for the high res version


----------



## bbasiaga (Sep 22, 2020)

Ph0t0 said:


> After reviewing some older photos I found some nice shots made with Canon 10D. So I take back what I wrote in my earlier post and hereby declare: 6MP is plenty enough if you know what you are doing!



I have a 13"x9" photo from the top of Vernal Falls in Yosemite Valley, California, USA that was taken with a digital Rebel. It looks great even standing right next to it. Also 6MP. Definitely enough.

The other interesting thing about this photo is that it has been proven by 'professionals' here on these very forums not to exist! You see, there simply aren't enough megapixels in that image for it to have been printed that size. Its really the same reason the R6 is DOA - 'real' work just requires more megapixels. I walk by this photo every day wondering why I can still see it. I even tried to put a sign in my yard and charge people $1 to see something that isn't real, but it never caught on. :shrug:


----------



## usern4cr (Sep 22, 2020)

docsmith said:


> I would guess there is a bit of yes here, but mostly no. From Canon's perspective, when they launched the cinema lineup, it was "Market Adjacent" to their core market. In other words, using a few tweaks, it was a whole new market they could play and grow in whereas they were top dog in the stills market. So, stills photography is likely considered their "core" business, but they will always be looking for adjacent markets that they can grow.
> 
> A good company does not neglect their core market, but I have seen many hype the newer markets a bit.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the video post, docsmith. I think that it shows that an R5 with 4K all I or IPB with moderate sharpening in post is all you really need for good video footage without heat issues, while keeping the option of double speed video to allow for slow motion later in post. So for all of you with the R5, you can enjoy great video if you want and (of course) enjoy great stills. And that, my friends, is really what a true hybrid camera is all about!


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 22, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> ...Otherwise it is hard to see how they will make money by fractionating their offerings into so many niche pockets.



Allow me to introduce you to a company called Fujifilm


----------



## highdesertmesa (Sep 22, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Combining high resolution with "speed" sounds impossible. It of course depends on how you interprets the term "speed". But already 12fps sounds unrealistic in my ears?
> Somebody's wishful thinking?



Could be 8 fps and drop to a lower bit depth for 12. But we really don’t know what the X processor can do without the design limitations of the R5, which is what all the guesstimating is being based on.


----------



## dwarven (Sep 22, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> But wouldn't compressing a raw file or otherwise down grading it add to the processor intensity? The data flows from each pixel, the processor has to eliminate some of that data and make the file, then write to card. I would have assumed an uncompressed file would be the least processor intensive, and the ONLY way to get fast.
> 
> But maybe the limit isn't in the crunching of the data, but instead in the writing to the card? In that case a smaller file would be helpful, assuming the processor can stay far enough ahead to keep up.
> 
> -Brian



No, uncompressed RAW files are the most data intensive still image files a camera can produce.


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 22, 2020)

dwarven said:


> No, uncompressed RAW files are the most data intensive still image files a camera can produce.


Lossless compressesd raw would be more processor intensive both in camera and post processing in a computer. It requires extra steps to compress and decompress.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2020)

bbasiaga said:


> If they made a metal conductor that went from the hot parts inside to the outside of the body - physically extended through the shell as a continuous piece - with a heat sync on the exposed part, the natural convection of just normal air, or better yet wind if outside, would help. If you put an active fan on that or a peltier device, it would go even better. But you'd have an inherent water vulnerability. You could weather seal around it, but in the event of a failure there its literally a conduit for water right where you don't want it. It would not be as good as a fan inside blowing directly on hot parts but with a way for fresh air to enter the body space.
> 
> -Brian


You pretty much described the S1H.
I am not entirely sure how the heatsink in Sigma FP works since I am not aware that it has a fan.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2020)

PerKr said:


> Actually, a 3 series made sense back when the 5D was originally released as the 5D back then was not the high quality camera it became later, being in many ways closer to the later 6D. Historically, the EOS 3 replaced the EOS 5 and sat in exactly the spot, relative to the 1-series, that the current iteration of the 5D sits in.
> 
> Putting a 3-series inbetween the 5 and 1 stopped making sense once the 5D got similar AF as the 1-series and the 6-series was introduced (which also pushed the 5D into the higher price bracket where there was previously room for a 3-series). Also, for naming reasons there could never be an "EOS 3D" as that would just be too ridiculous unless it came with 3D capabilities.
> 
> Of course, there might still be room for a 3-series. But it's hard to see what might fit in when we do not know what the R1 will bring. Besides, with the price of the R5 as it is and the R1 probably coming in around where the 1D sits...


Canon's S1H is the 1DX.
Speed is the top priority, so I would not expect much over 20MP and 5K RAW for R1.
That is also why I would expect a video-focused R5 to shoot 8K RAW video.


----------



## dwarven (Sep 22, 2020)

BeenThere said:


> Lossless compressesd raw would be more processor intensive both in camera and post processing in a computer. It requires extra steps to compress and decompress.



No, the exact opposite is true. In modern cameras with modern CPUs, compressing image files results in faster read/write times and longer continuous shooting time. Otherwise, there'd be no reason at all to use compression and you'd just shoot uncompressed RAW all day. Maybe when DSLRs first came out it was better to not use compression and just shoot JPGs, but that's no longer the case. And any time lost needed to decompress the files on your computer is pretty much negligible with modern day CPUs and SSDs.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 22, 2020)

dwarven said:


> No, the exact opposite is true. In modern cameras with modern CPUs, compressing image files results in faster read/write times and longer continuous shooting time. Otherwise, there'd be no reason at all to use compression and you'd just shoot uncompressed RAW all day. Maybe when DSLRs first came out it was better to not use compression and just shoot JPGs, but that's no longer the case.


Faster read and write is less I/O intensive but it is more processor intensive.
The processor is encrypting and decrypting the files making it easier for the I/O.


----------



## Fischer (Sep 22, 2020)

Stig Nygaard said:


> Combining high resolution with "speed" sounds impossible. It of course depends on how you interprets the term "speed". But already 12fps sounds unrealistic in my ears?
> Somebody's wishful thinking?


Cache can make it do 12 fps for maybe a 24 shot burst. Should be more than enough for most people. Sounds to me like the 5RS is the camera to rule them all (of course have to see this happen first).


----------



## Peter Bergh (Sep 23, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> ... The processor is encrypting and decrypting the files making it easier for the I/O.



I assume you mean compressing and decompressing. There appears to be little need for encryption in a camera.


----------



## Antono Refa (Sep 23, 2020)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Faster read and write is less I/O intensive but it is more processor intensive.
> The processor is encrypting and decrypting the files making it easier for the I/O.



The speed difference between CPU and I/O is such, compression saves more time on I/O than spent in decompression by CPU. As decompression is done only when opening the raw file with image processing software*, decompression is infrequent. Then it saves on storage cost, time to upload to cloud for backup, etc. Bottom line, I think lossless compression is a benefit.

* Thumbnails displayed in shell are not generated from the raw data. The camera saves a small image for that purpose within the raw image.


----------



## tron (Sep 23, 2020)

padam said:


> It still wouldn't do 4k120p and it would eat into the 1DX III as well (which will be firmware updated alongside the R5) and it would cost as much as the R5 as well, which overall has a better base for video.
> So it makes very little sense.


To tell the truth I forgot the smile icon at the end. I believe that we will have to wait the next generation chips in a few years for the temperature issue to get solved (actually not solved but moved to higher video rates so Canon will always be - what else? - *******  )


----------



## scyrene (Sep 23, 2020)

xps said:


> 80MP with an (double) IBIS - this will be usable - even handheld with moderate shutter speeds.



What is "double IBIS"?


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 23, 2020)

scyrene said:


> What is "double IBIS"?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 23, 2020)

koenkooi said:


>



Very good (I inserted a clapping emoji but it won't display)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Sep 24, 2020)

Peter Bergh said:


> I assume you mean compressing and decompressing. There appears to be little need for encryption in a camera.


Yes, thanks for pointing out my mistake.


----------

