# The Canon EOS R5 Mark II coming in Q2, 2023? [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 25, 2022)

During the Canon EOS R6 Mark II rumor cycle, we did get a fair bit of Canon EOS R5 Mark II talk in our inboxes. This is a fairly commong occurence during product launch cycles and we dismiss most of it. This time, we’re not quite as quick to dismiss the information sent to us

See full article...


----------



## Benjamin_L (Nov 25, 2022)

Come on Canon. At least give us R5 users who are just too poor to afford the new Canon lifestyle and are unable to upgrade every two years some more firmware updates...


----------



## davidcl0nel (Nov 25, 2022)

Why 2 USB-C ports...?

The high-res-shot function I want for my R5 too...


----------



## Benjamin_L (Nov 25, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Why 2 USB-C ports...?
> 
> The high-res-shot function I want for my R5 too...


As it's most likely an IBIS trick it theoretically should work on the R5 as well but Canon for sure will say it needs to have dual digic x bla bla


----------



## Kit. (Nov 25, 2022)

Sounds like someone's wish list, not a real camera.

Or even a joke. 4K 120p with oversampling from 61 Mpix sensor?


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 25, 2022)

9,44 M-dot EVF sounds almost too good!
Give it an eye-control AF, and it will be the perfect camera for me.
Or is it just a wet dream???


----------



## WilliamJ (Nov 25, 2022)

Only other thing I’d be looking for (which I hope is a given, given the latest from R7 and R6 II) is no 30m record limit and I think it’ll be the perfect camera! 

Interesting about dual CFExpress - for my R5 I bought a CFExpress card but no reader, so I essentially use my SD slot as my ‘main card’ which comes out of the camera and into my card reader for file transfer, and have never taken the CFExpress out of the camera. Guess I’ll need to buy a CFExpress reader if I’m to upgrade!


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 25, 2022)

Finally a camera with two fast memory cards. I never understood the appeal of SD cards. The argument is that you can get SD cards everywhere, but I think people, who pay that much money on a camera, will have enough memory cards anyway.

Did pixel shift really work well for any camera unless you use attach a concrete block to your camera to reduce the vibration?

BSI sensor would be a huge improvement. For still subjects that is even more important than a stacked sensor.

Will 1080p recording also be oversampled? 

Some of those specs seem like wishes instead of rumors. Will Canon really give us a full size HDMI port that does not break after a few hundred plugs and unplugs? That will cost a lot of jobs in Canon repair facilities.


----------



## ericblenman (Nov 25, 2022)

My first two thoughts were the buffer with 2 Type B cards has to be a lot higher, which will be great for wildlife. And those specs sound like I’ll get about 200 shots before I have to switch batteries! Unless there is an all new battery of course.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 25, 2022)

To me this seems to be more of a wish list. Given the minor upgrades on the R6 Mk2 vs. the R6, I am a bit skeptical if the R5 Mk2 would have so many significantly upgrades vs. the R5.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 25, 2022)

It's wild to see the exact same comments about this rumor when compared to the original EOS R5 rumor.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 25, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> 9,44 M-dot EVF sounds almost too good!


I have never once wished the EVF was higher resolution.
I do get that it would be helpful for some applications.


----------



## bergstrom (Nov 25, 2022)

Hurry the F up with the R9 for us poor people


----------



## wockawocka (Nov 25, 2022)

Pixel binning - why the hell isn't there a mention of pixel binning so we aren't forced to shoot full 60mp. Craw doesn't count.


----------



## photographer (Nov 25, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Why 2 USB-C ports...?
> 
> The high-res-shot function I want for my R5 too...


external monitor + external hard drive??


----------



## fox40phil (Nov 25, 2022)

photographer said:


> external monitor + external hard drive??


Or charging + monitor/hdd?!

9MP EVF sounds good. The same Sony has for years now.

Would be nice to have a blackout free shutter and no rolling shutter at all!


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 25, 2022)

Canon has shown time and time again that they can outdo the competition without a BSI sensor.
If this was not a CR2 then I might be prone to ignore the entire rumor.


----------



## Punio (Nov 25, 2022)

Oh man, I just had the R5 with a tasty Black Friday deal in the Canon store cart just now. Maybe I'll just stick with the R6 a little longer.... hmm


----------



## Kit. (Nov 25, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's wild to see the exact same comments about this rumor when compared to the original EOS R5 rumor.


So, was "the original R5 rumor" also talking about dual CFe slots, oversampled slow-motion capture, and standard HDMI?

What would be your price expectation for such a camera with a 61 Mpixel sensor? Isn't it actually closer to R1?


----------



## Yoms (Nov 25, 2022)

GPS

How likely is it so see this camera coming with a built-in GPS? I'm okay with buying an extra battery if need be.

On a more personal level, I'd very much like to see the overall size going up. Coming from a 5D and having bigger hands, the R5 camera is too small.


----------



## NKD (Nov 25, 2022)

Legit ordered a new body for fun right before this post. The R7 for it's 15 mechanical flappy bit per second to keep my mind off the R5. This sounds like an ideal upgrade to the tripod megapixel 5dsR dinosaurs I have. Sounds too good to be true..my intention was was the R7 for sports & then later the FF mirrorless upgrade. Thought it would of been the R5s or R1. 60mp is more than enough if it's like the R3's contrast characteristics and sticky autofocus


----------



## RexxReviews (Nov 25, 2022)

Punio said:


> Oh man, I just had the R5 with a tasty Black Friday deal in the Canon store cart just now. Maybe I'll just stick with the R6 a little longer.... hmm


its not like you will get the R5II ANY time soon. If its not even announced until sometime in 2023 you won't get this thing in your hands until 2024 due to stock issues. The R6II was put on the stock issue list before it was ever officially released.


----------



## JustUs7 (Nov 25, 2022)

Looks more like a mythical R1 spec list than R5 II. Especially with the dual processors.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 25, 2022)

JustUs7 said:


> Looks more like a mythical R1 spec list than R5 II. Especially with the dual processors.


Might be, might also be a mix of both. 

But looking at the competition, it might also be, that Canon has to go one better.
Time will tell.


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> During the Canon EOS R6 Mark II rumor cycle, we did get a fair bit of Canon EOS R5 Mark II talk in our inboxes. This is a fairly commong occurence during product launch cycles and we dismiss most of it. This time, we’re not quite as quick to dismiss the information sent to us
> 
> See full article...



*This is just me*, but...

I'm happy with 45MP and don't want or need larger file sizes or more MP *unless* the camera also has an option to produce uncropped, uncompressed pseudo-RAW images.

I don't want or need 30fps. More important to me is having slow/medium/fast burst options with electronic shutter, and ability to bracket exposures with electronic shutter.

Pixel-shift isn't much use to me unless the whole sequence can be carried out quickly enough to permit hand-held shots and shots with a small degree of subject movement.

Video doesn't interest me, I wish they'd just produce an additional video-orientated model, and put a tilting-flippy screen (Panasonic-style) on the stills-orientated version.

9.44 EVF is very welcome as more resolution makes it easier to visually judge sharpness and depth of field. I don't care if the res drops during bursts. I sure as hell hope they've reduced the EVF lag.

Not sure about dual CFE. I currently have 4 CFE cards and shoot backups to the second (SD) card on my R5. With 2 CFE slots it would mean I'd need another 4 CFE cards, and they ain't cheap.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 25, 2022)

Wont be too surprised about that date for R5 II, given its new 61MP sensor this would kill high MP S model hopes.


----------



## Chaitanya (Nov 25, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Finally a camera with two fast memory cards. I never understood the appeal of SD cards. The argument is that you can get SD cards everywhere, but I think people, who pay that much money on a camera, will have enough memory cards anyway.
> 
> Did pixel shift really work well for any camera unless you use attach a concrete block to your camera to reduce the vibration?
> 
> ...



CFe has surpassed SD in terms of capacity and price and its quite sensible at this point to get rid of SD slot on this camera. This also raises questions about castrations on R6 II(no CFe slot, non BSI sensor and micro Hdmi port) and R7.


----------



## Anthny (Nov 25, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Wont be too surprised about that date for R5 II, given its new 61MP sensor this would kill high MP S model hopes.


I have often thought that combining a R5s with an R5 Mark 2 would made a lot of sense. I do hope the mark 2 electronic shutter does use 14-bit color resolution rather than reduce it to 12-bit.


----------



## amorse (Nov 25, 2022)

I was waiting for an R5s, but if this comes out first then I'd probably pull the trigger. 61mpx is probably enough for my needs!


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Nov 25, 2022)

Is the digital teleconverter basically crop mode but at other ratios other than 1.6x?

2x mode is 61mp ÷ 2 = 31.5?
4x mode is 61mp ÷ 4 = 15.25?
8x mode is 61mp ÷8 = 7.625?


----------



## Bonich (Nov 25, 2022)

WilliamJ said:


> Only other thing I’d be looking for (which I hope is a given, given the latest from R7 and R6 II) is no 30m record limit and I think it’ll be the perfect camera!
> 
> Interesting about dual CFExpress - for my R5 I bought a CFExpress card but no reader, so I essentially use my SD slot as my ‘main card’ which comes out of the camera and into my card reader for file transfer, and have never taken the CFExpress out of the camera. Guess I’ll need to buy a CFExpress reader if I’m to upgrade!


The R5 II will shoot so fast, you will never need more than 30m to do the job ;-)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2022)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Is the digital teleconverter basically crop mode but at other ratios other than 1.6x?
> 
> 2x mode is 61mp ÷ 2 = 31.5?
> 4x mode is 61mp ÷ 4 = 15.25?
> 8x mode is 61mp ÷8 = 7.625?


Cropped and upscaled in-camera to the native sensor resolution, jpg output only.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 25, 2022)

Dual CFe I believe. Its there on performance & price, and SD is dying.

As to resolution and dual DIGICs, I think this will put the R5mkII in the same class as, maybe even higher than, the R1. Furthermore, dual DIGICs means higher price, possibly supply problems, larger PCB, more heat, etc which don't make sense to me for this class of camera.

Regarding digital zoom, sounds reasonable. Most time I could do with 15MP, so why not digitally crop and get faster fps with lower energy consumption?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 25, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> Or charging + monitor/hdd?!
> 
> 9MP EVF sounds good. The same Sony has for years now.
> 
> Would be nice to have a blackout free shutter and no rolling shutter at all!


9 million dots is 3MP, they count the RGB subpixels, not the real pixels like you would on any other display. So it’s an 2100x1400-ish screen.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 25, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's wild to see the exact same comments about this rumor when compared to the original EOS R5 rumor.


A very good point. Do not get me wrong I would be thrilled to see these specs in a R5 camera or even an R1 camera. I am curious on how Canon will fit two Digic X processors in a body the size of an R5. Maybe their patents on active cooling will play a part? I think the next two years will be quite interesting in terms of both RF lenses and RF bodies. 

Ideally, for me would be a camera similar to the R3, but with a high-res mode that also shoots pixel binning lower R modes for low-light situations.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 25, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> I have never once wished the EVF was higher resolution.
> I do get that it would be helpful for some applications.


I`m currently using an EOS R, but disliking its EVF.
So, I started checking "better" EVFs, like the R5's or Leica's SL2 EVFs. Wasn't fully convinced since they still looked artificial, compared to an OVF. But lots better than the R's.
That's why I'm convinced that the R 5II EVF will even be better, hoping that higher resolution could stand for more color nuances. The R 5II, provided the specs are no fantasy, is already on my "buy as soon as possible" list.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> *This is just me*, but...
> 
> I'm happy with 45MP and don't want or need larger file sizes or more MP *unless* the camera also has an option to produce uncropped, uncompressed pseudo-RAW images.
> 
> ...


I could have written the same post !


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> Regarding digital zoom, sounds reasonable. Most time I could do with 15MP, so why not digitally crop and get faster fps with lower energy consumption?


Because that’s not how the Digital Teleconverter works.


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2022)

Funny that no one else has mentioned this - I find it quite interesting that the rumour (with an 'o' ) talks about a 61MP sensor.

Seems like a strange coincidence that the Sony a7Rv has a 61MP sensor, and 61 is not a size that we were expecting from Canon.

Could it be that Canon has decided to use a Sony sensor for this model, or did the person who originated the rumour have a Sony sensor on his wish-list?


----------



## eoskai (Nov 25, 2022)

No wayyyy lol, just got the r5. Realistically it’s enough camera for me and anything lacking can be added in firmware. My r5c handles all of those video specs so I wouldn’t be looking for the next r5 to have those video features or bump up to 61. 45mp as it stands is good enough to have for detail and low light performance. The area of diminishing returns is right around the 42-50mp mark.. a bump to 50 would be nice but not necessarily a requirement.


----------



## R1-7D (Nov 25, 2022)

Seems logical at this point to say that an R5 Mark II will come sooner rather than later. Perhaps I am wrong, but I think it would be strange for Canon to not update one their most, if not THE most, recognized mirrorless camera in their lineup with at least the new hot shoe to keep it in line with their other current offerings (ie: the R6 Mark II and R3). 

The rest of the specs look interesting. I wonder if there will be a price increase if these specs come to fruition, as this appears to be a more substantial revision than the R6 Mark II.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 25, 2022)

eoskai said:


> No wayyyy lol, just got the r5. Realistically it’s enough camera for me and anything lacking can be added in firmware.


But is Canon _likely_ to add what is lacking with firmware upgrades?


----------



## Kit. (Nov 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> Could it be that Canon has decided to use a Sony sensor for this model,


Then it wouldn't have "Dual Pixel CMOS AF II".



entoman said:


> or did the person who originated the rumour have a Sony sensor on his wish-list?


Highly likely.


----------



## AEWest (Nov 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> Funny that no one else has mentioned this - I find it quite interesting that the rumour (with an 'o' ) talks about a 61MP sensor.
> 
> Seems like a strange coincidence that the Sony a7Rv has a 61MP sensor, and 61 is not a size that we were expecting from Canon.
> 
> Could it be that Canon has decided to use a Sony sensor for this model, or did the person who originated the rumour have a Sony sensor on his wish-list?


No, it won't be a Sony sensor. This is because the Canon sensor has DPAF, which requires a different sensor design than the Sony.


----------



## fr34k (Nov 25, 2022)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Is the digital teleconverter basically crop mode but at other ratios other than 1.6x?
> 
> 2x mode is 61mp ÷ 2 = 31.5?
> 4x mode is 61mp ÷ 4 = 15.25?
> 8x mode is 61mp ÷8 = 7.625?


That’s not how zoom works.
2x crop -> 61/ 2^2 = 15.25 …
4x -> 61/16
8x -> 61/64


----------



## momiji8839 (Nov 25, 2022)

Was pretty intrigued with this "rumor". On my part I don't think it deserves even a CR2 rating, YMMV. It just felt like someone wants their A7R V in an EOS R style body with RF mount dreamed up this spec list.

It must be such a coincidence that Canon out of nowhere suddenly wants to make their own exact own 61mp sensor just to match up head on. (Even though they were known to have 80mp, 100+mp sensors.) And immediately magically gained the ability to have both the multi shot high res mode as all other company has with the IMX 455 sensor variant inside their bodies, and digital tele zoom function. Then they also want to "learn" from Sony and Nikon as to also "reinvent" the multi angle LCD(just like some new recent camera models released did.) even though they were known for one of the greatest flipping LCD gold standard. 

Based on how I've been knowing and dealing with Canon I'd say these sounds almost hilarious. Clearly someone wants their next camera to be an exact baby from a drunken canon and sony after a session in back alley behind a bar. As for whether they could really speak for Canon's next product, your guess is as good as mine.

In all honesty though, I couldn't rule out anything absolutely not happening. Due to the nature of rumors and stuff. Who knows. All I'm sayin is this is about as ridiculous a rumor has turned out to be so far that I'd been following this site.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2022)

momiji8839 said:


> And immediately magically gained the ability to have both the multi shot high res mode as all other company has with the IMX 455 sensor variant inside their bodies, and digital tele zoom function.


The 6DII has a Digital Teleconverter (crop and upscale) function, so that wouldn’t be magically appearing in an R5II.


----------



## TonyG (Nov 25, 2022)

I wonder if this could be the R5s? Especially with the high megapixel sensor.
This would be a Sony a7rv killer.
If this rumor turns out to be true, all I can say is sh ut up and take my money! lol


----------



## Mike9129 (Nov 25, 2022)

Specs sound good

The only thing I'd like to add to them is they need to do something to improve battery life vs the R5

Mine lives with the grip on it but Id much prefer when im just out and about to use it without the grip and not need to carry 3 or 4 extra batteries to get me through the day.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 25, 2022)

I don´t really believe in this rumor. 
Giving 61 mp to the R5 mk ii is an awful big jump and would eliminate a lot of potential buyers for an even higher resolution camera, it might even kill it as a potential niche camera. Knowing Canon market segmentation strategy, I can't believe it. It would also be an overkill (think of all the RAW files) for a lot of R5 users, at least when reading in different forums. 

Furthermore, 61 MP would not enough for high-res version because it is basically "just what Sony" has and not much more than a Sony A1 or so. 

Finally, some specs simply sound like there were taken from the Sony A7RV... the EVF, the mp, multi-shot function... 

Imho, I believe Canon will differentiate the R5/ R5s/ R1 quite well. I'd expect an R5mkii to have a about 50mp, the R1 to come in at 60-62 mp (which would more than enough for a "do-it-all-at-a-fantastic-level) and real specialized, niche R5s with about 77MP or 80 MP (and closing in to 100MP with mkii/ mkiii in years to come)

The only way I´d believe the R5mkii would indeed be given a huge MP jump, was if the R6mkii had been pushed to 30/ 35 MP. That didn't happen, instead it just got slightly more MP. That's what's going to happen to the R5mkII imho.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cropped and upscaled in-camera to the native sensor resolution, jpg output only.


Thank you for explaining, I couldn't find an exact explanation for the digital converter anywhere so far. 
Do you have any experience using it? Does it affect IQ? For me, this digital converter sounds highly interesting since I don't own big whites (I have the 100-500mm though) and need to "crop for reach" a lot...


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Thank you for explaining, I couldn't find an exact explanation for the digital converter anywhere so far.
> Do you have any experience using it? Does it affect IQ? For me, this digital converter sounds highly interesting since I don't own big whites (I have the 100-500mm though) and need to "crop for reach" a lot...


Digital converter is an unexpected inclusion on a pro-level camera, so it will be interesting to see what sort of result Canon's interpolation algorithms can produce, but I'd be very surprised if they can match the results obtained by using Topaz Gigapixel.


----------



## john1970 (Nov 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cropped and upscaled in-camera to the native sensor resolution, jpg output only.


Would be nice if Canon would also support HEIF output out as well, but only time will tell.


----------



## alexander.bigel (Nov 25, 2022)

My suggestion for good camera
1) M2 SSD slot
2) price not more that 1700 US Dollars
3) ISO 25000 without any noise like what we see on ISO 800 today
4) Dynamic range + 2.5 stops from current values

I think it will good camera


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 25, 2022)

alexander.bigel said:


> My suggestion for good camera
> 1) M2 SSD slot
> 2) price not more that 1700 US Dollars
> 3) ISO 25000 without any noise like what we see on ISO 800 today
> ...


Those aren't the specs and pricing of a "good" camera, instead it is a completely unrealistic, dream fantasy camera.
Having five full stops of better ISO performance and 2,5 stops in DR for just 1.700 $???

Just for having this kind of ISO performance, there'd be several people willing to pay 5-10 K $ for the camera alone. Just think of wild-life shooters who shoot from dusk to dawn or astrophotographers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2022)

Exploreshootshare said:


> Thank you for explaining, I couldn't find an exact explanation for the digital converter anywhere so far.
> Do you have any experience using it? Does it affect IQ? For me, this digital converter sounds highly interesting since I don't own big whites (I have the 100-500mm though) and need to "crop for reach" a lot...


I haven’t used an R6II. 

From Canon: Digital teleconverter: One-touch extra reach


----------



## JoeP (Nov 25, 2022)

Will R5 MarkII have GPS built in - like the R3 - finally ?


----------



## Bonich (Nov 25, 2022)

JoeP said:


> Will R5 MarkII have GPS built in - like the R3 - finally ?


.... or some DSLRs already been born BC ....


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Because that’s not how the Digital Teleconverter works.


Do you mean the whole sensor would have to be read in crop?


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cropped and upscaled in-camera to the native sensor resolution, jpg output only.


I understand the cropped image upscaled to fill the viewfinder. Upscale the jpg written to the memory card? Pointless. Even if its as good as post processing on a PC, why waste battery?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I understand the cropped image upscaled to fill the viewfinder. Upscale the jpg written to the memory card? Pointless. Even if its as good as post processing on a PC, why waste battery?


Ask Canon. They’re the ones that added the feature to the R6II.


----------



## mpmark (Nov 25, 2022)

Firstly 9mil elf vs the 5.7mil is a useless upgrade, I had a A1 owner try out my evf on my R5 and he stated my seemed even better and smoother. Your eye won't even be able to tell beyond the 5mil evf.

Secondly 61mp is a bad idea, 45 is plenty and if they go to 61 then low light high iso will suffer. Id much rather have high iso and low light capabilities then any more MP. the photocells are small enough


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I understand the cropped image upscaled to fill the viewfinder. Upscale the jpg written to the memory card? Pointless. Even if its as good as post processing on a PC, why waste battery?


I'm sure it won't be as good as post-processing on a Mac but I can see where it could be a useful procedure from one extreme for those who don't do post processing at home and on the other hand for practical purposes when you are using the camera and lens as a spotting scope in the field to identify very distant birds etc.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Firstly 9mil elf vs the 5.7mil is a useless upgrade, I had a A1 owner try out my evf on my R5 and he stated my seemed even better and smoother. Your eye won't even be able to tell beyond the 5mil evf.
> 
> Secondly 61mp is a bad idea, 45 is plenty and if they go to 61 then low light high iso will suffer. Id much rather have high iso and low light capabilities then any more MP. the photocells are small enough


I very much doubt if it will make any difference to low light high iso when the 45 and 61Mpx images are viewed at the same size in inches or mm - the R5 and R6 are the same, for example.


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2022)

TonyG said:


> This would be a Sony a7rv killer.


Maybe. Who cares, apart from brand warriors? I think we're incredibly lucky to have so many top class manufacturers like Sony, Nikon, Canon and Panasonic, all producing superb cameras and lenses.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I very much doubt if it will make any difference to low light high iso when the 45 and 61Mpx images are viewed at the same size in inches or mm - the R5 and R6 are the same, for example.


Why can’t you just let people keep believing their fantasies? 

On a completely unrelated note, thanks to the excellent information posted here I’m selling my 600/4 because a 400mm lens on a crop body gives more reach.


----------



## roby17269 (Nov 25, 2022)

Wow! well...
OK I have mixed feelings. I'll try to summarize:

61mp sounds like a suspicious number. Too similar to Sony's R offerings. So I'd have expected more, but certainly different from 61. Although, obviously, different companies have created multiple 24mp sensors, so there's that... but:
I think, personally, 61 is a neither there nor here number as it is not that higher than 45 (esp in terms of resolution) and too similar to competitors' offerings

with 61mp you'd get around 24mp in APS-C crop, so that'd be interesting
I'd personally prefer a slower camera with higher resolution. I can't get enough mp's  but also, please, allow to choose intermediate frame rates with the electronic shutter. Please!
Better EVF and AF are always welcome
2 CF Express cards. Yay!
High res multishot: Yay! If implemented well...
Video improvements: always welcome, although I do not do much video myself.
I assume this is the same as the R5s, or that this would push the R5s further down the line...

All in all, should these specs prove to be correct, it would be a difficult decision for me. I still like my R5 a lot. And 61 mp is not a huge jump from 45mp. 
Will have to wait and see...

Personally, the bl**dy 35mm f/1.2 would be a much higher priority. For me, myself and I ;-)

In the end, I am not too confident this rumor will be correct. But I've just been proven wrong with the sensor of the R6 mkII, so who am I to say?


----------



## TonyG (Nov 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> Maybe. Who cares, apart from brand warriors? I think we're incredibly lucky to have so many top class manufacturers like Sony, Nikon, Canon and Panasonic, all producing superb cameras and lenses.


I think we should all care, competition is great news for us as it means we get to win.
Without any competition, we wouldn't have all the top class products from all these brands trying to out compete each other.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I very much doubt if it will make any difference to low light high iso when the 45 and 61Mpx images are viewed at the same size in inches or mm - the R5 and R6 are the same, for example.


Unless it's "8K RAW video"


----------



## Inspired (Nov 25, 2022)

I'm not seeing much things that would make me as a wedding and portrait photographer get this camera tbh, or for that matter upgrade from the mk1


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 25, 2022)

TonyG said:


> I think we should all care, competition is great news for us as it means we get to win.


True, but I am not sure that is the kind of competition we need.
Camera models do not need to match each other spec for spec.
Anyone who does not need 50 MP would not benefit from 61.


----------



## entoman (Nov 25, 2022)

roby17269 said:


> with 61mp you'd get around 24mp in APS-C crop, so that'd be interesting.


If that's true, it would explain the 61MP number, as Canon could simply upscale the 24MP crop sensor, saving costs.

I really think it's time that manufacturers settled on sensible figures, rather than trying to beat each other in the numbers game. The point will presumably soon be reached where sensors have such high pixel density and small receptors, that diffraction becomes a major problem anyway. I'd much rather that manufacturers concentrated on improving dynamic range and boosting high ISO performance - and most photographers I speak to feel the same way.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> If that's true, it would explain the 61MP number, as Canon could simply upscale the 24MP crop sensor, saving costs.
> 
> I really think it's time that manufacturers settled on sensible figures, rather than trying to beat each other in the numbers game. The point will presumably soon be reached where sensors have such high pixel density and small receptors, that diffraction becomes a major problem anyway. I'd much rather that manufacturers concentrated on improving dynamic range and boosting high ISO performance - and most photographers I speak to feel the same way.


This was speculated to be a BSI sensor, so it could not be a simple upscale of the 24 Mpx crop. Dynamic range is measured by viewing at a fixed size and distance and is pretty well independent of sensor resolution - see for example the DRs of the R5 and R6 https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R5,Canon EOS R6 in which if anything the 45 Mpx R5 is slightly better than the R6.

per pixel DR and noise is better for larger pixels. But, overall DR and iso performance depend mainly on overall sensor size.


----------



## roby17269 (Nov 26, 2022)

entoman said:


> If that's true, it would explain the 61MP number, as Canon could simply upscale the 24MP crop sensor, saving costs.


I hope not. That is old-ish tech and I'd hope for a more modern sensor


entoman said:


> I really think it's time that manufacturers settled on sensible figures, rather than trying to beat each other in the numbers game. The point will presumably soon be reached where sensors have such high pixel density and small receptors, that diffraction becomes a major problem anyway. I'd much rather that manufacturers concentrated on improving dynamic range and boosting high ISO performance - and most photographers I speak to feel the same way.


As Alan eloquently put it, DR and high ISO depend more on sensor size than pixel size.
Diffraction is a true issue but it is also use case dependent: I typically shoot wide open when I can so the more the pixels the happier I am. The 50 and 85 1.2 primes can handle a lot


----------



## adrian_bacon (Nov 26, 2022)

If the sensor resolution is close, it looks like it'll have the same pixel density as a 24MP APS-C camera, 6000x4000 in 1.6x crop and 9600x6400 in full frame. Should be nice. If they really are going to do the multi shot, I'd love to see that added as part of the R5 via firmware.


----------



## armd (Nov 26, 2022)

It sounds more like the R1 than a R5II. Nonetheless, I doubt that it would price around $3.5k.


----------



## fr34k (Nov 26, 2022)

Bob Howland said:


> But is Canon _likely_ to add what is lacking with firmware upgrades?


There was a German article about the R5 on their website stating that „You can be confident that Canon will update their cameras with the latest features using firmware.“ I guess that’s either over now or they are taking more time to make 2.0. I am still hoping for the latter, but I guess now is the best time than ever to make the effort of bringing ML to the R5.


----------



## cr_foto4fun.ch (Nov 26, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Why 2 USB-C ports...?
> 
> The high-res-shot function I want for my R5 too...


I guess like in the R5C you can use one USB-C as Power delivery from a power bank to extend battery life and enable swap Battery (what would be nice). Hope there is no need for that to get 8K-RAW 60 like in the R5C. The second USB-C could be for recording to a external SSD (much cheaper than a 4TB CF-EXPRESS. Also on a gimbal I would love 2 USB-C connections one for the Gimbal controlling and the second for battery or a added SSD. Also it could enable USB-C micro and headphones, or a easy tablet monitoring and recording instead of a atomos ninja V+, so I hope Canon will enable as much as possible of the possibilities for USB-C in both connections.


----------



## Cochese (Nov 26, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Finally a camera with two fast memory cards. I never understood the appeal of SD cards. The argument is that you can get SD cards everywhere, but I think people, who pay that much money on a camera, will have enough memory cards anyway.
> 
> Did pixel shift really work well for any camera unless you use attach a concrete block to your camera to reduce the vibration?
> 
> ...


 Anecdotally, I've been on several shoots/ vacations where either a card was corrupted or lost and being able to pop into almost any local store and find a 32 or 64gb SD card for $20 or less is amazing. I've got so many cards now that I just keep some in my car, camera bag, laptop bag, etc... Just so I always have one or two laying around.


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 26, 2022)

fox40phil said:


> Or charging + monitor/hdd?!
> 
> 9MP EVF sounds good. The same Sony has for years now.
> 
> Would be nice to have a blackout free shutter and no rolling shutter at all!


Why would they want to allow charging when they can charge for a brick to do it like they do currently(one C connector)


----------



## scottkinfw (Nov 26, 2022)

Make it a good update to MkI, and make it available by June! I'm in.


----------



## Quackator (Nov 26, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Why 2 USB-C ports...?
> 
> The high-res-shot function I want for my R5 too...


One USB-C Port for power or tethering, the other for an external SSD.

Exactly what is missing on the R5C.

Even better would be a barrel plug port for power like on the C70.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 26, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Finally a camera with two fast memory cards. I never understood the appeal of SD cards. The argument is that you can get SD cards everywhere, but I think people, who pay that much money on a camera, will have enough memory cards anyway.
> 
> Did pixel shift really work well for any camera unless you use attach a concrete block to your camera to reduce the vibration?
> 
> ...


I certainly understand your reasoning, most photographers need fast cards.
Yet, I don't, landscapes or macros do not require fast memory cards. Am I the one Canon should refer to? No, definitely No!
Why not use cards that won't disappoint anybody, apart from higher cost ?
No one will suffer the slightest disadvantage from having 2 CF express cards and, as you wrote, if you can afford such an expensive camera...
I remember some of our US customers who put regular into their Mercedes AMG tanks, just to save a few dollars. Ridiculous and harmful to the engines...


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I certainly understand your reasoning, most photographers need fast cards.
> Yet, I don't, landscapes or macros do not require fast memory cards. Am I the one Canon should refer to? No, definitely No!
> Why not use cards that won't disappoint anybody, apart from higher cost ?
> No one will suffer the slightest disadvantage from having 2 CF express cards and, as you wrote, if you can afford such an expensive camera...
> I remember some of our US customers who put regular into their Mercedes AMG tanks, just to save a few dollars. Ridiculous and harmful to the engines...


Ah, but but wait until are you taking photos and videos of rapidly moving skyscrapers! How often do you use the second slot? There will be many who do. I don't except to use the 2nd slot as an emergency back up of the first. All those cheap SD cards I have accumulated over the years can provide back up storage while travelling by copying from the 1st slot.
I remember some who would put higher octane fuel than manufacturers recommended in the vain hope they would get better performance...


----------



## Fischer (Nov 26, 2022)

Am giving up on the promissed high MPIX "R". 61 MPIX would have to fit the bill instead. Happy, I jumped past the R5 tough.


----------



## Fischer (Nov 26, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Firstly 9mil elf vs the 5.7mil is a useless upgrade, I had a A1 owner try out my evf on my R5 and he stated my seemed even better and smoother. Your eye won't even be able to tell beyond the 5mil evf.
> 
> Secondly 61mp is a bad idea, 45 is plenty and if they go to 61 then low light high iso will suffer. Id much rather have high iso and low light capabilities then any more MP. the photocells are small enough


Why should high ISO suffer? Canon has several times upped both high ISO and low light capabilities. The 5DSR being an excellent example.


----------



## mpmark (Nov 26, 2022)

PhotoGenerous said:


> Is the digital teleconverter basically crop mode but at other ratios other than 1.6x?
> 
> 2x mode is 61mp ÷ 2 = 31.5?
> 4x mode is 61mp ÷ 4 = 15.25?
> 8x mode is 61mp ÷8 = 7.625?


Unfortunately that's not how the math works, if you multiple by 2 your reach then you have to subtract that from both the y and x axis, so 2x would be as follwos

2x mode is 61mp ÷ 2 ÷ 2 = 15.25mp and so on.


----------



## mpmark (Nov 26, 2022)

Fischer said:


> Why should high ISO suffer? Canon has several times upped both high ISO and low light capabilities. The 5DSR being an excellent example.


Because of simple physics, th R3 at 24mp has larger photocells, meaning they can be spaced apart further in the same area and can be pushed to higher iso sensitive before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor. Larger photocells gather more light as well, Yes tech is getting better but if you improve tech for a higher mp sensor then you're obviously doing the same for lower mp sensor as a result so that's a irrelevant convo.

If you look at the current and new A7R camera that is 60+ mp its native iso range is LOWER then a lower MP camera, that's not by accident.

I would much prefer a balance, 45mp is plenty and it WILL have better iso performance then a sensor crammed with 61mp. The R5 is suppose to be an all around camera, if it goes to 61mp it now basically becomes a portrait or landscape camera which you won't push the iso anyway. I use my R5 for wildlife and fast moving subjects in low light sometimes so Id prefer the no more than 45mp


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Because of simple physics, th R3 at 24mp has larger photocells, meaning they can be spaced apart further in the same area and can be pushed to higher iso sensitive before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor. Larger photocells gather more light as well, Yes tech is getting better but if you improve tech for a higher mp sensor then you're obviously doing the same for lower mp sensor as a result so that's a irrelevant convo.


You call the physics simple, but clearly you don’t understand the physics involved in determining sensor noise. The irrelevant convo here is yours.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

mpmark said:


> *Because of simple physics, th R3 at 24mp has larger photocells, meaning they can be spaced apart further in the same area and can be pushed to higher iso sensitive before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor*. Larger photocells gather more light as well, Yes tech is getting better but if you improve tech for a higher mp sensor then you're obviously doing the same for lower mp sensor as a result so that's a irrelevant convo.
> 
> If you look at the current and new A7R camera that is 60+ mp its native iso range is LOWER then a lower MP camera, that's not by accident.
> 
> I would much prefer a balance, 45mp is plenty and it WILL have better iso performance then a sensor crammed with 61mp. The R5 is suppose to be an all around camera, if it goes to 61mp it now basically becomes a portrait or landscape camera which you won't push the iso anyway. I use my R5 for wildlife and fast moving subjects in low light sometimes so Id prefer the no more than 45mp


That is sheer nonsense: photocells, whatever their size, are designed to being as close together on the sensor so there are minimal gaps between them otherwise light is lost. Spacing cells further apart in the same area would lower light gathering power, make poorer iso response and lower DR.


----------



## RexxReviews (Nov 26, 2022)

Benjamin_L said:


> Come on Canon. At least give us R5 users who are just too poor to afford the new Canon lifestyle and are unable to upgrade every two years some more firmware updates...


What exactly do you want them to update? Stacked sensor via firmware? Dual CFExpress via firmware? There are a finite amount of things firmware can actually do when using the same hardware.


----------



## arthur (Nov 26, 2022)

I hope Canon adds dng raw format , Just like the brilliant canon 5d mark iii , where the colors look very much better than the c-log raw


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 26, 2022)

arthur said:


> I hope Canon adds dng raw format , Just like the brilliant canon 5d mark iii , where the colors look very much better than the c-log raw


Which RAW converter are you using? If it's something else than DPP4, you need to address that complaint to the people that wrote your RAW converter.

Also, isn't c-log a video only thing?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Which RAW converter are you using? If it's something else than DPP4, you need to address that complaint to the people that wrote your RAW converter.
> 
> Also, isn't c-log a video only thing?


He’s talking about RAW DNG video.









Canon 5D Mar II & III RAW DNG Footage Range nearly matches Black Magic and Red Epic


The Team behind Magic Lantern recently announced that they discovered a hidden 2K RAW DNG setting in live view on the 5D Mark II and 5D Mark III.




www.slrlounge.com


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> No one will suffer the slightest disadvantage from having 2 CF express cards


SD cards are far more convenient


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 26, 2022)

Kit. said:


> What would be your price expectation for such a camera with a 61 Mpixel sensor? Isn't it actually closer to R1?


Here on Canon Rumors people would complain if it is more than $1K USD


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> What exactly do you want them to update? Stacked sensor via firmware? Dual CFExpress via firmware? There are a finite amount of things firmware can actually do when using the same hardware.


I would like aspects of the R7/R3 menus, most of all the ability to set ES fps, which is not much of an ask.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I certainly understand your reasoning, most photographers need fast cards.


My R3 shoots 30 fps and I write RAW simultaneously to both the CFe and SD cards. I haven’t had the SD card slow me down yet. 



EOS 4 Life said:


> SD cards are far more convenient


True. I have a CFe reader, but the Stone Pro dock on my desk (connected to the 5K:2K display I use for editing) and my 16” M1 MacBook Pro have built-in SD card slots.


----------



## entoman (Nov 26, 2022)

Cochese said:


> Anecdotally, I've been on several shoots/ vacations where either a card was corrupted or lost and being able to pop into almost any local store and find a 32 or 64gb SD card for $20 or less is amazing. I've got so many cards now that I just keep some in my car, camera bag, laptop bag, etc... Just so I always have one or two laying around.


I'm glad that my R5 has both CFE and SD slots, and I'd be wary of getting a camera with only CFE.

I spend a lot of time on expensive trips to remote tropical locations (safaris. rainforests, deserts). I have 4 x 128GB CFE cards and shoot RAWs to the CFE and simultaneously send backups to the SD. They are flimsy and easily lost, but I can pop into a general store almost anywhere in the world and buy replacement SD if one of the half dozen that I take with me gets corrupted or lost. If a CFE gets corrupted, I can always shoot on SD only, if I have to.

I've had 2 SanDisk 64GB SD cards corrupt in the last couple of years. Fortunately, so far, none of my 4 CFE-B card have corrupted, but if one did while I was far from the nearest city, it would be near impossible to find anywhere where I could quickly get a replacement.


----------



## Katootje (Nov 26, 2022)

And again Canon \'forgets\' to incorporate GPS!
And as Yoms points out: if there would be battery drain, I can manage that as for my 5DMkIV I have 4 spare batteries. That\'s good for me and good for the Canon revenues......


----------



## unfocused (Nov 26, 2022)

For selfish financial reasons I'd rather they wait another year. 

It seems unlikely that they would release this before the R1 and we haven't seen any credible rumors on the R1 yet. If this is just mainly the R3 with a higher resolution sensor and a non-gripped body I'd be underwhelmed. I'd rather they wait until the quad-pixel autofocus is ready, as in my opinion that is the upgrade that is most needed.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Ah, but but wait until are you taking photos and videos of rapidly moving skyscrapers! How often do you use the second slot? There will be many who do. I don't except to use the 2nd slot as an emergency back up of the first. All those cheap SD cards I have accumulated over the years can provide back up storage while travelling by copying from the 1st slot.
> I remember some who would put higher octane fuel than manufacturers recommended in the vain hope they would get better performance...


Fully agree...
I too am using the second slot, all the time, but only as a backup.
But I hardly ever took a picture of a skyscraper, too fast for the EOS R's AF.
PS: I had a hard time convincing customers that there is no "better" fuel, only the adequate one. And that a beetle didn't need or benefit from premium...


----------



## bellorusso (Nov 26, 2022)

Dual CFexpress type B card slot?
Doesn\'t sound like Canon. Why would Canon make our lives easier for absolutely no reason. Not their style.


----------



## entoman (Nov 26, 2022)

bellorusso said:


> Dual CFexpress type B card slot?
> Doesn\'t sound like Canon. Why would Canon make *our* lives easier for absolutely no reason. Not their style.


Speak for yourself - dual CFE would make life more difficult, not easier, for me. See my post on previous page.
Why do you want/need dual CFE?


----------



## Dragon (Nov 26, 2022)

NKD said:


> Legit ordered a new body for fun right before this post. The R7 for it's 15 mechanical flappy bit per second to keep my mind off the R5. This sounds like an ideal upgrade to the tripod megapixel 5dsR dinosaurs I have. Sounds too good to be true..my intention was was the R7 for sports & then later the FF mirrorless upgrade. Thought it would of been the R5s or R1. 60mp is more than enough if it's like the R3's contrast characteristics and sticky autofocus


The R7 (particularly with the RF 800 f/11) is great for wildlife. The R5 is an excellent all-arounder. I have rarely found the need for a tripod with the 5DSr, but then, I mostly use it with IS lenses and particularly the Sigma 24-105 f/4. I still like the crispness of the 5DSr images, but the R5 is very close and the R7 is simply unsurpassed for reach combined with excellent AF.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 26, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> CFe has surpassed SD in terms of capacity and price and its quite sensible at this point to get rid of SD slot on this camera. This also raises questions about castrations on R6 II(no CFe slot, non BSI sensor and micro Hdmi port) and R7.


At the end of the day, it is about heat and size. CFe takes considerably more room than SD and those PCIE drivers and the internal buffering in the CFe card to keep up the high speed are both very power hungry.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> The R7 (particularly with the RF 800 f/11) is great for wildlife. The R5 is an excellent all-arounder. I have rarely found the need for a tripod with the 5DSr, but then, I mostly use it with IS lenses and particularly the Sigma 24-105 f/4. I still like the crispness of the 5DSr images, but the R5 is very close and the R7 is simply unsurpassed for reach combined with excellent AF.


I agree on the whole, but when I need AF for BIF, I grab the R5 over the R7.


----------



## PaulieWalnuts (Nov 26, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Finally a camera with two fast memory cards. I never understood the appeal of SD cards. The argument is that you can get SD cards everywhere, but I think people, who pay that much money on a camera, will have enough memory cards anyway.
> 
> Did pixel shift really work well for any camera unless you use attach a concrete block to your camera to reduce the vibration?
> 
> ...


I have a Lumix S1R and the high-res pixel shift works really well. I use a tripod but haven't had a problem with vibration.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 26, 2022)

If a cameras has IBIS, it should be quite difficult to achieved as the sensor is "floating" and for pixel shift the sensor has to be moved a very tiny amount.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I agree on the whole, but when I need AF for BIF, I grab the R5 over the R7.


Yes, the larger field of view on the R5 is nice, but note that with the RF 800 f/11 (and the little 600) the AF FOV only covers a portion of the lens, which is a much bigger percentage of a crop frame than of a FF. I use the Olympus EE-1 Red dot on both cameras as a finder for long reach, so the reduced overall FOV on the R7s isn't too much of a problem and the extra pixels are nice. For fast moving birds, I would also probably reach for the R5 with the EF 100-400 (I don't have the RF 100-500) but I have a resident population of hummingbirds and max magnification is critical.


----------



## Bezbozny (Nov 26, 2022)

ok.. not the right forum to ask this but how can the RF800 a f11 lens get so good reviews? even in broad day light it would be impossible to shot BIF and other wildlife where you need a shutter speed of 1:1000 or even 1:2000.....


----------



## Dragon (Nov 26, 2022)

Bezbozny said:


> ok.. not the right forum to ask this but how can the RF800 a f11 lens get so good reviews? even in broad day light it would be impossible to shot BIF and other wildlife where you need a shutter speed of 1:1000 or even 1:2000.....


a) not all wildlife is moving at blinding speed and b) with a little help from DXO Photolab and Topaz Denoise, ISO 12800 on the R5 and ISO 6400 on the R7 are very usable. Yes, another couple of stops is desirable, but my EF 800 f/5.6 L is not very portable or hand-holdable and the 800 f/11 is a featherweight by comparison, so often (particularly with fast motion) the choice is between ISO 12800 or no shot at all, so the little lens keeps winning the day. For slower moving subjects, the 800 f/11 is very hand-holdable at 1/250 (even with the R7). Hope that helps to answer the question.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

Bezbozny said:


> ok.. not the right forum to ask this but how can the RF800 a f11 lens get so good reviews? even in broad day light it would be impossible to shot BIF and other wildlife where you need a shutter speed of 1:1000 or even 1:2000.....


Impossible?? Firstly, on a sunny day, 1/1000s f/11 requires an iso of only 800, and 1/2000s iso 1600, which are trivial for the R series. Secondly, you can go up to very high isos with the R3, R5, R6 and R7 with modern noise reduction software for darker scenes. Thirdly, the lens isn't targeted for BIF photography, it's primarily for static shots, especially as its field of view for AF is restricted to the centre of the viewfinder. The lens is designed to be a very lightweight and reasonably sharp very long lens.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Impossible?? Firstly, on a sunny day, 1/1000s f/11 requires an iso of only 800, and 1/2000s iso 1600, which are trivial for the R series. Secondly, you can go up to very high isos with the R3, R5, R6 and R7 with modern noise reduction software for darker scenes. Thirdly, the lens isn't targeted for BIF photography, it's primarily for static shots, especially as its field of view for AF is restricted to the centre of the viewfinder. The lens is designed to be a very lightweight and reasonably sharp very long lens.


And (my copy at least) the 800 f/11 is better than "reasonably sharp". It doesn't quite match the EF 800 f/5.6 L, but it is darn close (maybe only the diffraction difference). The big deal is the portability, so you have the lens with you and can easily handhold it to get the shot when the opportunity presents. Just a new take on the old saying "the best camera for the shot is the one you have with you". Missed BIF shots are right in there with fish stories.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Yes, the larger field of view on the R5 is nice, but note that with the RF 800 f/11 (and the little 600) the AF FOV only covers a portion of the lens, which is a much bigger percentage of a crop frame than of a FF. I use the Olympus EE-1 Red dot on both cameras as a finder for long reach, so the reduced overall FOV on the R7s isn't too much of a problem and the extra pixels are nice. For fast moving birds, I would also probably reach for the R5 with the EF 100-400 (I don't have the RF 100-500) but I have a resident population of hummingbirds and max magnification is critical.


It's not the field of view, it's that the AF of the R5 latches on quicker and more accurately for BIF. I presume you shoot hummingbirds when they are hovering, which is fine for the R7 (I do the same for hovering dragonflies). I find the R5 AF much better for birds rapidly flying and get much better keeper rates. I also use the RF 100-500 or RF 100-400, and not my 800/11 for BIF as noted in our replies to the usefulness of the 800/11.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> And (my copy at least) the 800 f/11 is better than "reasonably sharp". It doesn't quite match the EF 800 f/5.6 L, but it is darn close (maybe only the diffraction difference). The big deal is the portability, so you have the lens with you and can easily handhold it to get the shot when the opportunity presents. Just a new take on the old saying "the best camera for the shot is the one you have with you". Missed BIF shots are right in there with fish stories.


Don't get me wrong, I think the lens is sharp - but it's not going to match the 600/4 or 400/2.8. Here are some examples where I was able to push very happily the 800/11 on the R7 to its limits.






Ye Bee-eaters of Merrie England


Now, for those who thought it was a typo and were hoping to see photos of those guardians of the Tower of London, I am afraid you will be disappointed. The European Bee-eater is an extremely rare visitor to the UK but this summer a flock of 8 has taken up residence in Norfolk and are breeding in...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## Jethro (Nov 26, 2022)

Katootje said:


> And again Canon \'forgets\' to incorporate GPS!
> And as Yoms points out: if there would be battery drain, I can manage that as for my 5DMkIV I have 4 spare batteries. That\'s good for me and good for the Canon revenues......


You realise these are only rumoured and partial specs?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 26, 2022)

Dragon said:


> And (my copy at least) the 800 f/11 is better than "reasonably sharp". It doesn't quite match the EF 800 f/5.6 L, but it is darn close (maybe only the diffraction difference). The big deal is the portability, so you have the lens with you and can easily handhold it to get the shot when the opportunity presents. Just a new take on the old saying "the best camera for the shot is the one you have with you". Missed BIF shots are right in there with fish stories.


I have been musing what I would do if the MkII did come out. Would I trade in the R5 or the R7 for it? Not an easy decision (apart from price). Maybe it would be the R5 for the reason that my wife uses the R7 when I am using the R5 and she is not tech savvy but can handle the mechanical mode dial which I preset for her.


----------



## davidhfe (Nov 26, 2022)

This would be an instant preorder for me, which usually means it's the figment of somebody's imagination. Oh, to not have to mess around with two types of cards anymore...


----------



## mpmark (Nov 26, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That is sheer nonsense: photocells, whatever their size, are designed to being as close together on the sensor so there are minimal gaps between them otherwise light is lost. Spacing cells further apart in the same area would lower light gathering power, make poorer iso response and lower DR.


I’m not going to go back and forth with a silly argument, believe what you want, frankly I don’t care if you understand it or not.


----------



## mpmark (Nov 26, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> You call the physics simple, but clearly you don’t understand the physics involved in determining sensor noise. The irrelevant convo here is yours.


That makes no sense


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2022)

mpmark said:


> That makes no sense


If you’re referring to your own posts, congratulations you’ve finally make a correct statement.

Read the following slowly and carefully: assuming a similar generation of sensor technology, pixel size has virtually no impact on image noise, the primary determinant of image noise is sensor size.

You seem to be confusing pixel noise with image noise. The latter matters to photographers, the former to measurebators. Which are you?


----------



## Dragon (Nov 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> That is sheer nonsense: photocells, whatever their size, are designed to being as close together on the sensor so there are minimal gaps between them otherwise light is lost. Spacing cells further apart in the same area would lower light gathering power, make poorer iso response and lower DR.


I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly. Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement. In the case of DPAF, each pixel is split in half with part right looking and part left looking. Larger pixels (with larger center spacing between the DPAF half pixels) would seem to have an advantage both from a light gathering perspective (less noise at any given ISO) and from an angular resolution perspective (needed for PDAF). I think this is why you are seeing faster AF acquisition on your R5 vs your R7 even though the R7 arguably has a generational advantage with its AF system derived from the R3.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 27, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly. Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement. In the case of DPAF, each pixel is split in half with part right looking and part left looking. Larger pixels (with larger center spacing between the DPAF half pixels) would seem to have an advantage both from a light gathering perspective (less noise at any given ISO) and from an angular resolution perspective (needed for PDAF). I think this is why you are seeing faster AF acquisition on your R5 vs your R7 even though the R7 arguably has a generational advantage with its AF system derived from the R3.


Since the R7 AF is also slower in good light, my personal suspicion is that the sensor readout speed matters a lot for AF. The R7 sensor is a lot slower than the R5 and R3.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 27, 2022)

Bezbozny said:


> ok.. not the right forum to ask this but how can the RF800 a f11 lens get so good reviews? even in broad day light it would be impossible to shot BIF and other wildlife where you need a shutter speed of 1:1000 or even 1:2000.....


The Canon EOS R line of mirrorless cameras performs well at high ISO.
An 800 mm lens at higher apertures costs many thousands of dollars more.
Sure it has its limits, but nothing comes close for the price.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 27, 2022)

PaulieWalnuts said:


> I have a Lumix S1R and the high-res pixel shift works really well. I use a tripod but haven't had a problem with vibration.


According to Olympus, the OM 1's pixel shift works even hand-held.
If it's true, this would be a great feature !


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Since the R7 AF is also slower in good light, my personal suspicion is that the sensor readout speed matters a lot for AF. The R7 sensor is a lot slower than the R5 and R3.


The readout time for the R5 is 15.5ms, and that for the R7, which has fewer pixels, 31.3ms. The readout time for the R3 is quicker still at 5.5ms. Canon has recycled an older, slower sensor, which is still fine for resolution and IQ but appears to have slower response for AF.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly. Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement.


You would make it much clearer still by simply writing that the amount of light gathered by a pixel (sensel) depends on its area. To relate center-to-center spacing to the area of a pixel in that way assumes that the pixels abut each other. That assumption is contradicted by the second part " before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor." which implies there are gaps between pixels in lower Mpx sensors.


mpmark said:


> Because of simple physics, th R3 at 24mp has larger photocells, meaning they can be spaced apart further in the same area and can be pushed to higher iso sensitive before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor.


Anyway, as pointed out by @neuroanatomist, and by many others and me here, the overall noise in an image depends on the size of the sensor and not on the size of of the pixels.


----------



## whothafunk (Nov 27, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> I never understood the appeal of SD cards. The argument is that you can get SD cards everywhere, but I think people, who pay that much money on a camera, will have enough memory cards anyway.


I have R3 and R5, have CFe cards but also SD. My Macbook has an SD slot, which in a hurry (as a sports photographer and journalist) helps a lot to not have to play around with CFe card reader and cable etc. It is just SO convenient.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 27, 2022)

That is one of the examples where Apple has a bad influence on the whole tech world. Of course other notebooks usually also have SD card slots, but they usually copy the bad standards of Apple. 

In the past notebooks at least had SD card slots with enough space for the whole card. At modern notebooks the SD cards usually stick out, which is very annoying, at that makes it much more likely to break the card.


----------



## arthur (Nov 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Which RAW converter are you using? If it's something else than DPP4, you need to address that complaint to the people that wrote your RAW converter.
> 
> Also, isn't c-log a video only thing?


Yes, what I mean is raw from the video side, you can see the raw dng color quality in this video that was shot with canon 5d mark iii which was filmed 7 years ago


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 27, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [...] In the past notebooks at least had SD card slots with enough space for the whole card. At modern notebooks the SD cards usually stick out, which is very annoying, at that makes it much more likely to break the card.


Having dealt with (micro)SD sockets in product we made at $previousjob: the springs are a major cause of failure, especially with humans involved. "I Tried to insert it real gently (with a hammer)"

For 'permanent' media, a flush, spring loaded socket is recommended. But for things like readers where the card only spends a few minutes in the reader, a stick out, non spring loaded socket has my preference. And steel backed cards like Sony Tough and Hoodman Steel


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 27, 2022)

arthur said:


> Yes, what I mean is raw from the video side, you can see the raw dng color quality in this video that was shot with canon 5d mark iii which was filmed 7 years ago


But that's a Magic Lantern thing, not a Canon thing, right?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Having dealt with (micro)SD sockets in product we made at $previousjob: the springs are a major cause of failure, especially with humans involved. "I Tried to insert it real gently (with a hammer)"
> 
> For 'permanent' media, a flush, spring loaded socket is recommended. But for things like readers where the card only spends a few minutes in the reader, a stick out, non spring loaded socket has my preference. And steel backed cards like Sony Tough and Hoodman Steel


I mainly use my SD card slot for a backup of my most important files. I back them up four times per day on a Samsung "Pro Endurance" Micro SD card, which is made to last very long. That card has saved me very often. The adapter sticks out though and that is a problem.


----------



## thorhe (Nov 27, 2022)

Yoms said:


> GPS
> 
> How likely is it so see this camera coming with a built-in GPS? I'm okay with buying an extra battery if need be.
> 
> On a more personal level, I'd very much like to see the overall size going up. Coming from a 5D and having bigger hands, the R5 camera is too small.


The Canon GP-E2 should work with Canon EOS R5.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I think he had a point, but just didn't say it clearly.


He had a point, but not a correct one.



Dragon said:


> Lower MP cameras have larger pixels with wider center-to-center spacing would be a clearer statement. In the case of DPAF, each pixel is split in half with part right looking and part left looking. Larger pixels (with larger center spacing between the DPAF half pixels) would seem to have an advantage both from a light gathering perspective (less noise at any given ISO) and from an angular resolution perspective (needed for PDAF). I think this is why you are seeing faster AF acquisition on your R5 vs your R7 even though the R7 arguably has a generational advantage with its AF system derived from the R3.


First off, he said nothing about AF speed, but regardless that red herring has already been pickled with readout speed brine by @koenkooi and @AlanF.

Yes, a larger pixel gathers more light than a smaller pixel. Yes, more light means lower noise. But a full frame sensor filled with smaller pixels gathers the same total amount of light as a full frame sensor filled with larger pixels. Same total light means same noise.

Many years ago, that was not true. Each pixel only had a small light-sensitive area, and thus more pixels in a given area meant less light and more noise. The non-photosensitive area of pixels was in the 60-80% range, meaning a lot of light lost. But with the gapless microlenses and light guides used in modern sensors, that’s no longer true. Essentially the full surface of a pixel is photosensitive (because the microlenses collect light over the whole pixel area).
_________________________

Since this thread is also discussing pixel shift, it’s worth mentioning that the same gapless microlenses that obviate the effect of pixel size on image noise also reduce the benefit of pixel shift for spatial resolution.

Over 20 years ago, I had Zeiss cameras with pixel shift. The sensors lacked gapless microlenses, so when pixel shift was used to capture a 2x2 full-pixel array, that increased color resolution by sampling the same subject area separately in R/G/B channels. Using a 2x2 or 3x3 sub-pixel array increased spatial resolution, capturing more area in each pixel space by moving the ~1/3 of the pixel’s photosensitive area around that space to sample most of (2x2) or the entire (3x3) pixel area.

Modern sensors are _already_ sample the entire pixel area with a single capture, thanks to the gapless microlenses. Thus, pixel shift in today’s cameras increases color resolution, but has much less effect on spatial resolution. So when you use it with a Fuji GFX100, for example, the multiple captures with the 100 MP sensor result in a 400 MP image, but the resulting image has lower spatial resolution than you’d get with a 400 MP sensor.


----------



## arthur (Nov 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> But that's a Magic Lantern thing, not a Canon thing, right?


Yes, it was actually an unofficial hack of Canon's operating system, however the results are amazing, Canon can now use the same format in a better, and more professional way, but unfortunately they chose the ineffective raw format ( c-log raw )


----------



## entoman (Nov 27, 2022)

Yoms said:


> On a more personal level, I'd very much like to see the overall size going up. Coming from a 5D and having bigger hands, the R5 camera is too small.


I came from 5D series to R5, and despite having large hands I quickly got used to the smaller body - the grip is fine and the controls are all well-spaced.

It does feel less sturdy to me though, compared to the indestructible feel of 5D and 7D models. I've had no issues (apart from occasional freezes) with the R5, but if I was going to be in a really tough environment where my gear was going to get a real bashing, I'd have more faith in my 5DMkiv.


----------



## Dragon (Nov 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Since the R7 AF is also slower in good light, my personal suspicion is that the sensor readout speed matters a lot for AF. The R7 sensor is a lot slower than the R5 and R3.


Absolutely. Basic control theory tells us that the higher the sample frequency, the faster the loop response can be. The catch is that an R7 with a stacked sensor would be at a price point that would be a hard sell for the masses. At the current price, it will sell very well.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I came from 5D series to R5, and despite having large hands I quickly got used to the smaller body - the grip is fine and the controls are all well-spaced.
> 
> It does feel less sturdy to me though, compared to the indestructible feel of 5D and 7D models. I've had no issues (apart from occasional freezes) with the R5, but if I was going to be in a really tough environment where my gear was going to get a real bashing, I'd have more faith in my 5DMkiv.


Me too ! Even if it could be just a subjective feeling...
The 5 D IV is indeed a wonderful, reliable and "wheatherproof" camera. Whenever hiking it is my standard camera, the R stays in the hotel, in case I drop or lose the 5. 
But I nevertheless must confess that the R has been absolutely reliable till now. Never "freezing" or failing in any way.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Canon has recycled an older, slower sensor, which is still fine for resolution and IQ but appears to have slower response for AF.


Just because it is slower does not mean it is older.
It just means it is less costly to make.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 27, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> But that's a Magic Lantern thing, not a Canon thing, right?


True, but Canon has copied from Magic Lantern before.
I can't see them using CinemDNG though.
They already have Canon RAW and Cinema RAW Light,


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Just because it is slower does not mean it is older.
> It just means it is less costly to make.


I wrote that it is an older, slower sensor. I did not write it was older because it is slower or vice versa. Or, are you implying that is a new slower sensor that is cheap to make and not a recycled M6II/90D?


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 27, 2022)

Nice to see some R5 II rumours at least. 61MP was an odd number to pick for MP (unless for some reason they would use the Sony Sensor).
The R5 is really good, I think Canon will struggle to make meaningful improvements to it. After using 30FPS I hardly see the point of it and wouldn't desire any more (its a real diminishing return). It just burns through the memory card. 
I'm very impressed with the R5 ISO noise ability. I've shot at very high ISO and gotten very acceptable images.
Focussing is very good but can be improved upon. They way it can lock onto eyes is very good but not perfect yet. It can still be fooled by cluttered backgrounds. Faster aquisition of targets would be great, 
I don't see many users complaining about it but I perceive a lag between moving the eyepiece to the eye viewfinder turning on. I usually try to push a focus button as I raise it to my eye so that its on when it gets there.
I was previously waiting for an R1 but its seemed so far away, I'm very happy that I got the R5. It's really impressive. More flimsy than my 5DIV or 1DX MIII but a clear improvement on both. I have it 6 months. Sometimes you might regret buying something a while on the market once rumours start about its replacement but not for me on the R5.
If Canon bring out an R5 with meaningful improvements it will be a big achievement. 
It may only increase the number of MP in the sensor and solve the overheating issue on the video.
If that's the case I will keep waiting for the mythical R1 (or maybe we will get an R2 if Sony outspec it again).


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 27, 2022)

NKD said:


> Legit ordered a new body for fun right before this post. The R7 for it's 15 mechanical flappy bit per second to keep my mind off the R5. This sounds like an ideal upgrade to the tripod megapixel 5dsR dinosaurs I have. Sounds too good to be true..my intention was was the R7 for sports & then later the FF mirrorless upgrade. Thought it would of been the R5s or R1. 60mp is more than enough if it's like the R3's contrast characteristics and sticky autofocus


I had a quick look at your Website. Really beautiful architectural photography. You've a very consistent style, very good perspectives. They really show off the houses


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I came from 5D series to R5, and despite having large hands I quickly got used to the smaller body - the grip is fine and the controls are all well-spaced.
> 
> It does feel less sturdy to me though, compared to the indestructible feel of 5D and 7D models. I've had no issues (apart from occasional freezes) with the R5, but if I was going to be in a really tough environment where my gear was going to get a real bashing, I'd have more faith in my 5DMkiv.


I feel much less sturdy and more destructible since my first 5D and 7D so the R5 and R7 are more than keeping pace with me.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 27, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> After using 30FPS I hardly see the point of it and wouldn't desire any more (its a real diminishing return). It just burns through the memory card.


Focus bracketing?


----------



## Hector1970 (Nov 27, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Focus bracketing?


This is a bit like Monty Python's Romans. Alright, alright Other than Focus Bracketing what did more than 30FPS ever do for us!
(Actually a function I've never used - I should consider it)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> This is a bit like Monty Python's Romans. Alright, alright Other than Focus Bracketing what did more than 30FPS ever do for us!
> (Actually a function I've never used - I should consider it)


Exposure bracketing?


----------



## entoman (Nov 27, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> Focussing is very good but can be improved upon. They way it can lock onto eyes is very good but not perfect yet. It can still be fooled by cluttered backgrounds. Faster aquisition of targets would be great.


Yes, when using animal-eye AF or plain old animal AF, I find that my R5 jumps to the background too readily (despite trying every conceivable combination of AF settings). I don't know how well it compares with a Sony a1 or a Nikon Z9, but it does need to be stickier.



Hector1970 said:


> I don't see many users complaining about it but I perceive a lag between moving the eyepiece to the eye viewfinder turning on. I usually try to push a focus button as I raise it to my eye so that its on when it gets there.


I find the lag particularly irritating when photographing wildlife, which can suddenly appear in front of you without any warning. I missed a lot of shots in the early days with my R5. Now, my first action is to dab the shutter button *before* raising the camera, to make sure the EVF is active. In situations where the action takes place more frequently, I tend to dab on a button every few seconds to prevent the EVF from turning off. Reducing EVF lag should IMO be the number one priority for the R5 Mkii.



Hector1970 said:


> Sometimes you might regret buying something a while on the market once rumours start about its replacement but not for me on the R5.
> If Canon bring out an R5 with meaningful improvements it will be a big achievement.


I feel much the same way. It's a fantastic camera, and if a few of the minor issues are fixed on the Mkii (freezes, EVF lag, choice of fps and bracketing with electronic shutter, faster readout, better battery performance, stickier AF) the R5 Mkii will really be something.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's wild to see the exact same comments about this rumor when compared to the original EOS R5 rumor.


Really? Your comment is only on page 1 of 8 so far so which ones are you referring to?

Canon drip fed specifications over the best part of 6 months before release. 8k was the "big" feature and what video it could do. 45mp was the obvious resolution to handle 8k video although 39mp was the alternative if UHD implementation was the only option.

The R5ii will be an evolution over R5 whereas I think that we can all concur that the R5 was a revolutionary new body irrespective of manufacturer.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

wockawocka said:


> Pixel binning - why the hell isn't there a mention of pixel binning so we aren't forced to shoot full 60mp. Craw doesn't count.


Oversampling is better than pixel binning. 2 processors to handle the additional computing load of the oversampling algorithms. 
cRaw is lossy and although oversampling isn't technically "raw" but would be much better than pixel binning for recording smaller resolutions than native resolution.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

davidcl0nel said:


> Why 2 USB-C ports...?


Parallel power and monitoring?
One USB-C port could be for thunderbolt connectivity/recording instead of needing the HDMI port. 

That said, the HDMI port should be 2.1 spec as it can handle 4K at 120Hz or 8K at 60Hz due to increasing the bandwidth from current R5 2.0 spec of 18Gbps to 48Gbps.

Fitting 2 USB-C ports, full sized HDMI and mic/headphone/flash sync would appear in the same space as the current size would be interesting. With all cables in place at the same time may actually be stronger as a bunch


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I feel much less sturdy and more destructible since my first 5D and 7D so the R5 and R7 are more than keeping pace with me.


Sadly, I have to agree...same here.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> *This is just me*, but...
> Video doesn't interest me, I wish they'd just produce an additional video-orientated model, and put a tilting-flippy screen (Panasonic-style) on the stills-orientated version.


Although I agree with the rest of your post, the R5c already exists as the additional video orientated model. IBIS is the only obvious missing feature.

I'm okay with the flippy screen but I can appreciate that the flip/tilt option is nice in some scenarios eg street or hand held video. 
The big question for Canon is longevity. We all thought that Canon wouldn't put a flippy on the premium bodies due to reliability but no far there are no widespread problems and it is better to turn it in when not in use. Nikon and Sony with the Z9/A7Rv are pushing the next boundary for reliability.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

alexander.bigel said:


> My suggestion for good camera
> 1) M2 SSD slot


I'm not understanding what you are asking for?
While CFexpress Type B cards are pricey, they're essentially a small M.2 2230 NVMe 1.2-compliant SSD with a PCIe 3.0 x2 interface inside a special housing. 

Whilst you are paying a premium for a genuine CFexpress Type B card, you are welcome to buy a kit to do it yourself. Also, a M2 slot wouldn't handle the weatherproof and insertion cycles needed for removable storage.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

armd said:


> It sounds more like the R1 than a R5II. Nonetheless, I doubt that it would price around $3.5k.


Who knows... perhaps Nikon's pricing of the Z9 has Canon rethinking their price structure.

What else would a R1 have on top of R5ii rumoured specs? 
Quad pixel AF, global shutter (or equivalent sensor read rate to alleviate needing a mechanical shutter and have neglible rolling shutter)?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Secondly 61mp is a bad idea, 45 is plenty and if they go to 61 then low light high iso will suffer. Id much rather have high iso and low light capabilities then any more MP. the photocells are small enough


The R5s crowd want the extra mp. This could be a model to suit them. "Plenty" is an arbitrary term and highly dependent on what you are shooting. The number of times that I have cropped significantly surprises me so 45mp is great compared to the 5Div.

The correlation of pixel pitch and DR/low light capabilities is no longer accurate. Canon has done a remarkable job with the R5 sensor considering it is FSI.
DXOmark (love or loathe it) https://www.dxomark.com/canon-eos-r5-sensor-review-a-high-water-mark/

"As for sensor performance, the EOS R5 sensor represents a high water mark for Canon. Maximum dynamic range is competitive with the best in class, and the R5 sensor offers a useful advantage at some crucial ISO settings over its rivals. It also has excellent color and low noise at high ISOs, which all go toward making the Canon EOS R5 one of the most well-rounded performers in this important category. It may have taken a while to get here, but the Canon EOS R5 looks set to be the one to beat."

A R5ii with BSI sensor should reduce the read noise and hence improve high iso capabilities compared to FSI sensors.


----------



## entoman (Nov 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Although I agree with the rest of your post, the R5c already exists as the additional video orientated model. IBIS is the only obvious missing feature.
> 
> I'm okay with the flippy screen but I can appreciate that the flip/tilt option is nice in some scenarios eg street or hand held video.
> The big question for Canon is longevity. We all thought that Canon wouldn't put a flippy on the premium bodies due to reliability but no far there are no widespread problems and it is better to turn it in when not in use. Nikon and Sony with the Z9/A7Rv are pushing the next boundary for reliability.


Yes indeed, the R5C is there for the video guys. To clarify, what I'd *like* to happen, now that the R5C exists, is for the "R5 Mkii" to be better orientated towards stills users, by dumping the flippy and switching to a tilting screen. I know Canon aren't likely to do that, but my reasoning is as follows:

I personally find flippy screens to be virtually unusable, because they are not on-axis with the lens, which makes it harder to locate and follow a moving subject. Also, if I'm using the camera at a low angle, I find it awkward to curl my hand under the flipped-out screen to cradle the lens. Therefore I nearly always have it turned inward to protect the screen, which to all intents and purposes renders it completely useless to me.

Panasonic and Fujifilm have already solved the screen-choice problem, by producing a screen that can be used flippy-style and turned inwards, but can also be used on-axis as a tilting screen. As for reliability, that remains to be proven, but I'd be happy to take the chance. In any case my gut feeling is that an R5 (even if it had been designed with a fixed screen) won't prove to be as bulletproof as a 5 series or 7 series DSLR. I'm not about to drop it on the floor to test the theory though.


----------



## entoman (Nov 27, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The R5s crowd want the extra mp. This could be a model to suit them. "Plenty" is an arbitrary term and highly dependent on what you are shooting. The number of times that I have cropped significantly surprises me so 45mp is great compared to the 5Div.


I don't think anyone here *objects* to more MP. The problem is that we'll likely have only 2 choices - either shoot at maximum megapixel RAW, or if we want smaller file sizes, shoot on lower quality JPEG or HEIF.

It would be much better IMO if hi-res cameras had an option to shoot RAWs at lower resolutions via pixel-binning, so that the full tonal and colour gamut was present. What I'd really like to see is the option to choose between (e.g.) 90MP, 45MP and 22.5MP RAWs.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think anyone here *objects* to more MP. The problem is that we'll likely have only 2 choices - either shoot at maximum megapixel RAW, or if we want smaller file sizes, shoot on lower quality JPEG or HEIF.
> 
> It would be much better IMO if hi-res cameras had an option to shoot RAWs at lower resolutions via pixel-binning, so that the full tonal and colour gamut was present. What I'd really like to see is the option to choose between (e.g.) 90MP, 45MP and 22.5MP RAWs.


I read an article from a manufacturer of high level detectors for scientific instruments that for current CMOS sensors you cannot simply bin pixels because each row is read out sequentially. To bin them, the sensor is read out normally and then the pixels are binned Post collection. So rolling shutter data collection can’t currently directly produce a lower resolution RAW file.


----------



## entoman (Nov 27, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Just because it is slower does not mean it is older.
> It just means it is less costly to make.


If the sensor is older, it nearly always has a slower readout than a more recent one, which I think is what Alan was putting across. There's nothing wrong in recycling an older and slower sensor (to bring the price down), as long as the buyer understands that it may be inferior. It would be helpful to potential purchasers, if reviews indicated the readout speed in the specification listings.


----------



## entoman (Nov 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I read an article from a manufacturer of high level detectors for scientific instruments that for current CMOS sensors you cannot simply bin pixels because each row is read out sequentially. To bin them, the sensor is read out normally and then the pixels are binned Post collection. So rolling shutter data collection can’t currently directly produce a lower resolution RAW file.


Thanks for the explanation. Another dream shattered 

I guess that means we'll have to wait for global shutter before pixel-binning can be used to allow a choice of uncropped resolutions.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think anyone here *objects* to more MP. The problem is that we'll likely have only 2 choices - either shoot at maximum megapixel RAW, or if we want smaller file sizes, shoot on lower quality JPEG or HEIF.
> 
> It would be much better IMO if hi-res cameras had an option to shoot RAWs at lower resolutions via pixel-binning, so that the full tonal and colour gamut was present. What I'd really like to see is the option to choose between (e.g.) 90MP, 45MP and 22.5MP RAWs.


Pixel binning loses pixel detail and hence will always be worse than oversampling the full sensor. 
Yes, pixel binning will be "raw" in nature just with a smaller light gathering capacity but oversampling uses the light from the full sensor irrespective of the final file size.
mRAW/sRAW oversampled options would still (as far as I know) have a CR3 file prefix rather than jpg/HEIF file.
Having 2 processors would be needed to do the oversampling at fast frame rates.


----------



## BroderLund (Nov 27, 2022)

Hoping the electronic shutter will be 14bit and not reduced to 12bit that the R5 does now.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 27, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I read an article from a manufacturer of high level detectors for scientific instruments that for current CMOS sensors you cannot simply bin pixels because each row is read out sequentially. To bin them, the sensor is read out normally and then the pixels are binned Post collection. So rolling shutter data collection can’t currently directly produce a lower resolution RAW file.


That would be correct. Electrically, it would be line skipping from the sensor. Either the whole sensor is read as normal sequentially and the line dropped when assembling the data in series or the line not read at all. That would still be a "raw" file but with 3:1 aspect ratio
Any pixel binning algorithm would then need to "delete" alternative pixels from each skipped line by the processor.

Technically, pixel binning would still be raw but from from smaller pixels spread across the sensor.
Oversampling is preferred and would "measure" the well capacity across multiple pixels. 
I'm sure that someone can provide the maths to support this


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2022)

entoman said:


> It would be much better IMO if hi-res cameras had an option to shoot RAWs at lower resolutions via pixel-binning, so that the full tonal and colour gamut was present. What I'd really like to see is the option to choose between (e.g.) 90MP, 45MP and 22.5MP RAWs.


So you want 3:1 or a 3:4 aspect ratio? That’s what you’d get binning 2 pixels to go from 90 MP to 45 MP with a RAW file output, plus that would be problematic to demosaic. (FYI, the 36 and 18 MP output from Leica’s 60 MP aren’t RAW, they’re downsampled DNGs.)

From a 90 MP sensor you could have theoretically have 90 MP, 22.5 MP and 5.6 MP RAW files, if you like.


----------



## PaulieWalnuts (Nov 28, 2022)

Really interested in the hi-res pixel shift. Hoping Canon gets it right like Lumix and doesn't take Sony's awful approach. 

I have an S1R that creates 187MP raw files in-camera like a normal photo and the motion compensation works extremely well. Sony's hi-res pixel shift is half baked marketing BS. My A7RIV creates multiple files in camera that then need to be moved to a computer and processed through Sony's slow and clunky Imaging Edge software just to create a single raw file. This mess of a process doesn't change with the A7RV. 

I love the S1R but it's DSLR size, Lumix seems to be slowly dying, and lens selection is limited. Would love to go back to Canon if they get the pixel shift done right.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 28, 2022)

If these rumours were true, I wouldn't upgrade. I am finding that my current R5 is sufficient for my shooting needs and it was a long term investment - especially for an underwater housing to suit it.

60mp sensor... seems to be coincidental with A7rv but may assuage the R5s community

Dual Digic... first time in a "5" series body assuming that the same size body is used
Could help with thermal dissipation but it would be fun to see how Canon would fit them on the circuit board given how packed it is currently.
Needed to do the oversampling from 60mp for 8k video vs the simplicity of 45mp. Also oversampling for smaller files.
Canon's power/battery efficiency isn't great wrt CIPA numbers if nothing else. Type B cards/heat and low power processor doesn't seem to be there. Dual processors aren't likely to be more efficient => less shots

BSI... seems to be reasonable rumour but hardly unexpected. 
Low read noise should be better
Faster readout? Would be needed due to high mp sensor to keep the same rolling shutter. Will BSI be sufficient to increase read out or only stacked sensor?

2x USB-C... nice for dual power/recording for the video folks. HDMI 2.1 and USB-C thunderbolt would impress them greatly.

Dual CFe makes sense but also a new feature on a "5" series body
USB-C/thunderbolt would also reduce the issue of no SD card by only needing a USB-C cable vs a SD reader/PC slot or CFe reader.
No real cost differences now and more CFe choice is a good thing
Reduces buffer clearance for bursts when recording raw to both slots with ~75 meg file size (60mp raw)
SD cards have reached their practical limit. Ubiquitous but UHS-ii is the end of the road. UHS-iii will never be released commercially and SD express has been limited to a couple of PCs and suppliers. CFe Type B has dominated the market. Type A is an expensive niche that most Sony users aren't even using.

Full sized HDMI port is the most common complaint for external video users

Pixel shift/high res.... should be able to implement via firmware today. Niche usage with gigapixel/upres software and has ghosting issues


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 28, 2022)

Things not mentioned that would improve the current R5:
- Variable eShutter rate. With 30fps, you would hope so!
- 14bit output using eShutter and management of banding under indoor lighting would be excellent!
- Mechanically stronger hotshoe would be nice
- Ability to remap the Rate button
- The fancy AF-on smart controller button from 1DXiii/R3 would be nice


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Will BSI be sufficient to increase read out or only stacked sensor?


Does BSI increase readout speed? Data from recent sensors suggest otherwise.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Does BSI increase readout speed? Data from recent sensors suggest otherwise.
> 
> View attachment 206525


Interesting chart! What's the source?
The A1/Z9 are pretty impressive!
For the R5ii to be equal/better then the sensor would need to be the best BSI... which could be okay given that Canon has the best read out for FSI
DPR reports that the A7Rv has "significant rolling shutter" as well but no measurements yet for read out speed.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Interesting chart! What's the source?
> The A1/Z9 are pretty impressive!
> For the R5ii to be equal/better then the sensor would need to be the best BSI... which could be okay given that Canon has the best read out for FSI
> DPR reports that the A7Rv has "significant rolling shutter" as well but no measurements yet for read out speed.


It was posted by @Skyscraperfan, with attribution. 






Canon Cinema EOS Cameras Coming in 2023 [CR3]


It looks like Canon is finally going to be updating some of the Cinema EOS lineup in 2023, we think a lot of products have been delayed and reworked over the last 12-18 months. It looks like Canon will make a splash at NAB in April in Las Vegas. We are likely to see a See full article...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## gmon750 (Nov 28, 2022)

I'm about 1 year into my new R5. Absolutely love it. I bought it for underwater photography and the underwater housing costs as much (or more) than the camera body. I would be very irked if Canon includes dual CFExpress slots as that was one the one key complaint I have about my R5. It should have had dual CFExpress cards to begin with and as I always shoot redundantly, the extra bandwidth of the CFExpress is essentially crippled to the speed of the SD card and that is a shame.

My only hope is that the R5M2 keeps the same body/buttons/location/etc so I can use my current housing. If not, I'm married to my R5 for the very long, foreseeable future.


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 28, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I'm sure it won't be as good as post-processing on a Mac


But might be better than post processing on a PC? ;-)


----------



## sanj (Nov 28, 2022)

BroderLund said:


> Hoping the electronic shutter will be 14bit and not reduced to 12bit that the R5 does now.


Shutter is 'bits'??


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 28, 2022)

sanj said:


> Shutter is 'bits'??


Yes, sadly bit depth depends on the kind of shutter you use. With electronic shutter you lose 2 bits. That means you lose 98.4% of all colours.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> If these rumours were true, I wouldn't upgrade. I am finding that my current R5 is sufficient for my shooting needs and it was a long term investment - especially for an underwater housing to suit it.[...]


I feel pretty much the same, 2.5 years seems very short for replacing a camera like the R5. I used my 7D for 9 years  Having said that, I was very tempted to swap my R5 for an R6II, since that could probably be done with little or no money involved. The software on that fixes a number of issues I've run into recently, like not being able to limit eye/subject detection to a zone.
I'm expecting the R5II to have even more software improvements, hopefully copying the 'detect only AF' feature from the video side over to the still side and have software defined focus limits. But I don't know if it will be enough for me to switch, after such a relatively short time. The R5III in late 2025 will be an even better camera!

Worst case scenario for such first world problems: Canon announces the R5II, M6II-with-RF-mount, RF200L macro, MP-R65mm and a new twin flash. And all of those will be so much better than their predecessors that it's worth upgrading, but you can only pick one


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 28, 2022)

Cochese said:


> Anecdotally, I've been on several shoots/ vacations where either a card was corrupted or lost and being able to pop into almost any local store and find a 32 or 64gb SD card for $20 or less is amazing. I've got so many cards now that I just keep some in my car, camera bag, laptop bag, etc... Just so I always have one or two laying around.


One of the things I miss about my old Minolta film camera is the ubiquity of film and AA batteries. I spent several hours travelling Oklahoma City (it sticks in my memory, because it happened to be on the week Timothy McVeigh was executed), and my boss joked that every so often I would stop for a bottle of water, a roll of film, and a battery.

Nowadays, every mall has a store that sells SD cards. Some sell LP-E6 batteries, though I wouldn't bet on how much charge they hold out of the package. Haven't seen CFe cards sold outside of photography shops.


----------



## Benjamin_L (Nov 28, 2022)

RexxReviews said:


> What exactly do you want them to update? Stacked sensor via firmware? Dual CFExpress via firmware? There are a finite amount of things firmware can actually do when using the same hardware.


Autofocus, object detection, eye prioritization, pre burst. Heck even this high resolution thingie could most likely be implemented as well. I am fully aware hardware upgrades can't be solved by firmware...


----------



## AlanF (Nov 28, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> But might be better than post processing on a PC? ;-)


Seriously, my old MacBook with an Intel processor was really slow with the new Topaz and other software but my MacBook Air with an M2 is blisteringly fast, and I haven't a clue how fast PCs are.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 28, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Yes, sadly bit depth depends on the kind of shutter you use. With electronic shutter you lose 2 bits. That means you lose 98.4% of all colours.


Only below ISO800 and if you expose to maximize the usable bitdepth, like using ETTR. Above ISO800 the dynamic range is already below 12 stops, so shutter mode won't matter in that respect.

If you're at ISO100 with contrasty subjects, like brights skies with tall buildings, then yes, you'll really notice it when post processing. I mainly notice it when using flash for macro photos, I can pull up a lot more details in post on subjects like orb weavers. Comparing summertime, natural light ISO100, ES pictures with fall time, ISO100 flash, EFCS pictures I have a lot more usable data in the shadows.

And 'colours' is a bit misleading to use here, the red channel will clip waaaaaaay before the green and blue channels, so you're already missing a huge chunk of the available colourspace, regardless of bitdepth. I don't have any better way of saying it, "up to 2 stops of dynamic range" doesn't really convey the same exponential severeness as "not losing 98% of all colours".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I don't have any better way of saying it, "up to 2 stops of dynamic range" doesn't really convey the same exponential severeness as "not losing 98% of all colours".


Whether we start with 14 or 12 bits, we end up converting our RAW files to 8-bit jpgs…


----------



## Kit. (Nov 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Whether we start with 14 or 12 bits, we end up converting our RAW files to 8-bit jpgs…


Isn't RAW typically linear (as a function of photon count) and JPEG typically not?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 28, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Above ISO800 the dynamic range is already below 12 stops, so shutter mode won't matter in that respect.


Maybe I am missing something, but the color depth and dynamic range are two different things.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 28, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Maybe I am missing something, but the color depth and dynamic range are two different things.


Whatever color difference is there in the final image, it starts as a luminance difference at the level of individual pixels.


----------



## BroderLund (Nov 28, 2022)

sanj said:


> Shutter is 'bits'??


Images taken with electronic shutter on the R5 is 12bit RAW files and with slightly lower DR. Mechanical shutter images taken on the R5 is 14bit RAW files. Point being I hope the R5 II will have 14bit in both modes.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 28, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Yes, sadly bit depth depends on the kind of shutter you use. With electronic shutter you lose 2 bits.


The R5 has a max 14-bits, drops to 13-bits with high speed continuous + shooting (fastest mechanical shutter speeds), and drops to 12-bits with full electronic shutter. 

FWIW, the R3 is always 14-bits for still images, even at 30 fps full electronic shutter.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Whether we start with 14 or 12 bits, we end up converting our RAW files to 8-bit jpgs…


Yeah, I tried to have a workflow that went something like this:

Ingest CR3 into DPP4, run DLO, export to TIFF
Ingest both CR3 and TIFF into LR Classic, group them with TIFF being on top
Edit, edit, edit
Export to TIFF from LR
Have Preview.app convert the TIFF to HEIC
Import HEIC into Photos.app
The issue with that was that viewing the resulting image in Photos.app, both on iOS and MacOS, there would be a green line at the top or bottom. Like you'd get with HD videos where the software goes "1080 isn't divisible by 16, imma add or remove 8 rows to fix that!!!"

Importing the 16-bit TIFFs into Photos.app wastes a lot of space and leads to black pictures on devices, because the TIFF converter is quite buggy and/or too memory hungry. Sharing a picture to another app, like messages, was painful.

But what about DNGs? Well, LR can't export edited DNGs, only a DNG version of your RAW plus the edits as metadata. Which only Adobe apps properly support. But DXO PL *is* able to export edited DNGs, so that could be an option for the future!


----------



## Fischer (Nov 28, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Because of simple physics, th R3 at 24mp has larger photocells, meaning they can be spaced apart further in the same area and can be pushed to higher iso sensitive before they run into an neighbouring photocell on the sensor. Larger photocells gather more light as well, Yes tech is getting better but if you improve tech for a higher mp sensor then you're obviously doing the same for lower mp sensor as a result so that's a irrelevant convo.
> 
> If you look at the current and new A7R camera that is 60+ mp its native iso range is LOWER then a lower MP camera, that's not by accident.
> 
> I would much prefer a balance, 45mp is plenty and it WILL have better iso performance then a sensor crammed with 61mp. The R5 is suppose to be an all around camera, if it goes to 61mp it now basically becomes a portrait or landscape camera which you won't push the iso anyway. I use my R5 for wildlife and fast moving subjects in low light sometimes so Id prefer the no more than 45mp


Theory is great. But - as I wrote - Canon has several times increased high iso performance _and _pixel count at the same time. See no reason that it will be any different this time. Also, this is an endless discussion every time Canon increases pixel count. Just like so many Canon R customers you have long ago decided to upgrade your MPIX count significantly. A few years from now we will be reading that 100 MPIX is enough and 160 MPIX is "unbalanced" - from the same people that went from 8 to 10 to 12 to 16 to 20 to 24 to 30 MPIX...etc etc. Rejoice - more MPIX is better for wildlife.


----------



## RMac (Nov 28, 2022)

8k is sort of an odd video spec with the quoted resolution. A 61MP sensor would be about 9600 pixels across, which would correspond to 10k resolution. I wonder if they'll crop in for 8k, if it's oversampled (not sure how that'd work with raw video) or if it'll be pixel skipped or if perhaps this rumored spec is off. Time will tell.


----------



## Drazen (Nov 28, 2022)

I find it strange they would launch R5 mk2 while still not having a R1 body. If this is close to what R5mk2 ends up being, I see very little reason to update from R5.

I'll just wait for the R1 and use R5 as backup body.


----------



## alexander.bigel (Nov 28, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> M.2 2230


Because it's comfortable.
Canon in 1995 release EOS DCS 3 with hard drive inside. Today 2022 I don't want insert ssd 2230 in to the box, which has a little more thickness. I want to have ability insert ssd m2 2280 direct in to the camera with full temperature compatibility.
Today size of the ssd is small, and it's possible to make such solution. I want to have additional battery grip which can be used not only as battery holder but can contain 2 or 3 ssd.
If canon want release camera with 8k60 how I can use it ? 5 minutes per 1 card ?


----------



## entoman (Nov 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you want 3:1 or a 3:4 aspect ratio? That’s what you’d get binning 2 pixels to go from 90 MP to 45 MP with a RAW file output, plus that would be problematic to demosaic. (FYI, the 36 and 18 MP output from Leica’s 60 MP aren’t RAW, they’re downsampled DNGs.)
> 
> From a 90 MP sensor you could have theoretically have 90 MP, 22.5 MP and 5.6 MP RAW files, if you like.


I'm more interested in the end results than in the technology and methodology used to obtain them, but if you can suggest another in-camera method of producing uncropped files with lower resolution and smaller files, please go ahead. To be worthwhile, such files must retain the full colour gamut and tonal range, and not suffer from artefacts, so for me, JPEG and HEIF are unsuitable.

If you are wondering, yes, (depending on subject matter) I can easily distinguish a "highest quality" JPEG from a RAW or TIFF, so when post processing I initially output as a JPEG, and if I'm unsatisfied, I then output as TIFF. The latter of course uses up a lot of storage space, but produces by far the best result.

Getting back to the "R5 MKii" rumour, if the only options were to shoot maximum resolution RAWs or JPEGs, the camera wouldn't interest me. The 45MP of the current R5 serves all my needs, and my only major reasons for wanting an "improved" version would be to get better AF, bracketing and focus stacking at 30fps with e-shutter, to eliminate or greatly reduce EVF lag, and to get better battery performance.

It would be nice if Canon could also eliminate the R5 freezes - I don't know whether these only occurred with certain batches, or whether they've been eliminated from current production. In my case I only get freezes under specific circumstances - i.e. after shooting a few short hi-speed bursts.


----------



## entoman (Nov 28, 2022)

Benjamin_L said:


> Autofocus, object detection, eye prioritization, pre burst. Heck even this high resolution thingie could most likely be implemented as well. I am fully aware hardware upgrades can't be solved by firmware...


Yes, much could be achieved via firmware. I think pre-burst would probably require more processing power though.


----------



## TonyG (Nov 28, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> True, but I am not sure that is the kind of competition we need.
> Camera models do not need to match each other spec for spec.
> Anyone who does not need 50 MP would not benefit from 61.


Someone who needs high MP would benefit from a high MP camera. 
The 61 MP rumor I suspect is bull and if there is a high MP camera, it would be the R5s.

But without competition, would canon have pushed mirrorless as hard as they have and with the kick ass eye af they developed?
The Eos R did not have the R6,5,3's eye af. I wonder if there was no need to compete with sony, would we have eye af today?
Or would we be instead seeing a 1dx m4 release today since the original thought was that mirrorless was not the future and Sony was wasting their time.

So to my point, Flagships tend to try and out do the competitions flagships, but all those crazy features get trickled down to the cameras most of us use today. I love my R6 and if it was not for the features to price ratio, or the RF lens quality, I might have decided to primarily use another brand.
If I needed more MP then I would have purchased an R5, but an R6 is great for what I currently need.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 28, 2022)

john1970 said:


> To me this seems to be more of a wish list. Given the minor upgrades on the R6 Mk2 vs. the R6, I am a bit skeptical if the R5 Mk2 would have so many significantly upgrades vs. the R5.


Well to be fair...the R6 is a bit lower end camera.
It's not likely to generally get the love of cameras R5 and higher level....

cayenne


----------



## entoman (Nov 28, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Yeah, I tried to have a workflow that went something like this:
> 
> Ingest CR3 into DPP4, run DLO, export to TIFF
> Ingest both CR3 and TIFF into LR Classic, group them with TIFF being on top
> ...


FWIW my workflow is:

Shoot on CR3
Edit it LR Classic (and PS, if needed)
Topaz Denoise AI output as JPEG
If any artefacts or colour blotchiness present in JPEG, output again as 8 bit TIFF
In very rare cases where colour blotchiness still exists in 8 bit TIFFs, output again as 16 bit TIFF

My experience is that with JPEGs, colour blotchiness often shows up in out-of-focus backgrounds where there are subtle transitions in colour. Most often this occurs in heavily defocused macro backgrounds, but sometimes it can happen in the sky with landscapes. Outputting from DeNoise to a 8 bit TIFF nearly always eliminates the blotchiness.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> He’s talking about RAW DNG video.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Wow..I'd never heard of this.

Hmm...you know, I don't think I've ever updated the firmware of my old 5D3...maybe it's time to do so and see what else they added over the years!!!

cayenne


----------



## cayenne (Nov 28, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> My R3 shoots 30 fps and I write RAW simultaneously to both the CFe and SD cards. I haven’t had the SD card slow me down yet.
> 
> 
> True. I have a CFe reader, but the Stone Pro dock on my desk (connected to the 5K:2K display I use for editing) and my 16” M1 MacBook Pro have built-in SD card slots.


Well, do remember at one time (not THAT long back for us old fellas)....our laptops had 3" floppy disks built in too.


LOL....
C


----------



## cohenfive (Nov 28, 2022)

Sounds great if it is at the same price point as current list of R5/A7r5 and probably the Z8. I love my R5/6 v1, but if af performance improves a bit, if rolling shutter is a bit better, and if there are more fps options for using electronic shutter, I\'m a happy camper.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 28, 2022)

alexander.bigel said:


> Because it's comfortable.
> Canon in 1995 release EOS DCS 3 with hard drive inside. Today 2022 I don't want insert ssd 2230 in to the box, which has a little more thickness. I want to have ability insert ssd m2 2280 direct in to the camera with full temperature compatibility.
> Today size of the ssd is small, and it's possible to make such solution. I want to have additional battery grip which can be used not only as battery holder but can contain 2 or 3 ssd.
> If canon want release camera with 8k60 how I can use it ? 5 minutes per 1 card ?


8k30 DCI raw internal can currently fit 51 minutes on a 1TB card (see R5 advanced user guide) so 8k60 would be ~25minutes on a 1TB card or ~50 minutes on a 2TB card. External power would be needed. Thermal limit would be interesting for 8k60 raw.
Delkin currently have a 2TB card for USD700. That said, I doubt that anyone will record long clips of 8k60.

8k60 could be recorded externally. HDMI 2.1 can support it and I would be surprised if Canon sticks to HDMI 2.0 instead of upgrading the port.
If one of the USB-C ports are thunderbolt 4 then it can handle 8k60 10 bit transfer (Display Port 2/80Gbps) and you can have all the storage you want within the range of the 3m max length cable 

Note that it isn't clear whether the 8k60 would be based on cropped sensor ie 45mp 3:2 aspect or oversampled from the full width of 60mp 3:2 aspect ratio. Cropped would use far less processing power/heat.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 28, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Absolutely. Basic control theory tells us that the higher the sample frequency, the faster the loop response can be. The catch is that an R7 with a stacked sensor would be at a price point that would be a hard sell for the masses. At the current price, it will sell very well.


By the R series standards it's a bargain!


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Oversampling is better than pixel binning. 2 processors to handle the additional computing load of the oversampling algorithms.
> cRaw is lossy and although oversampling isn't technically "raw" but would be much better than pixel binning for recording smaller resolutions than native resolution.


Can you please explain - what is pixel binning, and what is oversampling? I thought I understood but now I'm confused again.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Can you please explain - what is pixel binning, and what is oversampling? I thought I understood but now I'm confused again.


Short answers from Wikipedia:
*Pixel binning*, often called *binning*, is the process of combining adjacent pixels throughout an image, by summing or averaging their values, during or after readout.
Charge from adjacent pixels in CCD image sensors and some other image sensors can be combined during readout, increasing the line rate or frame rate.
In the context of image processing, binning is the procedure of combining clusters of adjacent pixels, throughout an image, into single pixels. For example, in 2x2 binning, an array of 4 pixels becomes a single larger pixel,[1] reducing the number of pixels to 1/4 and halving the image resolution in each dimension. The result can be the sum, average, median, minimum, or maximum value of the cluster.[2]
This aggregation, although associated with loss of information, reduces the amount of data to be processed, facilitating analysis. The binned image has lower resolution, but the relative noise level in each pixel is generally reduced.

The other option is oversampling where the entire sensor (at least the width) is used and providing different final file sizes.
"In signal processing, *oversampling* is the process of sampling a signal at a sampling frequency significantly higher than the Nyquist rate. Theoretically, a bandwidth-limited signal can be perfectly reconstructed if sampled at the Nyquist rate or above it. The Nyquist rate is defined as twice the bandwidth of the signal. *Oversampling is capable of improving resolution and signal-to-noise ratio, and can be helpful in avoiding aliasing and phase distortion by relaxing anti-aliasing filter performance requirements.* "


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Can you please explain - what is pixel binning, and what is oversampling? I thought I understood but now I'm confused again.


Longer answer it but I am sure that others will have additional information/correction/clarification.

A sensor's native resolution can be chopped up to provide smaller files and different aspect ratios. 
ILCs/35mm sensors are 3:2 aspect ration eg R5 = 8192 x 5464 pixels. 
Using the R5 in crop/APS-C mode gives ~17mp in 3:2 aspect ratio and the remainder of the pixels outside of that segment are dropped. You can do this in post processing as well but the difference is the initial file size.

Video uses different aspect ratios to 3:2 eg DCI 8k uses the full width of the sensor @ 8192 pixels but only 4320 pixels high at 17:9 aspect ratio. The rest of the lines on the sensor are dropped/not recorded. If UHD 8k is recorded then 7680 x 4320 pixels are recorded (16:9 aspect ratio). The simple choice to crop the sensor's width (dropping 512 pixels of the sensor's width) which slightly changes the field of view of your lenses.

For 4k and smaller video implementations:
- Crop the sensor so that only the middle portion is recorded. The field of view will change accordingly
- Line skip on the R5 where every 2nd line of the sensor are not recorded (up to the required 2160 lines for DCI aspect ratio. The field of view does not change in this case.

In all these options, you can consider the files as raw as there is no computation to change the per-pixel measurement. That said, Canon uses codecs for resolutions less than DCI 8k so the files are not raw.

When you line skip, the still files end up having a weird aspect ratio ie 3:1 vs 3:2 so you need to drop/bin alternative horizontal pixels as well to bring it back to 3:2. Similar process for video formats.

So the 4kHQ (high quality) option on the R5 is where the processor takes the 8k raw data but oversamples it and outputs a 4k resolution video file. It uses the processor for the calculations and hence the initial thermal limitations vs the non-thermally limited line skipped option.
The Sony A1 does the same with its 60mp sensor to output 8k video codec. It doesn't / can't output 8k raw video. If they could then they would need CFe Type B cards and there would be a significant crop (changed field of view) from the camera.

Oversampling needs processing power/heat/battery life etc so simpler techniques such as line skipping were used in the past and as an option today. It should give you a sharper image and reduce moire/colour artifacts significantly. 

Still shots all use compression/oversampling except for full raw. High resolution is great except for file sizes (buffer/card capacity/post processing/storage). 
Options:
Jpeg have the lowest quality and has settings for compression. 8 bit colour but ubiquitous for output file formats.
HEIF format have newer compression and handles 10 bit dynamic range/16 bit colour and ~half the file size of jpg. Still to become a standard
Canon decided that their cRAW slightly lossy format is preferable to the 5DS/r mRAW/sRAW formats. I am not sure exactly what the difference is though. Both have full resolution and smaller files and must use oversampling.

Pixel binning (especially for these >100mp phone cameras) refers to using 2x2 (four in one) or 3x3 (nine in one) groups of pixels to represent 1 pixel. Light sensitivity for night vs high res for day shots. My DJI M3P has a 48mp sensor but no one can really see any advantage for using the full resolution vs 12mp stills (4 in 1 pixel binning). The only resolution options using this definition is 4:1, 9:1 etc.


----------



## njohnson (Nov 29, 2022)

I hope this does get released soon so I can snag an R5 Mk1 on the second-hand market. I don't care about 8K video, so the overheating issues are meaningless for me.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> […]
> Canon decided that their cRAW slightly lossy format is preferable to the 5DS/r mRAW/sRAW formats. I am not sure exactly what the difference is though. Both have full resolution and smaller files and must use oversampling.
> […]


mRAW/sRAW are debayered, downscaled TIFF images. cRAW isn’t debayered and is only full size.
With cRAW still in the original bayer grid, RAW converters can still work their colour, sharpness and denoising magic on them. 
From what I’ve read, craw compression works by reducing bit depth from areas that don’t need it, like the sky or bokeh. I’d love to see a proper analysis of craw, since it’s like magic for me


----------



## Dragon (Nov 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> By the R series standards it's a bargain!


Adjusted for inflation, The R7 is only 2/3rds of the price of the 7D II and it does way more. I'd say it is a bargain by just about any standards.


----------



## Benjamin_L (Nov 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes, much could be achieved via firmware. I think pre-burst would probably require more processing power though.


Why do you think so? It's basically just filling up the buffer earlier? I see no reason why this should not work in the recording limits (cpu power, write speeds, buffer size, etc.) of the R5 hardware of course


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 29, 2022)

Benjamin_L said:


> Why do you think so? It's basically just filling up the buffer earlier? I see no reason why this should not work in the recording limits (cpu power, write speeds, buffer size, etc.) of the R5 hardware of course


The M6II had that feature already, using an SD card, a smaller buffer and previous-gen Digic 8. I don't think it's a hardware limitation that prevents the R5 from having it. Canon almost never adds features from either lower end or more recent cameras to existing cameras. I think the original R still doesn't have focus stacking, while literally every other R camera has it.
When I buy electronics I pretend that firmware updates aren't a thing, that sets the expectation level correctly for nearly all electronics. And allows for pleasant surprises


----------



## AlanF (Nov 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The M6II had that feature already, using an SD card, a smaller buffer and previous-gen Digic 8. I don't think it's a hardware limitation that prevents the R5 from having it. Canon almost never adds features from either lower end or more recent cameras to existing cameras. I think the original R still doesn't have focus stacking, while literally every other R camera has it.
> When I buy electronics I pretend that firmware updates aren't a thing, that sets the expectation level correctly for nearly all electronics. And allows for pleasant surprises


It's their planned obsolescence programme. I like Canon's gear but with the full knowledge they are ruthless.


----------



## sanj (Nov 29, 2022)

Chaitanya said:


> Wont be too surprised about that date for R5 II, given its new 61MP sensor this would kill high MP S model hopes.


Life is full of surprises.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Longer answer it but I am sure that others will have additional information/correction/clarification.
> 
> A sensor's native resolution can be chopped up to provide smaller files and different aspect ratios.
> ILCs/35mm sensors are 3:2 aspect ration eg R5 = 8192 x 5464 pixels.
> ...


Thanks for all this. So my understanding of binning was correct, but I'm still finding oversampling a challenge so I'd best go off and do some more reading


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I think the original R still doesn't have focus stacking, while literally every other R camera has it.


Just as a point of interest, you mean focus bracketing, right? I have the R6 and it will shoot focus bracketed sequences but it won't stack the resulting images, whereas the R6II can do both (the latter referred to as 'depth compositing'). (It's a not inconsequential distinction for me, I don't have a computer so I can't do focus stacking - having it in-camera would be fantastic!).


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 29, 2022)

scyrene said:


> Just as a point of interest, you mean focus bracketing, right? I have the R6 and it will shoot focus bracketed sequences but it won't stack the resulting images, whereas the R6II can do both (the latter referred to as 'depth compositing'). (It's a not inconsequential distinction for me, I don't have a computer so I can't do focus stacking - having it in-camera would be fantastic!).


Yes, I meant bracketing, not compositing, sorry for the confusion. The R3, R7, R10 and R6II can do in-camera compositing to give you a ready-to-print JPEG. The RP, R5, R6 and M6II can only do the bracketing. And as @neuroanatomist pointed out in a differend thread: the R3 can actually use flash in that mode, all the others can't since it's electronic shutter only and their readout speed is too slow to capture the flash.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Canon almost never adds features from either lower end or more recent cameras to existing cameras.





scyrene said:


> Just as a point of interest, you mean focus bracketing, right? I have the R6 and it will shoot focus bracketed sequences but it won't stack the resulting images, whereas the R6II can do both (the latter referred to as 'depth compositing'). (It's a not inconsequential distinction for me, I don't have a computer so I can't do focus stacking - having it in-camera would be fantastic!).


Just as a relevant exception that makes the point, at release the R3 could only collect the focus bracketed images. The Depth Compositing feature was added to the R3 with the v1.2.1 firmware update (along with the ability to use a flash with focus bracketing).


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Yes, I meant bracketing, not compositing, sorry for the confusion. The R3, R7, R10 and R6II can do in-camera compositing to give you a ready-to-print JPEG. The RP, R5, R6 and M6II can only do the bracketing. And as @neuroanatomist pointed out in a differend thread: the R3 can actually use flash in that mode, all the others can't since it's electronic shutter only and their readout speed is too slow to capture the flash.


I didn't realise the R7 could do it; that's an increasingly tempting second body for me!


----------



## RMac (Nov 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Longer answer it but I am sure that others will have additional information/correction/clarification.
> 
> A sensor's native resolution can be chopped up to provide smaller files and different aspect ratios.
> ILCs/35mm sensors are 3:2 aspect ration eg R5 = 8192 x 5464 pixels.
> ...


So if this is a 61MP camera, by my reckoning that'd be about 9600 pixels across. So I guess that means that 8K would be cropped or subject to either binning or oversampling? Or would they maybe go with 10K, which would match the 9600-pixels-across spec? And I'd guess that if it does offer 8K raw output, that would necessarily involve a modest crop to get to a 1:1 pixel readout?
Also, I think the A1 is 50MP, and it's advertised as oversampling 8K footage from an 8.6K readout. The A7RV is the 61MP Sony body, and glancing at their marketing materials they don't say what they do on that camera for 8K (I gave up on trying to stay abreast of Sony specs long ago).


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 29, 2022)

RMac said:


> So if this is a 61MP camera, by my reckoning that'd be about 9600 pixels across. So I guess that means that 8K would be cropped or subject to either binning or oversampling? [...]


Binning works on every pixel equally, so you'd get divide-by-integer results: 4800, 3200, 1920, 1600 or fewer pixels across. Downscaling can work with arbitrary output sizes, some sizes yielding better results that others, depending on the algorithm.


----------



## iamjhil (Nov 29, 2022)

Typical. I just bought an R5 Over the summer. ughhh


----------



## Antono Refa (Nov 29, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Seriously, my old MacBook with an Intel processor was really slow with the new Topaz and other software but my MacBook Air with an M2 is blisteringly fast, and I haven't a clue how fast PCs are.


I would be surprised if Topaz & co don't have identical source code compiled for the different platforms, producing different results. As for speed, I haven't seen tests running on similar* hardware, so I don't know.

* Say same price, or hardware matching in benchmark results. I suspect much of the performance difference is due to integration, so Intel and AMD (whose chiplets are similar to Apple's integration) might try closing the gap going the same route as Apple.


----------



## entoman (Nov 29, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> When you line skip, the still files end up having a weird aspect ratio ie 3:1 vs 3:2 so you need to drop/bin alternative horizontal pixels as well to bring it back to 3:2. Similar process for video formats.



This is what I was thinking about when I started this discussion.

So forgive my lazy maths, but what would the resulting resolutions be, with line skipping and binning of alternate horizontal pixels to keep the same aspect ratio, on a 61MP sensor (or on a 90MP sensor, which is what I personally think the R5ii/R5s will have?

And my understanding is that this has to happen at the conclusion of the readout, so do you think it's feasible for (slow) burst shooting, or only for single shot, if at all?


----------



## entoman (Nov 29, 2022)

iamjhil said:


> Typical. I just bought an R5 Over the summer. ughhh


Great choice, nothing to regret! It'll be another year before the successor hits the stores, and another 6 months after that if you wait for firmware to fix the inevitable early bugs. And it'll cost 20% more than the R5, and most likely the additional features will be ones that you don't really need anyway. Enjoy your R5.


----------



## cayenne (Nov 29, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Yes, I meant bracketing, not compositing, sorry for the confusion. The R3, R7, R10 and R6II can do in-camera compositing to give you a ready-to-print JPEG. The RP, R5, R6 and M6II can only do the bracketing. And as @neuroanatomist pointed out in a differend thread: the R3 can actually use flash in that mode, all the others can't since it's electronic shutter only and their readout speed is too slow to capture the flash.


I guess I don't get it.
We have these great cameras and sensors....combined with state of the art lenses.

Why is anyone ever doing any workflow less than RAW? Why on earth would you want the camera to focus stack and prepare a jpg of a picture you take....rather than import the files to your "developing" app of choice where you can do RAW manipulations before you stack them and have a superior image result?

I suppose I can understand some pro workflow that has to get say, sports images in quick....to quick publish, but likely those are only going to be published to low end resolution views like social media, newspapers or online equivalent...

But for real images....why?

cayenne


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 29, 2022)

cayenne said:


> But for real images....why?


How else am I supposed to get it up on my Insta, like, right away?


----------



## Kit. (Nov 29, 2022)

cayenne said:


> But for real images....why?


If your camera can stack those raws as a part of its embedded raw processing functionality, you can post your mushroom pictures to the CR mushrooms thread straight from the forest, provided that you have LTE signal there.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 29, 2022)

cayenne said:


> I guess I don't get it.
> We have these great cameras and sensors....combined with state of the art lenses.
> 
> Why is anyone ever doing any workflow less than RAW? Why on earth would you want the camera to focus stack and prepare a jpg of a picture you take....rather than import the files to your "developing" app of choice where you can do RAW manipulations before you stack them and have a superior image result?
> ...


In my case, my computer died a couple of years ago and I can't afford to (or at least justify the expense of) replac(e/ing) it. From what I can tell, there are no focus stacking/depth compositing apps for mobile, so it would help me a lot if the camera could do it for me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 29, 2022)

entoman said:


> This is what I was thinking about when I started this discussion.
> 
> So forgive my lazy maths, but what would the resulting resolutions be, with line skipping and binning of alternate horizontal pixels to keep the same aspect ratio, on a 61MP sensor (or on a 90MP sensor, which is what I personally think the R5ii/R5s will have?
> 
> And my understanding is that this has to happen at the conclusion of the readout, so do you think it's feasible for (slow) burst shooting, or only for single shot, if at all?


60mp @3:2 aspect will be ~9600x6400.
It can't do 10k as the only "standard" aspect ratio for 10k is ~21:9 ie 10240 × 4320 which would require a 70mp sensor (10240x6830). 
Note that the vertical rows are the same for 8k so 10k is just more "widescreen"
Pixel binning of 4 in 1 would be 4800x3200 (15mp 3:2 aspect). ~4.8k video
Pixel binning of 9 in 1 would be 3200x2130 (7mp 3:2 aspect). ~3k video
4k/2k standard video would need cropping (field of view change) or oversampling from the full width.

Line skipping would be the same for video if the full sensor width is retained. 4k video would require a horizontal crop of ~800 pixels so the field of view will change.

For stills, there is no benefit for line skipping.... the final image is actually worse in many ways. Pixel binning can provide some benefits in low light.

Oversampling was rarely used in the past as processing power was limited. That is not the case today with thermal management being the limiting issue.
Buffer depth is dependent on the buffer memory capacity, the size of the files and card write speeds. The smaller the files, the deeper the buffer with all other things being equal.
Smaller files due to compression algorithms (processing power needed) to your favourite format - jpg/HEIF/cRAW etc. 
Dual pixel readout is double the RAW file size but I haven't seen any useful features for this option.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 29, 2022)

RMac said:


> So if this is a 61MP camera, by my reckoning that'd be about 9600 pixels across. So I guess that means that 8K would be cropped or subject to either binning or oversampling?


Standard 8k video (DCI/UHD) would need to be cropped (~800 horizontal pixels) with field of view change or oversampled from the full sensor width



RMac said:


> Or would they maybe go with 10K, which would match the 9600-pixels-across spec?


10k video is 10240 × 4320 (~21:9 aspect) which would need ~70mp sensor @3:2 aspect


RMac said:


> And I'd guess that if it does offer 8K raw output, that would necessarily involve a modest crop to get to a 1:1 pixel readout?


Yes, cropping (field of view change) could output a 8k raw video which is 1:1 ie no oversampling


RMac said:


> Also, I think the A1 is 50MP, and it's advertised as oversampling 8K footage from an 8.6K readout. The A7RV is the 61MP Sony body, and glancing at their marketing materials they don't say what they do on that camera for 8K (I gave up on trying to stay abreast of Sony specs long ago).


Yep, I got the A7Rv and A1 mixed up. Canon choose the sweet spot for R5 for DCI 8k video with no crop or oversampling needed for 8k with its 45mp sensor. Oversampling from 8k to 4k should also be less processor intensive than an "odd" number as far as I know

Note that the A1 does not output 8k raw. Only the R5 can do this and only internally due to not including a port with high enough bandwidth.
It outputs 10-bit 4:2:0 H.265 footage at either 200 or 400mbps. Note that raw recording would need higher bandwidth ie Type B CFe cards.

From DPR:
"Full-width 4K is pixel-binned (merged neighboring pixels), which means it won't be as detailed as downsampling the 8K video to 4K, but the noise performance will still be comparable. If you can handle a 1.13x crop, you can shoot up to 4K/120p, and a further crop to an APS-C / Super35 mode gives you 4K that's oversampled from a 5.8K region of the sensor (so it's more detailed than full-width 4K but is likely to be a bit noisier)."

The R5's 4kHQ is downsampled from full width 8k or there is a line skip option... I don't think that it is pixel binned.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 30, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> [...]Note that the A1 does not output 8k raw. Only the R5 can do this and only internally due to not including a port with high enough bandwidth.
> [...]


Small side note on that: With a recent firmware and an Atomos V+ you can record PRoRES RAW at 8k30 over HDMI. Not real RAW or RAW-lite, but better-than-HEVC


----------



## Aussie shooter (Nov 30, 2022)

Some pretty impressive specs. Would make it a pretty unaffordable camera in Australia unfortunately.it would be up there with a 1dx3


----------



## chasingrealness (Nov 30, 2022)

I'm more excited by this upcoming camera than any others that have dropped in the RF lineup. I've held back on buying high-end mirrorless bodies because I'm waiting for more of the kinks to be worked out. Recently, I picked up an R7 and while it has its own problems, the upsides of that camera bode well for Canon's future. 

Hopefully this will be mature enough to make it worth buying because I'm really looking forward to that high-megapixel BSI level up. And hopefully it will be available on a regular basis so I can actually get my hands on one when I'm ready.


----------



## peters (Nov 30, 2022)

This reads like the PERFECT wishlist I would like to see in a R5 II. 
Better DR in Video would be nice, but I guess we could expect it. 
This would be perfect


----------



## Whowe (Nov 30, 2022)

Antono Refa said:


> I understand the cropped image upscaled to fill the viewfinder. Upscale the jpg written to the memory card? Pointless. Even if its as good as post processing on a PC, why waste battery?


I can NOT imagine taking a 1 MP file (8x) and upscaling it to 61 MP and have even O image quality...


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 30, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Small side note on that: With a recent firmware and an Atomos V+ you can record PRoRES RAW at 8k30 over HDMI. Not real RAW or RAW-lite, but better-than-HEVC


Yes, Canon added a compressed version that can be sent externally via the HDMI 2.0 port. 
If the 2nd USB-C port is Thunderbolt and/or a HDMI 2.1 port would be sufficient for raw output at 8k60


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 30, 2022)

Aussie shooter said:


> Some pretty impressive specs. Would make it a pretty unaffordable camera in Australia unfortunately.it would be up there with a 1dx3


The R5 had a pre-order price of ~AUD6.4k 2.5 years ago (with spare battery/strap and tiny SD card) and sold pretty well for a long time. 
Pricing was down to about AUD5.1k over last weekend. 
The AUD:USD has bounced around a lot since then but is currently the same as June 2020 so perhaps the pricing is based on the AUD:JPY rate where we have appreciated ~25% since launch date.

1DXiii is closer to AUD10k including bundled 512GB card+reader.
R3 is ~AUD7.5k

I would assume that a R5ii would be similar to the launch price of the R5. Affordability is a whole different question!


----------



## AlanF (Nov 30, 2022)

hg


David - Sydney said:


> The R5 had a pre-order price of ~AUD6.4k 2.5 years ago (with spare battery/strap and tiny SD card) and sold pretty well for a long time.
> Pricing was down to about AUD5.1k over last weekend.
> The AUD:USD has bounced around a lot since then but is currently the same as June 2020 so perhaps the pricing is based on the AUD:JPY rate where we have appreciated ~25% since launch date.
> 
> ...


The current discounted UK price for the R5 converts into AUD 7161, that's a 40% mark up on the Aussie price. We can get it for 5100 AUD from a good HK grey market importer. If Canon does the same to us with an R5 II, I'll join @entoman and wait til available on the grey market.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The current discounted UK price for the R5 converts into AUD 7161, that's a 40% mark up on the Aussie price. We can get it for 5100 AUD from a good HK grey market importer. If Canon does the same to us with an R5 II, I'll join @entoman and wait til available on the grey market.


We have 10% GST vs UK 20% VAT.. but we have 5 year warranty for piece of mind if nothing else.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Dec 1, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The R5 had a pre-order price of ~AUD6.4k 2.5 years ago (with spare battery/strap and tiny SD card) and sold pretty well for a long time.
> Pricing was down to about AUD5.1k over last weekend.
> The AUD:USD has bounced around a lot since then but is currently the same as June 2020 so perhaps the pricing is based on the AUD:JPY rate where we have appreciated ~25% since launch date.
> 
> ...


Possibly. But those specs(if they are legit) certainly put it at quite a higher level than the original. Based on the specs alone I would say it is 500 us dollars more of a camera which in Australia would be 1k more at least given how much we tend to get screwed at the cash register. Maybe closer to r3 territory that 1dx2 territory. Then. Although having said that the r62 did not see a massive increase despite a fair increase in specs so we can only hope the r52 goes in the same direction. Tbh though for me it is more of a pure speculation issue as I am not currently in need of updating anyway


----------



## davision (Dec 1, 2022)

I don\'t think that 61MP are true. It makes no sense when it has the said Video Specs. 8K60 from a 61MP Sensor would be a Rolling Shutter Mess. Also Downsampling from 61MP to 4K120p, this is nothing that has be done so far with any sensor. 30 FPS & 61MP also seem to be unlikely. I guess it will eave the Resolution, or go just a bit higher to 50 MP. I never liked all the compromise that came with the 61MP of the a7R IV.


----------



## Snapster (Dec 1, 2022)

I think 30mp is the sweet spot where you can print big without sacrificing low light performance more than you have to.

R5 is still a great camera going into 2023 but the original R was always behind the times. Shouldn't Canon first introduce the R mark II or R8? A photography focused FF camera in the $2000 range with the latest tech? I also think the R feels better in the hand than R6, more dense and high quality. I hope they keep that in a potential successor. I loved my R and the only thing that made me switch was the AF that just couldn't keep up.


----------



## davision (Dec 1, 2022)

Snapster said:


> I think 30mp is the sweet spot where you can print big without sacrificing low light performance more than you have to.
> 
> R5 is still a great camera going into 2023 but the original R was always behind the times. Shouldn't Canon first introduce the R mark II or R8? A photography focused FF camera in the $2000 range with the latest tech? I also think the R feels better in the hand than R6, more dense and high quality. I hope they keep that in a potential successor. I loved my R and the only thing that made me switch was the AF that just couldn't keep up.


How should a R8 be a FF Camera if the R7 is APS-C with the R6 Mark II there is not much need for a R II.


----------



## entoman (Dec 1, 2022)

davision said:


> How should a R8 be a FF Camera if the R7 is APS-C with the R6 Mark II there is not much need for a R II.


It's perfectly possible - the RP has a 2-letter designation, while all the other FF models have a 1-letter, 1-number designation. So this model rumoured to be inbetween the R7 and R6ii *in price* could easily be a full frame camera with a 2-letter designation, e.g. RV (V for video/vlogging), or it could, despite rumours indicating otherwise, be called RP Mkii. The notion that it will be called R8 is pure internet speculation.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 1, 2022)

My incomplete wish list for R5 MK II (photography)
1. Built in GPS
2. Built in storage 2TB, 1 CFE slot
3. 3ms sensor read out
4. Eye AF from any methods 
5. ES with different fps options 
6. Simulated shutter sound of ES
7. Usable MS
8. 14bit ES
9. Positive shoulder LCD
10. Battery grip exclusively
11. Focus bracketing works with flash
12. IBIS on/off independently
13. Camera profile for LR
14. Shutter mode, distance information embedded in image file
15. Metering with contents aware (AI Metering?)
16. Trading option for existing R5 users


----------



## entoman (Dec 2, 2022)

Rzrsharp said:


> My incomplete wish list for R5 MK II (photography)
> 1. Built in GPS
> 2. Built in storage 2TB, 1 CFE slot
> 3. 3ms sensor read out
> ...


Interesting list. I'm pretty happy with my R5, but here's my R5ii wishlist, in approximate order of importance:

1. Better subject recognition, faster acquisition and stickier tracking
2. Elimination of EVF lag from standby
3. All freezing bugs fixed
4. More DR and better high ISO (1600-6400) performance
5. Exposure bracketing at max burst speed (20fps is fine) with ES
6. Extended battery life (more efficient electronics, better battery)
7. ES with different fps options
8. Hybrid tilting/flippy screen (Panasonic type)
9. 9.4m dot EVF (doesn't matter to me if resolution drops during bursts)
10. smaller files for uncropped RAWs (better compression algorithm?)

From your list, I don't care about GPS
Metering is fine although I'd like to have option to bracket exposures with ES
I don't want/need eye-control AF (as per R3), and don't care about video
45MP is enough for me


----------



## entoman (Dec 2, 2022)

Snapster said:


> I think 30mp is the sweet spot where you can print big without sacrificing low light performance more than you have to.
> 
> R5 is still a great camera going into 2023 but the original R was always behind the times. Shouldn't Canon first introduce the R mark II or R8? A photography focused FF camera in the $2000 range with the latest tech? I also think the R feels better in the hand than R6, more dense and high quality. I hope they keep that in a potential successor. I loved my R and the only thing that made me switch was the AF that just couldn't keep up.


I had a 50MP 5DS, then later I added a 30MP 5DMkiv because I wanted faster fps and better AF. The 5DMkiv is a much more responsive camera, so I hardly touched the 5DS after that, and didn't really miss the 50MP, so my initial reaction is yes, 30MP is the sweetspot.

But then I decided it was time to get a MILC, so I bought an R5 with 45MP, and I'm glad that I've got more cropping ability. I don't make prints, but I crop everything to 16:9 ratio and view on a 27" 5K monitor. (I like the wider image as it feels more natural to me, so I choose my subjects and composition with a 16:9 image in mind).

Most of my subjects (birds, animals, insects) move rapidly and unpredictably, so I have little time to compose accurately at the time of shooting. Having a 45MP sensor gives me lots of room to crop, rotate and choose alternative compositions from a single shot. But I wouldn't want to go to 60MP unless Canon find a way to reduce RAW file sizes without losing tonal range or colour gamut. Of course, I could shoot in 16:9 format and reduce file size that way, but I prefer to shoot at standard 3:2 and crop to 16:9 in post, as it gives me more leeway to rotate and recompose.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> 3. All freezing bugs fixed


I get that this has been an issue for you, but it seems not everyone experiences it; in which case if it's a bad batch or whatever it's not really something you can realistically wish for, as it's the equivalent of "no faulty bodies/flawless quality control". Did you consider getting yours replaced under warranty, or did it not emerge until too late?


----------



## Kit. (Dec 2, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I get that this has been an issue for you, but it seems not everyone experiences it; in which case if it's a bad batch or whatever it's not really something you can realistically wish for, as it's the equivalent of "no faulty bodies/flawless quality control". Did you consider getting yours replaced under warranty, or did it not emerge until too late?


At least partly this is due to firmware bugs, accepted by Canon and supposedly fixed in more modern firmware.


----------



## entoman (Dec 2, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I get that this has been an issue for you, but it seems not everyone experiences it; in which case if it's a bad batch or whatever it's not really something you can realistically wish for, as it's the equivalent of "no faulty bodies/flawless quality control". Did you consider getting yours replaced under warranty, or did it not emerge until too late?


It's been an issue for quite a lot of people, if posts on CR are any guide. Similar issues have already been reported (rarely) with the R3, and there was a comment here yesterday that someone had a 6DMkii throw an error code and freeze. There is clearly something amiss in Canon's quality control.

Whether it's hardware (faulty component in some batches?) or firmware (conflicts or poor coding?) is debatable, no one knows.

No one is expecting "no faulty bodies/flawless quality control", but what we are expecting is that Canon reduce the number of bodies with these problems, **by significantly improving their component checking and their firmware**. It does their reputation no good whatsoever to send out faulty bodies.

In most cases, the freezes reported here seem to be occasional and very random, and those who have returned bodies have said that Canon has been unable to reproduce the problem. Some have even had the mainboards replaced, but have still experienced freezes afterwards, so I have little faith in Canon's ability (or even willingness) to sort out these issues.

In my case, the freezes seem to be related to buffer overload when shooting RAW bursts, but I've tried 3 brands of CFE card and had issues with all of them. So far, I've had no freezes when shooting JPEGs, which seems to reinforce the buffer theory.

My R5 is in daily use, and I'm frequently out of the country, so rather than have my camera sitting in a repair shop for 2-3 weeks, I've chosen to continue using it but to only shoot bursts in JPEG, as I don't have a spare RF body to use while I'm waiting for a repair/replacement to be dealt with.

When freezes do occur, it greatly reduces my faith in Canon, and makes me more reluctant to act as a guinea-pig when they release a new model.


----------



## Rzrsharp (Dec 2, 2022)

entoman said:


> Interesting list. I'm pretty happy with my R5, but here's my R5ii wishlist, in approximate order of importance:
> 
> 1. Better subject recognition, faster acquisition and stickier tracking
> 2. Elimination of EVF lag from standby


Couldn't agree more 


entoman said:


> 3. All freezing bugs fixed


I'm used to this already. It's part of a machine sold at merely USD3,899 (launch MSRP).


entoman said:


> 4. More DR and better high ISO (1600-6400) performance
> 5. Exposure bracketing at max burst speed (20fps is fine) with ES
> 6. Extended battery life (more efficient electronics, better battery)
> 7. ES with different fps options
> ...


Thumb up


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 3, 2022)

Kit. said:


> At least partly this is due to firmware bugs, accepted by Canon and supposedly fixed in more modern firmware.


From what I have seen and read on numerous FB user groups, there has been no total fix (perhaps some partial fixes), but Canon has not been able to isolate why it happens and it is a problem in all the Canon R cameras after the R and RP and actually is probably not limited to Canon. Olympus OM-1 users have also experienced freezes and I would not be shocked it Nikon and Sony users have as well. Just guessing, but I think the software has become so complex with all the AF variables, all the button customization variables, that this is the way it is and will be unless that software is rewritten from scratch. The R7 and R10 also suffer freezes, so the latest cameras are still experiencing the issues, so clearly there has been no firmware fixes that have eliminated the issue.


----------



## Boot (Dec 3, 2022)

Rzrsharp said:


> My incomplete wish list for R5 MK II (photography)
> 1. Built in GPS
> 4. Eye AF from any methods
> 5. ES with different fps options
> ...





entoman said:


> Interesting list. I'm pretty happy with my R5, but here's my R5ii wishlist, in approximate order of importance:
> 
> 1. Better subject recognition, faster acquisition and stickier tracking
> 2. Elimination of EVF lag from standby
> ...


A mix of your wishes would make me happy, but two things are missing for photography:
- Pre-shot 
- Zebra 

Boot


----------



## entoman (Dec 3, 2022)

Boot said:


> A mix of your wishes would make me happy, but two things are missing for photography:
> - Pre-shot
> - Zebra
> 
> Boot


I think the R5ii will have pre-shot, because R7 and R3 already have it. It would be very useful for capturing moments that are difficult to predict, such as the instant a bird or insect takes flight.

Agreed, it would be nice to have zebra (as well as a histogram) for stills (toggle on/off via custom button).

I'm pretty happy with my R5, but I think we need to see a quite significant boost in specification, features and performance, to warrant upgrading to a R5ii.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> …I think we need to see a quite significant boost in specification, features and performance, to warrant upgrading to a R5ii.


R5 owners will probably not be the main target market, so don’t get your hopes up.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 3, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think the R5ii will have pre-shot, because R7 and R3 already have it. It would be very useful for capturing moments that are difficult to predict, such as the instant a bird or insect takes flight.
> 
> Agreed, it would be nice to have zebra (as well as a histogram) for stills (toggle on/off via custom button).[…]


I think it’s safe to assume that all the (new) software features in the R6II will be in the R5II as well.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> R5 owners will probably not be the main target market, so don’t get your hopes up.


Whom do you think are the targets?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> R5 owners will probably not be the main target market, so don’t get your hopes up.





AlanF said:


> Whom do you think are the targets?


I imagine he's thinking new buyers and upgraders from other models like the R6. If the R5II arrives next year and has only marginal improvements, I would agree. That's why I would prefer the traditional four-year cycle, which presumably would mean more significant improvements. I'm interested in the 61mp sensor but the only feature improvement that I really want is something like quad pixel autofocus that would improve the camera's less than stellar acquisition of targets in the field.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I imagine he's thinking new buyers and upgraders from other models like the R6. If the R5II arrives next year and has only marginal improvements, I would agree. That's why I would prefer the traditional four-year cycle, which presumably would mean more significant improvements. I'm interested in the 61mp sensor but the only feature improvement that I really want is something like quad pixel autofocus that would improve the camera's less than stellar acquisition of targets in the field.


I find the R5's AF stellar. But, maybe an upgraded R5 would convince me otherwise. By the way, I do like your website.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I imagine he's thinking new buyers and upgraders from other models like the R6. If the R5II arrives next year and has only marginal improvements, I would agree. That's why I would prefer the traditional four-year cycle, which presumably would mean more significant improvements. I'm interested in the 61mp sensor but the only feature improvement that I really want is something like quad pixel autofocus that would improve the camera's less than stellar acquisition of targets in the field.


My fear is that with 2.5 year cycle, the R5 has seen its final firmware update already. 

That is a big incentive for me to consider upgrading, especially for simple software things like ‘auto’ subject detection, so I don’t need to manually select animals or people.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Whom do you think are the targets?


I think there are a lot more 5DIII and 5DIV owners out there than R5 owners, and they are the primary target market.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think there are a lot more 5DIII and 5DIV owners out there than R5 owners, and they are the primary target market.


As we discussed earlier, they are the target for the R6 II. Maybe they are targeting the 5DS/R owners.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 3, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I find the R5's AF stellar. But, maybe an upgraded R5 would convince me otherwise. By the way, I do like your website.


Thank you. 

The R5 autofocus is generally stellar, especially if the view is unobstructed. Where I find it less than ideal is when trying to pick out a subject, such as a songbird, that is in a field of tall grass or on a branch in a tree. The autofocus can completely lose the subject, frustratingly focusing on an object in the foreground, so that you can't even find the subject anymore. By the time focus is regained, the subject is often gone.

From what I've read on this forum, this has something to do with the way dual pixel autofocus works vs. phase detect. I don't profess to understand it, but @neuroanatomist has referenced this in past posts and may be able to shed some light. 

Takeaway for me though, is that I prefer a longer time period between new models so as to maximize the improvements.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2022)

unfocused said:


> Thank you.
> 
> The R5 autofocus is generally stellar, especially if the view is unobstructed. Where I find it less than ideal is when trying to pick out a subject, such as a songbird, that is in a field of tall grass or on a branch in a tree. The autofocus can completely lose the subject, frustratingly focusing on an object in the foreground, so that you can't even find the subject anymore. By the time focus is regained, the subject is often gone.
> 
> ...


I have one back button (AF-on) set to tracking eyeAF over the whole frame and another (*) to centre point focus, and I use the latter if eyeAF doesn't pick up the songbird as the * button will focus immediately.


----------



## bergstrom (Dec 3, 2022)

Just saw an R6ii review using the digital tele-convertor and the results are crap, so this is something they could actually REMOVE from the R5ii spec list.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 3, 2022)

bergstrom said:


> Just saw an R6ii review using the digital tele-convertor and the results are crap, so this is something they could actually REMOVE from the R5ii spec list.


What review?


----------



## josephandrews222 (Dec 4, 2022)

A discussion of the R6ii digital teleconvertor can be found here:






...starts at about 15:30


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 4, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think there are a lot more 5DIII and 5DIV owners out there than R5 owners, and they are the primary target market.


If folks on this forum would get out into the real world, I think they would find that they are not the typical Canon or any brand camera user, a fact that I believe you mention frequently. I have no data, of course, but I don't believe the previous generation of any camera model is ever the target market. Changes from one generation to the next are almost always small and incremental to anyone who is not totally spec oriented and must have the latest. The average camera buyer, in my opinion, is also not buying a new camera until they either have to due to the age or dis-repair of their current camera, until the improvements are considerable in the specific model, or they are upgrading from a lesser model to a better model. Or, of course, if this is their first camera. So, yes, the target market for probably all of Canon's RF cameras to date, including the R6 II and the future R5 II, are current Canon DSLR owners. So, even though mirrorless camera sales have now surpassed DSLR sales, the majority of Canon cameras owners are probably still using DSLRs.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 4, 2022)

josephandrews222 said:


> A discussion of the R6ii digital teleconvertor can be found here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He says it's a gimmick no good for wild life and he would have no use for it. Well, he should try and think outside of the box. You sometimes use your telephoto lens in the field as a spotting scope to identify far distant birds, for example, and it is there such a feature would be useful. I often take such a shot to identify something I can't make out, and it's sometimes still too small at 10x magnification in playback so a 20x or 40x would be useful. It's not I am going to print it later, but that it's useful at the time.


----------



## justsomedude (Dec 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think there are a lot more 5DIII and 5DIV owners out there than R5 owners, and they are the primary target market.



Not to be the Debbie Downer, but I just listed my 5DIII and 5DIV on eBay. Still holding on to one 5DIV, but I'm not sure why. I'll probably list it after Xmas.

Picking up the A7r V and making the full switcheroo to Sony. It's a loooong story, but Canon's tediously long and painful mirrorless transition left a really bad taste in my mouth, the head-fake on the 5D Mark V (5DV is coming - wait - no it's not!), banning third party lenses, and then the poor/nominal MP boost from the 5DIV to the R5... well, I've had enough, and it was enough to make me start looking for greener pastures.

I might come crawling back to Canon some day, but for now, 'tis farewell.


----------



## Austintatious (Dec 5, 2022)

Any whispers on a r5c mk 2?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> and then the poor/nominal MP boost from the 5DIV to the R5... well, I've had enough, and it was enough to make me start looking for greener pastures.
> 
> I might come crawling back to Canon some day, but for now, 'tis farewell.


The 30 Mpx on 5DIV going to 45 Mpx on the R5 with a new AA-filter that increases resolution to the 50Mpx of the 5DSR is only poor/nominal??


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> The 30 Mpx on 5DIV going to 45 Mpx on the R5 with a new AA-filter that increases resolution to the 50Mpx of the 5DSR is only poor/nominal??


Yes. Because Sony.


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I have one back button (AF-on) set to tracking eyeAF over the whole frame and another (*) to centre point focus, and I use the latter if eyeAF doesn't pick up the songbird as the * button will focus immediately.


I've the same button set up. It's ideal as its easy to switch one method is not working well. I use it alot of sport too. Sometimes the R5 is excellent at selecting the target on the field but sometimes you have to direct to what specifically you want in focus. 
It feels strange when I switch back to the 1DXIII and I don't have face detect through the viewfinder. It's still quite an effective autofocus system


----------



## Hector1970 (Dec 5, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> Not to be the Debbie Downer, but I just listed my 5DIII and 5DIV on eBay. Still holding on to one 5DIV, but I'm not sure why. I'll probably list it after Xmas.
> 
> Picking up the A7r V and making the full switcheroo to Sony. It's a loooong story, but Canon's tediously long and painful mirrorless transition left a really bad taste in my mouth, the head-fake on the 5D Mark V (5DV is coming - wait - no it's not!), banning third party lenses, and then the poor/nominal MP boost from the 5DIV to the R5... well, I've had enough, and it was enough to make me start looking for greener pastures.
> 
> I might come crawling back to Canon some day, but for now, 'tis farewell.


I've been quite impressed with the R5 and have found it a very worthwhile upgrade. I couldn't even contemplate switching systems as I'm so invested in Canon Lens. I'm sure the A7RV or A1 are excellent cameras in their own right. I think they keep Canon on their toes and keeps them innovating. Nikon too, I think their mirrorless range is very nice, seems to render excellent looking images. I hope they can all remain competitive, but its a hard market these days and there will be more withdrawals from the market.Anyone contemplating an R5 (even though there is a new one on the horizon) I'd give it a big thumbs up. All bad pictures are now only the photographers fault and not the camera.


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 5, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes. Because Sony.



To be fair, Sony is well known for increasing MP between generations. Look at that brand new A7RV sensor with its huge increase in both resolution and readout speed!


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 5, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> Not to be the Debbie Downer, but I just listed my 5DIII and 5DIV on eBay. Still holding on to one 5DIV, but I'm not sure why. I'll probably list it after Xmas.
> 
> Picking up the A7r V and making the full switcheroo to Sony. It's a loooong story, but Canon's tediously long and painful mirrorless transition left a really bad taste in my mouth, the head-fake on the 5D Mark V (5DV is coming - wait - no it's not!), banning third party lenses, and then the poor/nominal MP boost from the 5DIV to the R5... well, I've had enough, and it was enough to make me start looking for greener pastures.
> 
> I might come crawling back to Canon some day, but for now, 'tis farewell.



Honest question: What head fake? I can't remember a single credible report about another pro DSLR, let alone something that could be construed as a head fake. Even if Canon had, the reception of the R5 in the market (while rocky at first with overheating issues) seems to have netted out as overall quite positive.

Yeah, Canon was 1-2 years too late and the initial release (R and RP) were seriously lacking. But the R5 and R3 seem to validate that Canon got where they needed to go, and further investments in DSLRs are not prudent.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2022)

davidhfe said:


> To be fair, Sony is well known for increasing MP between generations. Look at that brand new A7RV sensor with its huge increase in both resolution and readout speed!


What is the readout time of the A7RV? All I could find is a comment that it is 4x longer than the R5 - is that correct? I know the A7RIV is 62.5ms compared with 15.5ms of the R5.

Edit: found a reference that the readout speed of the A7R5 is up to twice that of the A7RIV, so it's still at least 2x slower than the R5 and with about twice the rolling shutter https://sparrowsnews.com/2022/05/22/sony-a7r5-full-specifications-leaked/


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What is the readout time of the A7RV? All I could find is a comment that it is 4x longer than the R5 - is that correct? I know the A7RIV is 62.5ms compared with 15.5ms of the R5.



Same sensor, same readout. And I'm definitely being snarky here, the A7R4/5 sensor is great. Leading resolution, BSI means it's still got great DR. But you're paying a lot in terms of frames per second and rolling shutter for that 40% resolution advantage over the R5. To get the R5's features in a Sony body sadly requires moving up to the (admittedly stellar) A1. (This cuts both ways, especially if you're looking at the places Sony excels, such as the A7S3)

Edit: I'd be equally harsh on Canon if they did the same thing. I could have gotten excited about an R5 mk2 with the same sensor + other upgrades if it had already hit the market but IMO I'm looking for either a resolution bump (to get closer to the 61mp sony) or a stacked sensor (to go up against the A1) if we're talking about mid 2023 availability.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 5, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> Not to be the Debbie Downer, but I just listed my 5DIII and 5DIV on eBay. Still holding on to one 5DIV, but I'm not sure why. I'll probably list it after Xmas.
> Picking up the A7r V and making the full switcheroo to Sony. It's a loooong story, but Canon's tediously long and painful mirrorless transition left a really bad taste in my mouth, the head-fake on the 5D Mark V (5DV is coming - wait - no it's not!), banning third party lenses, and then the poor/nominal MP boost from the 5DIV to the R5... well, I've had enough, and it was enough to make me start looking for greener pastures.
> I might come crawling back to Canon some day, but for now, 'tis farewell.


I'm sure that the A7Rv is a good camera. Switching costs would be high - at least for me.
I would estimate that the R5 would be the natural competitor coming from the 5Div (like me) so I am interested in your decision making process.

I don't get your mirrorless transition comment as the R5 came out 2.5 years ago so more than enough time for things to settle down and firmware/feature upgrades to be released. The R came out 4 years ago. It seems that you have waited for a very long time to move from DLSR
In many ways, it seems that Sony have caught up with the R5 but it is mid way through its lifecycle.
I don't buy the 3rd party lenses argument. They haven't banned EF 3rd party lenses and they work better on R5 vs 5Div. The sheer number of EF/EF-S and RF lenses available might not be quite the Sony ecosystem but hard to say that it is a major impediment.

The A7Rv has
- slightly more linear resolution but has the same resolution as the A7Riv
- a nice tilty/swivel rear LCD
- Faster wifi and longer battery life
- A higher resolution EVF but the devil is in the detail for reduced resolution in different modes
- First Sony with focus bracketing but R5 already had it
- Type A cards which have small capacity and are expensive
- Full HDMI port
- New menus and touch screen!
- Finally closes the shutter when changing lenses

The R5 has
- faster raw shooting and electronic shutter (20fps)
- focus points across all of the frame
- raw DCI 8k/30 video vs UHD 8k/25 with crop using codecs.
- Rolling shutter is significant
- top LCD screen
- Arguably better ergonomics especially for people with larger hands


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 5, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What is the readout time of the A7RV? All I could find is a comment that it is 4x longer than the R5 - is that correct? I know the A7RIV is 62.5ms compared with 15.5ms of the R5.
> 
> Edit: found a reference that the readout speed of the A7R5 is up to twice that of the A7RIV, so it's still at least 2x slower than the R5 and with about twice the rolling shutter https://sparrowsnews.com/2022/05/22/sony-a7r5-full-specifications-leaked/



I could be mistaken but I believe all the the speed improvements of the mk5 come from the increased processing power. So they were able to get more fps due to that, but the sensor's actual scan rate in ms hasn't improved. Subjectively, the reviews almost universally mention it as one of the (few) downsides of the camera.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 5, 2022)

Hector1970 said:


> I've the same button set up. It's ideal as its easy to switch one method is not working well.


How do you do AE lock then?

(I have switched the * button to AE lock trigger instead of its default AE lock hold)


----------



## AlanF (Dec 5, 2022)

davidhfe said:


> Same sensor, same readout. And I'm definitely being snarky here, the A7R4/5 sensor is great. Leading resolution, BSI means it's still got great DR. But you're paying a lot in terms of frames per second and rolling shutter for that 40% resolution advantage over the R5.


The Sony AR7V has 33% more pixels than the R5, and resolution increases with the square root of of the number of pixels, which means only a 15.5% increase in resolution over the R5 (or look upon it as 3.8µ vs 4.39µ pixels).


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 6, 2022)

Kit. said:


> How do you do AE lock then?
> 
> (I have switched the * button to AE lock trigger instead of its default AE lock hold)


I use the Set button to center the AF point rather than assign the AE button.


----------



## StefanoEsse (Dec 6, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I imagine he's thinking new buyers and upgraders from other models like the R6. If the R5II arrives next year and has only marginal improvements, I would agree. That's why I would prefer the traditional four-year cycle, which presumably would mean more significant improvements. I'm interested in the 61mp sensor but the only feature improvement that I really want is something like quad pixel autofocus that would improve the camera's less than stellar acquisition of targets in the field.


I agree. I'm an R6 user, still waiting for a better sensor than R5, while also using my 5D IV for still photography whenever smart AF is not useful. The newcoming R5II would be the logical choice.


----------



## koenkooi (Dec 6, 2022)

unfocused said:


> I imagine he's thinking new buyers and upgraders from other models like the R6. If the R5II arrives next year and has only marginal improvements, I would agree. That's why I would prefer the traditional four-year cycle, which presumably would mean more significant improvements. I'm interested in the 61mp sensor but the only feature improvement that I really want is something like quad pixel autofocus that would improve the camera's less than stellar acquisition of targets in the field.


Suppose the R5II will keep 45MP, but the readout will be massively faster, so less rolling shutter and a much improved AF. Would you prefer than over a 61MP sensor that otherwise has the same performance as the R5 sensor, including AF? In both situations you'll get all the new AF software goodies from the R3/R7/R6II.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2022)

StefanoEsse said:


> I agree. I'm an R6 user, still waiting for a better sensor than R5, while also using my 5D IV for still photography whenever smart AF is not useful. The newcoming R5II would be the logical choice.


What are you looking for in an R5 II sensor? The current R5 sensor has a readout speed for 45 Mpx that is 25% faster than for the 20 Mpx of the R6 and about the same as for the R6 II, has marginally better DR than the R6 and significantly better than the 5DIV. Its IQ is better than the 5DIV. Canon made dramatic leaps forward with its R3 and R5 sensors over its existing ones.


----------



## [email protected] (Dec 6, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> It's wild to see the exact same comments about this rumor when compared to the original EOS R5 rumor.



Good observation. I was one of those people poo-pooing the notion that the R5 rumors could be true, given Canon's history. 

That said, I have a little bit more poo-pooing left. Specifically, it's been an extremely consistent pattern that when Canon releases a camera that blows away expectations (like the 6D, 1Dx, 7D II, 5DSr, etc.) the follow-on revision fails to meet the raised expectations that develop, or no follow-on version comes at all.

I expect the R5 II will come in Q2 2024 (because that's the periodicity of the 5 series), and it'll have half the improvements of this list just to make sure we have adequate disappointment. 

There, now I can be wrong-as-usual and happy.


----------



## unfocused (Dec 6, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Suppose the R5II will keep 45MP, but the readout will be massively faster, so less rolling shutter and a much improved AF. Would you prefer than over a 61MP sensor that otherwise has the same performance as the R5 sensor, including AF? In both situations you'll get all the new AF software goodies from the R3/R7/R6II.


That really wouldn’t interest me. I’ve never had a problem with rolling shutter. If the autofocus is no better than the R3 - which I own- that’s not a noticeable difference. For me , I’d rather wait a year and see noticiable improvements in multiple areas than just one or two marginal changes.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2022)

[email protected] said:


> Good observation. I was one of those people poo-pooing the notion that the R5 rumors could be true, given Canon's history.
> 
> That said, I have a little bit more poo-pooing left.


This side of the Atlantic, poo-poo is baby talk for excrement while pooh-pooh means dismissing an argument as fallacious.


----------



## HeavyPiper (Dec 6, 2022)

I'm very happy with my R5. I'm still in the learning mode as I finally got mine. It blows my 6D Mark II away in my opinion, now I'm looking forward to replace my Mac Book next year. Just my two cents.


----------



## justsomedude (Dec 6, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I'm sure that the A7Rv is a good camera. Switching costs would be high - at least for me.
> I would estimate that the R5 would be the natural competitor coming from the 5Div (like me) so I am interested in your decision making process.
> 
> I don't get your mirrorless transition comment as the R5 came out 2.5 years ago so more than enough time for things to settle down and firmware/feature upgrades to be released. The R came out 4 years ago. It seems that you have waited for a very long time to move from DLSR
> ...



Honestly, I have no dog in the "brand wars" fight _from a quality or performance perspective_. If you're spending $1999 or more on a camera body these days, you're going to get phenomenal results no matter what brand you go with (so long as you have a modicum of creativity and even a basic understanding of photography). It's pretty hard to suck at photography in this day and age, and that's great for consumers across the board. ALL of the products these companies are pumping out are mind-blowing.

*For me, it simply comes down to how the manufacturers are handling themselves and treating me as a customer.* Look at my account age - I've been around here since 2011. Most of that time has literally been piles of posts from people hmmm-ing and haw-ing about, "I think Canon will catch up to Sony - should I wait another year or buy now??!" or "Canon will leapfrom the XYZ body - just wait a year or two - it's coming guuuuys - for reeeaaalz!"

Waiting. Waiting. And more waiting.

The general vibe in the marketplace (in my opinion) just seems to be that Canon is following along in the advancement of mirrorless. We were all on the edge of our seats when the EOS M came out, thinking it was going to be some grand foray into Canon's mirrorless play... but the R5 didn't come until 8 years later.

EIGHT. YEARS.

WTF?

And while I also have 10s of thousands tied up in EF glass, and the transition will be painful from a dollar perspective, I'm just tired of being Canon's sucker/fool (and I also _hate_ using adapters).

***** For me, my position is simple...* Sony seems to be giving customers exactly what they want, *when* they want it. Canon seems to be giving customers what they want, after Sony (or whoever) has already tested the market. *And that's just not a system/brand I want to be part of. *Silly? Probably. But I'm getting older and cranky, so it is what it is.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me with 47 "_wait just one more year!_" rumors so I stay locked into your brand longer, shame on me.

I don't hate Canon. Actually, I really love them. And think they make great products. *I just really miss the constantly-leapfrogging-the-competition Canon of yester-year.* The Canon that took great risks and put out wild/innovative products without fear, just because they could. And hey, they may take up that mantle again some day, and be the leaders once again. But for now, it's clearly not their time. I'll be keeping an eye on them in the years that come, and who knows, I might switch back someday. 

But for now, I just want to be where I feel like a company is giving me exactly what I want, *when I want it.* Not, "_please wait - it'll be coming in 2, 3, or 4 years... maybe._"

That's it, that's all. Still love ya'll... and Canon.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 7, 2022)

This R5 owner has been waiting for a looooooong time for the R5 II to be introduced. So I'll be happy with whatever improvments they include in it.

A brief list of things I'd love to be available:
1) A trade-in offer for R5 owners. (otherwise, I wonder what my used R5 would get?)
2) Add "Aperture-Bracketing" to it (and upgrade the R5 firmware with it).
3) Add GPS, which can be in a battery saving mode, too.
4) More resolution & faster EVF (getting closer to no-delay viewing). (looks like this is coming)
5) If BSI sensor allows improvements over current FSI then I'll be happy to have it.
6) I'd prefer 2 fast SSD cards, but would tolerate the existing 1 fast & 1 slow one.
7) I'm happy with 45 to 60 MP (or so) sensor. I'd rather _not_ have a lot more (like 100M).

It may be a long time coming, but I just put my name on the "list" for the R5 II from my local camera store. If I'm lucky (like with my R5), I might get one when they come out.


----------



## StefanoEsse (Dec 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> What are you looking for in an R5 II sensor? The current R5 sensor has a readout speed for 45 Mpx that is 25% faster than for the 20 Mpx of the R6 and about the same as for the R6 II, has marginally better DR than the R6 and significantly better than the 5DIV. Its IQ is better than the 5DIV. Canon made dramatic leaps forward with its R3 and R5 sensors over its existing ones.


I agree with you, but I was not in hurry in replacing 5DIV (sturdy and capable camera, simpler to use for my EF lenses, like the TS-E 24 II), while I really needed a small resolution, fast AF and high ISO capable camera like R6, for instance for shooting my several grandchildren, often scattering all around inside some family house, with some terrible lighting. A sensor of more than 20 MP would a waste, and (if I am not mistaken) the crop mode of a R5 would be a little less (around 17 MP) but with a change of the angle of view, that I don't like at all. If the R5II will have a better sensor, at the level of a Leica M11 or other interesting feautures for stills, I'll consider the new camera, otherwise, I'll happily buy the R5 for my urban ladscape works.


----------



## kylerlueck (Dec 7, 2022)

I just bought the R6 a couple months ago realizing 20MP isn't enough for me. The shots are great, but with social media already compressing files, the resolution is just small enough to make the compressed images a bit pixelated if not shot perfectly and cropped. I'd even go as far as to say the same thing about the R's 30MP sensor not holding enough detail for my liking. 45MP seems to be the sweet spot nowadays. With the way technology is headed, the upcoming R5 Mark II would last me more than enough time until I'd have to upgrade again. Question is... how much do you think this camera is going to be considering the newly released R6 Mark II wasn't that far off from the R6's original price point?


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 7, 2022)

kylerlueck said:


> I just bought the R6 a couple months ago realizing 20MP isn't enough for me. The shots are great, but with social media already compressing files, the resolution is just small enough to make the compressed images pixelated if not shot perfectly and cropped. I'd even go as far as to say the same thing about the R's 30MP sensor. 45MP seems to be the sweet spot nowadays. With the way technology is headed, the upcoming R5 Mark II would last me more than enough time until I'd have to upgrade again. Question is... how much do you think this camera is going to be considering the newly released R6 Mark II wasn't that far off from the R6's original price point?



I am seriously curious what social media you’re posting on. A 20mp raw file should have plenty of latitude for editing and cropping for instagram, twitter or facebook.

(And I’d expect an R5mk2 to hit at exactly the same price as the Mk1)


----------



## kylerlueck (Dec 7, 2022)

davidhfe said:


> I am seriously curious what social media you’re posting on. A 20mp raw file should have plenty of latitude for editing and cropping for instagram, twitter or facebook.
> 
> (And I’d expect an R5mk2 to hit at exactly the same price as the Mk1)


I'm posting on Facebook and Instagram. They still look good, but I've realized after viewing other samples of people who shoot with the R5, their photos hold more detail even though most photos will get compressed through social media. I've noticed this even with the new iPhones. I'd choose a mirrorless camera over an iPhone any day of the week, but the quality itself seen in the detail of 45MP cameras seems to hold up nicely with Instagram and Facebook. Not sure if anyone else agrees. Just something I picked up on.

And thanks, good to know regarding the price point. Hopefully, that ends up being the case!


----------



## cayenne (Dec 7, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think there are a lot more 5DIII and 5DIV owners out there than R5 owners, and they are the primary target market.


Yep..I would be in that group as a 5D3 owner.
I rarely jump in on first versions of things....some times, but usually I wait till a .2 or so version.

With everything that came in the R5, and I am one that DOES love video too....I was apprehensive jumping in on this first batch.
And with wind a R52 might be on the way as soon as next year....I'm definitely waiting.

IN the intermediate years, I've gone to experimenting with medium format film....monochrome sensor digital cameras, even digital MF.....and so I'd not felt compelled to replace the 5D3. But now, I'm wanting to not only get into it....but also have a regular FF color mirrorless camera I can experiment with adapting my growing collection of vintage glass.

I'm hoping to get to shooting concerts again and that R5 platform will be great for that...not used to having a camera lock onto an eye that's really moving around and keep in focus...should be fun.

But anyway, this is the long winded way of saying, yep...I'm in this group you're talking about.

cayenne


----------



## Dragon (Dec 7, 2022)

kylerlueck said:


> I'm posting on Facebook and Instagram. They still look good, but I've realized after viewing other samples of people who shoot with the R5, their photos hold more detail even though most photos will get compressed through social media. I've noticed this even with the new iPhones. I'd choose a mirrorless camera over an iPhone any day of the week, but the quality itself seen in the detail of 45MP cameras seems to hold up nicely with Instagram and Facebook. Not sure if anyone else agrees. Just something I picked up on.
> 
> And thanks, good to know regarding the price point. Hopefully, that ends up being the case!


Not sure what you are seeing on FB as FB scales all photos to no more than 2k in the longest dimension (not to mention compressing the heck out of it). That is 4 MP max, so very hard to see how a 45 MP original would look different from a 20 MP original (or even a 10 MP original) based on resolution. If a camera (or the photographer  ) does a better job of capturing toning or has a significantly better S/N, I can see that coming through, but not basic resolution. Not much to be gained beyond 2:1 oversampling.


----------



## kylerlueck (Dec 7, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Not sure what you are seeing on FB as FB scales all photos to no more than 2k in the longest dimension (not to mention compressing the heck out of it). That is 4 MP max, so very hard to see how a 45 MP original would look different from a 20 MP original (or even a 10 MP original) based on resolution. If a camera (or the photographer  ) does a better job of capturing toning or has a significantly better S/N, I can see that coming through, but not basic resolution. Not much to be gained beyond 2:1 oversampling.


I gotta say the overall quality on FB is better than Instagram, but there's something about 45MP or above that gives the image a sort of 3D effect on both platforms. The details captured in an image are partly due to resolution, are they not? The images look great on my phone, no complaints there, but it's the compression that's bothering me a little bit after they're posted on social media. Again, there isn't a huge difference, but just enough where I see details getting lost with compression. Wondering if someone who's had experience with both the R6 and R5 noticed a difference?


----------



## Dragon (Dec 7, 2022)

kylerlueck said:


> I gotta say the overall quality on FB is better than Instagram, but there's something about 45MP or above that gives the image a sort of 3D effect on both platforms. The images look great on my phone, no complaints there, but it's the compression that's bothering me a little bit after they're posted on social media. Again, there isn't a huge difference, but just enough where I see details getting lost with compression. Wondering if someone who's had experience with both the R6 and R5 noticed a difference?


I have found I get the best results on FB by prescaling images to around 4k (i.e. 8-12 MP depending on aspect ratio). That holds for everything from a P1000 to an R5. Facebook's scaler seems to work best at 2:1 downsampling.


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 7, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I have found I get the best results on FB by prescaling images to around 4k (i.e. 8-12 MP depending on aspect ratio). That holds for everything from a P1000 to an R5. Facebook's scaler seems to work best at 2:1 downsampling.



+1 — my unsolicited advice here would be to see if there are some other workflow changes that might help.

I remember there was a bit of a debate when the A7S3 came out—is 8mp enough for social photos or is it necessary to carry a second camera? And as long as you’re not cropping in too much, the samples seemed to be just fine. I’m really skeptical that the R6 sensor isn’t capable of producing a great image with the depth/3D feeling you’re after.

Edit: Only social stuff I do is direct to instagram, but I wonder if you can do something like pre-compress the image so that FB doesn’t re-compress it?


----------



## kylerlueck (Dec 7, 2022)

Dragon said:


> I have found I get the best results on FB by prescaling images to around 4k (i.e. 8-12 MP depending on aspect ratio). That holds for everything from a P1000 to an R5. Facebook's scaler seems to work best at 2:1 downsampling.


Great to know! I'll try doing that for my photos going forward to see if I can tell a difference.


davidhfe said:


> +1 — my unsolicited advice here would be to see if there are some other workflow changes that might help.
> 
> I remember there was a bit of a debate when the A7S3 came out—is 8mp enough for social photos or is it necessary to carry a second camera? And as long as you’re not cropping in too much, the samples seemed to be just fine. I’m really skeptical that the R6 sensor isn’t capable of producing a great image with the depth/3D feeling you’re after.


Thanks! Was just curious to know how detail within a higher resolution camera (although still compressed after posting on social) would hold up against a lower resolution camera. I know the R6 is capable of capturing great images like that, but R5 images in terms of detail always seem to really stand out to me on social whenever I see them. Thoughts on that?


----------



## Dragon (Dec 7, 2022)

kylerlueck said:


> Great to know! I'll try doing that for my photos going forward to see if I can tell a difference.
> 
> Thanks! Was just curious to know how detail within a higher resolution camera (although still compressed after posting on social) would hold up against a lower resolution camera. I know the R6 is capable of capturing great images like that, but R5 images in terms of detail always seem to really stand out to me on social whenever I see them. Thoughts on that?


The compression is what it is. In the case of FB, most (if not all) are compressed to under 1 MB. The point is that social platforms scale before they compress, so they are always compressing from the same resolution (unless you send a tiny pic). The remaining question is how well the scaler holds detail with different scaling ratios. The compressor may actually work better with less detailed images because it seems to have a pretty hard cap on max file size. Try different prescaling to test the scaler and different compositions to test the compression.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 7, 2022)

davidhfe said:


> +1 — my unsolicited advice here would be to see if there are some other workflow changes that might help.
> 
> I remember there was a bit of a debate when the A7S3 came out—is 8mp enough for social photos or is it necessary to carry a second camera? And as long as you’re not cropping in too much, the samples seemed to be just fine. I’m really skeptical that the R6 sensor isn’t capable of producing a great image with the depth/3D feeling you’re after.
> 
> Edit: Only social stuff I do is direct to instagram, but I wonder if you can do something like pre-compress the image so that FB doesn’t re-compress it?


I have found that prescaling can be helpful, but excess precompresson is detrimental. FB will scale before they compress, so having a better image for the scaler to work with is important.


----------



## usern4cr (Dec 7, 2022)

cayenne said:


> Yep..I would be in that group as a 5D3 owner.
> I rarely jump in on first versions of things....some times, but usually I wait till a .2 or so version.
> 
> With everything that came in the R5, and I am one that DOES love video too....I was apprehensive jumping in on this first batch.
> ...


If you've been working with medium format monochrome digital cameras, have you tried using narrowbank filters (O2, HAlpha etc) on it for astrophotography? With a good tracker & lens you could get magnificent photos even in moderately light polluted areas, too.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 7, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> Honestly, I have no dog in the "brand wars" fight _from a quality or performance perspective_. If you're spending $1999 or more on a camera body these days, you're going to get phenomenal results no matter what brand you go with (so long as you have a modicum of creativity and even a basic understanding of photography). It's pretty hard to suck at photography in this day and age, and that's great for consumers across the board. ALL of the products these companies are pumping out are mind-blowing.
> 
> *For me, it simply comes down to how the manufacturers are handling themselves and treating me as a customer.* Look at my account age - I've been around here since 2011. Most of that time has literally been piles of posts from people hmmm-ing and haw-ing about, "I think Canon will catch up to Sony - should I wait another year or buy now??!" or "Canon will leapfrom the XYZ body - just wait a year or two - it's coming guuuuys - for reeeaaalz!"
> 
> ...


Of course, big bad Canon hates their customers and have to be forced into making advances due to the wonderful advances that Sony makes, because Sony loves their customers and responds to their wants!

Unless of course...Sony Ergonomics have been an issue since day one, and 8 years later still well below the ergonomics of Canon, Nikon, and most others.
Sony has had a dust on sensor issues from the beginning. Someone (can't recall who, but of the popular internet photo sites) looked at his issue again in 2021 and found that there was still a big dust problem with Sony cameras.
Many have complained about Sony's color science being too blue biased - especially skin tones. 8 years later, still an issue.
In more recent generations, too much rolling shutter due to slow processing speeds, somehow wonderful-consumer-pleasing Sony has not responded.

Now, of course it is true that Sony was well ahead of Canon in mirrorless for years. Odd that you did not switch then. Now that Canon sensors are pretty much on par with Sony, now that Canon's sensors and processors are faster in some models, now that Canon has superior IBIS...now you decide that Canon is behind Sony and essentially a follower?...Makes no sense to me. Of course, each person should decide what brand they want to buy. No issue there. But please, this idea that Sony is all about pleasing their customers and Canon doesn't give a damn is just so ridiculous that I had to respond.


----------



## Dragon (Dec 7, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> Honestly, I have no dog in the "brand wars" fight _from a quality or performance perspective_. If you're spending $1999 or more on a camera body these days, you're going to get phenomenal results no matter what brand you go with (so long as you have a modicum of creativity and even a basic understanding of photography). It's pretty hard to suck at photography in this day and age, and that's great for consumers across the board. ALL of the products these companies are pumping out are mind-blowing.
> 
> *For me, it simply comes down to how the manufacturers are handling themselves and treating me as a customer.* Look at my account age - I've been around here since 2011. Most of that time has literally been piles of posts from people hmmm-ing and haw-ing about, "I think Canon will catch up to Sony - should I wait another year or buy now??!" or "Canon will leapfrom the XYZ body - just wait a year or two - it's coming guuuuys - for reeeaaalz!"
> 
> ...


And during those 8 years, Sony has required their fans to upgrade every year if not more often to reap the "benefits" of advances in mirrorless technology. I would call that milking a pool of sucker cows to pay for R&D. Canon didn't really enter the mirrorless business seriously until the introduction of the R5 and I think my R5 will not really be obsolete even 5 years from now. So, the bottom line is whether you want to always be first and pay dearly for it every year or have some patience and wait until the technology is mature enough to have some staying power. BTW, if you have 10s of thousands invested in EF glass, you are looking at 20s of thousands in Sony glass  . A much cheaper solution would be an R5 and an adapter for each of those big whites (then you don't have to think about adapters anymore). I also have a lot of EF glass and my sense is that the perfect compatibility of EF glass with the R Series was a very thoughtful and considerate touch. Much more graceful than the switch from FD to EF (or for that matter from A mount to E mount).


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 7, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> *For me, it simply comes down to how the manufacturers are handling themselves and treating me as a customer.*
> And while I also have 10s of thousands tied up in EF glass, and the transition will be painful from a dollar perspective, I'm just tired of being Canon's sucker/fool (and I also _hate_ using adapters).
> 
> ***** For me, my position is simple...* Sony seems to be giving customers exactly what they want, *when* they want it. Canon seems to be giving customers what they want, after Sony (or whoever) has already tested the market. *And that's just not a system/brand I want to be part of. *Silly? Probably. But I'm getting older and cranky, so it is what it is.
> ...


Thanks for your thoughts. Your money of course and I hope that Sony treats you well. It would be valuable information for you to share your experience with the A7Rv/Sony lenses after your "grass is always greener" leap.

Canon did leap frog the competition (significantly!) 2.5 years ago with R5/R6 and with the R6ii released for the same price after 2.5 years and rumoured R5ii after 3 years does seem to indicate that Canon has changed a lot vs their previous model lifecycle changes.
Adding feature after feature and tweaking improvements via firmware has been almost like a new model and all for free  
The R5 seems to be still great value in comparison with the A1's features/pricing.
Canon is acting like Apple in the sense of taking the market standard and then making it easier to use and adding stuff via iOS updates for free. Adding up to a massive cash stash, huge market cap and enthusiastic users. A big change from the Apple of 20 years ago.

Canon's L lenses should have kept their value well but still a massive change for you. That said, I have sold/replaced my EF for RF as the improvements have been substantial. The only exception is my EF16-35mm/4 which is great and has an adapter welded to it. For some, the drop-in filter adapter replaces front filters saving huge amounts of money for TS-E and EF11-24/4 lenses so adapter are not all bad


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Thanks for your thoughts. Your money of course and I hope that Sony treats you well. It would be valuable information for you to share your experience with the A7Rv/Sony lenses after your "grass is always greener" leap.
> 
> Canon did leap frog the competition (significantly!) 2.5 years ago with R5/R6 and with the R6ii released for the same price after 2.5 years and rumoured R5ii after 3 years does seem to indicate that Canon has changed a lot vs their previous model lifecycle changes.
> Adding feature after feature and tweaking improvements via firmware has been almost like a new model and all for free
> ...


I seem to have missed the feature after feature added to the R5 firmware that makes it almost like a new model. Please remind me of the significant features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I seem to have missed the feature after feature added to the R5 firmware that makes it almost like a new model. Please remind me of the significant features.


They just added the feature to operate normally while shooting a small subject.

Before that, they added the ability to keep recording a movie even as your camera overheats. That’s like Arnold Schwarzenegger giving a thumbs-up as he dissolves in molten metal.




If that’s not a hot new feature, what is? Geez, don’t be so demanding.


----------



## AndrewJ19312926 (Dec 8, 2022)

I’d love to see canon make the r52 for photography or a separate model just for photography. I don’t need or want any video capability out of a camera. In 2 years of owning an r6 I may have recorded 4 minutes of 120 just for and giggles


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 8, 2022)

AndrewJ19312926 said:


> I’d love to see canon make the r52 for photography or a separate model just for photography. I don’t need or want any video capability out of a camera. In 2 years of owning an r6 I may have recorded 4 minutes of 120 just for and giggles


Given that Canon markets their cameras to still, video snd hybrid shooters, if they eliminate two of those segments, they will sell fewer cameras of that model. Selling fewer cameras means they need to charge more for each one. How much more would you be willing to pay for this camera that you’d ‘love to see’? More importantly, do you honestly believe the majority of the market would be willing to pay significantly more for such a camera?

Master Yoda would remind you to remember the failure at the cave (you know, the one where Luke was told he wouldn’t need a weapon, so he brought a Nikon Df).


----------



## davidhfe (Dec 8, 2022)

AndrewJ19312926 said:


> I’d love to see canon make the r52 for photography or a separate model just for photography. I don’t need or want any video capability out of a camera. In 2 years of owning an r6 I may have recorded 4 minutes of 120 just for and giggles



I'm super curious why. Are you hoping this would make the camera less expensive (see Neuro's comment and about 1000 other threads around here)? Do you think that video has impacted/made the R5 more complex? Do you think that the inclusion of those features has made the R5 somehow weaker as a photography camera?

I've gone from 90/10 photo/video to basically 99% photo, and I still love knowing that I can get outstanding video out of my R5 if the need ever arises.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I seem to have missed the feature after feature added to the R5 firmware that makes it almost like a new model. Please remind me of the significant features.


Many of the firmware updates have been to fix bugs ("phenomenon"), add support for lenses and incrementally improve existing functions with the main one being AF.

The big one was thermal management in different releases going from time-based shutdown to measuring internal temperatures, updated algorithms and having a high temperature option for the 3 overheating video modes. The need for a R5C is greatly reduced and you still get IBIS.

The following features were added:
Video: Clog3, Raw light video, 120fps HD video, prores output to Atomos, dual video recording to cards, 
Stills: eshutter in full time manual focus, saving settings to a card, viewfinder brightness auto dims, lots of FTP improvements

AF selection: tracking in general, head detection (hemuts/googles), cars/motorbikes, shadows or hair over eyes, torso and small subjects.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> I seem to have missed the feature after feature added to the R5 firmware that makes it almost like a new model. Please remind me of the significant features.


The full list of firmware updates....

Firmware Version 1.7.0 incorporates the following fixes:
Fixes an issue that, in rare instances, may result in the camera not operating normally when capturing small subjects.
Fixes minor issues.

Firmware Version 1.6.0 incorporates the following enhancements:
Adds [Auto Power Off Temp.: Standard/High] to the menu for movie recording. When [High] is selected, the camera will not automatically turn off when the temperature of the camera body and card become high, which may allow for longer movie recording than before, depending on the shooting conditions. Note that the temperature of the bottom surface of the camera may increase at this time.
Adds the ability to convert multiple HEIF images into multiple JPEG images.
Enhances the performance of "Movie Digital IS". It stabilizes the image when taking selfies or walking shots using a wide-angle lens.
Fixes minor issues.

Firmware Version 1.5.2 incorporates the following enhancements:
Optimizes AutoFocus accuracy when Extender RF1.4x or Extender RF2x is attached to the RF800mm F5.6 L IS USM and RF1200mm F8 L IS USM lenses.
Enhances the stability of Eye Detection.
Enhances AutoFocus tracking when shooting moving subjects.

Firmware Version 1.5.1 incorporates the following fix.
Fixes an issue that in rare instances, the camera may become inoperable when shooting in the Servo AF setting while operating the <AF-ON> button.

Firmware Version 1.5.0 incorporates the following fixes and enhancements:
1. Improves head detection performance to support helmets or goggles in winter sports.
2. Adds [Vehicles] selection to [Subject to detect] selection in the [AF] tab to support the detection of automobiles and motorcycles in motorsports. Adds [Spot detection] when [Vehicles] is selected as the helmet of the driver or rider*.
*Detection may not be possible for ordinary passenger cars or bicycles, or for motorcyclists performing stunts or kicking up dirt and dust.
3. Improves detection performance for eye detection when:
-there are shadows on the face.
-hair is hanging over the eyes.
4. Adds support for torso detection of a person. If the eyes, face or head are hidden or cannot be detected, a person's torso will be detected and tracked continuously.
5. Adds the ability to import manual white balance (MWB) data from the Quick Control screen when capturing still images.
6. Eliminates the center press operation of the multi-controller to prevent accidentally transferring images during FTP transfer.
7. Adds the ability, when using EOS Utility or Browser Remote for remote shooting with two cards inserted, to set the recording method and to select which card to be recorded to.
8. Adds [Suppress lower frame rate] to [Smooth] in [Disp. performance], enabling the shooting screen to be displayed with less drop frame rate even in dark locations.
9. Adds support for the RF 5.2mm F2.8 L Dual Fisheye lens.
10. Changes the default value of [FTP server] → [Passive mode] to [Enable].
11. Improves operation stability during FTP transfer.
12. Optimizes controls of In-Body Image Stabilization (IBIS) when using specific EF lenses not equipped with the image stabilization function.
13. Fixes an issue, in which noise occurs along the edges of bright subjects when using Canon Log for movie recording. 

Firmware Version 1.4.0 incorporates the following fixes and enhancements:
1. Adds support for outputting 8K/30p/10-bit video signals for ProRes RAW recording to ATOMOS's Ninja V+ recorder
* via HDMI.
* If you have any questions about ATOMOS products, please contact ATOMOS directly.
* Please note that the recorder may become hot.
2. Adds support for movie recording when the camera is connected to the CN-E18-80mm T4.4 L IS KAS S or CN-E70-200mm T4.4 L IS KAS S EF cinema lenses. * Still photography shooting is possible however performance is not guaranteed.
* Movie shooting in vertical position is possible however performance is not guaranteed.
* External power supply is required for AF operation during servo zoom operation.
When there is no external power supply, AF operation is activated only when the servo zoom is not in use.
3. Adds simultaneous movie recording capability on card 1 and card 2, however RAW movies and RAW(Light) movies cannot be recorded simultaneously on card 1 and card 2.
4. Adds support for the VPG 400 (Video Performance Guarantee Profile), a standard based on the CFexpress 2.0 specification.
5. Improves operation stability when using the RF400mm F2.8 L IS USM and RF600mm F4 L IS USM.
6. Fixes an issue in which, during HDMI connection, if the camera's screen turns off, a zebra pattern is displayed via the HDMI output.
7. Fixes an issue in which sufficient image stabilization effects may not be attained immediately after the start of shooting.

Firmware Version 1.3.1 incorporates the following fixes and enhancements:
1. Adds [Canon Log 3] to [Canon Log settings]. You can select [Canon Log] or [Canon Log 3] from [Canon Log settings] in the Shooting tab of the menu.
- Support for RAW movies shot with Canon Log3 and RAW (Light) will be available in Cinema RAW Development and in Digital Photo Professional version in a future update.
- Digital Photo Professional will also support the processing of RAW movies shot in Canon Log3 settings and the application of Viewing LUT in a future update.
2. Adds [RAW (Light)] to the movie recording size and [IPB (Light)] to 8K/4K to enable lower bit rate shooting. These settings can also be selected when RAW+MP4 is set.
3. Adds a high frame rate of 119.9 fps/100.0 fps to the Full HD movie recording size.
4. Adds [Electronic full-time MF] to the AF tab of the menu. When a lens is attached, manual focus adjustment is always possible with both One-shot AF and Servo AF.
5. Adds [6: Monitor Off] to [Shooting info. disp.: Screen info. settings] in the Shooting tab of the menu. This update makes it possible for the camera's monitor to be turned off at all times during shooting.
6. The transfer time (estimated value) now displays on the camera monitor during FTP transfer.
7. Adds the ability, when transferring images via FTP, to select protected images that failed to be transferred and protected images that have not yet been transferred and transfer them all at once.
8. Adds [Save/load cam settings on card] to the Function settings tab of the menu. This allows you to save the camera settings to a card, or load a saved file and restore the camera to the settings you saved to a card.
9. Fixes a phenomenon, in which, in rare instances, the camera does not function normally when using certain CFexpress cards.
10. Fixes a phenomenon, in which in rare instances, the camera cannot function normally when the drive mode is set to "High-speed continuous shooting" to shoot still images continuously.
11. Fixes a phenomenon in which the power may become suspended when the camera is powered via USB for an extended period of time.
12. Fixes a phenomenon in which part of the settings screen is incorrectly displayed on cameras equipped with Firmware Version 1.2.1.
13. Fixes a phenomenon in which the image in the viewfinder and on the LCD screen is displayed brighter than it should be, when shooting with Canon Log 3, if the [View Assist.] setting is set to [On], and the camera is equipped with Firmware Version 1.3.0

Firmware Version 1.2.0 incorporates the following fixes and enhancements:
1. When using high-speed or low-speed continuous shooting modes, in Drive Mode with [High Speed Display: OFF], the visibility of the subject within the frame has been improved when shooting moving objects.*
*During continuous shooting black frames will be inserted between frames in the viewfinder and live view. This will improve the visibility of moving subjects in live view and in the viewfinder.
2. Adds the [Auto] setting to the [Viewfinder brightness] menu that will brighten and dim based on ambient light conditions.
3. Enables 2nd curtain shooting sync during radio transmission wireless flash shooting when the Speedlight EL-1 flash is attached to the camera.
4. Enables manual flash output (excluding high-speed sync and optical transmission wireless flash shooting) to be selected and set up to 1/8192 from the camera menu screen when the Speedlight EL-1 flash is attached to the camera.
5. Improves compatibility of HEIF images recorded in the camera with MIAF (Multi-Image Application Format) standards.
6. Adds support for AF and release during zoom operations for some RF and EF lenses.

Firmware Version 1.1.0 incorporates the following fixes and enhancements:
Useful messaging is now displayed when [HDMI display：Camera+External monitor] and [Overheat control: on] settings are enabled.
When using certain RF lenses for movie shooting, the in-lens image stabilization mechanism has been improved.
Fixes a phenomenon in which the “Slow Synchro” setting screen is not accurately displayed, when the language is set to English.
Fixes a typo displayed on the communication setting screen, when the language is set to Korean.
Connectivity during FTP transmission has been improved.
Fixes a phenomenon, in which the card access time may take longer, when using certain CF express cards.
Temperature detection and shooting time control in video shooting have been improved. In addition, the total shooting time when the short-time recording and power-on/off are performed repeatedly at room temperature is improved.
The phenomenon in which the movie recording time available is not correctly displayed when the Date/Time/Zone is not set has been corrected.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 8, 2022)

davidhfe said:


> I'm super curious why. Are you hoping this would make the camera less expensive (see Neuro's comment and about 1000 other threads around here)? Do you think that video has impacted/made the R5 more complex? Do you think that the inclusion of those features has made the R5 somehow weaker as a photography camera?
> 
> I've gone from 90/10 photo/video to basically 99% photo, and I still love knowing that I can get outstanding video out of my R5 if the need ever arises.


From a hardware perspective, there is little difference between stills and video as the EVF needs to "see" video from the sensor full time similar to live view on DLSRs. AF coverage for mirrorless is full sensor using "video" vs separate AF detection / mirror assembly / pentaprism.
HDMI/mic/headphone ports would not be needed if there was no video output. Thermal management is higher if video is recorded to the cards ie the R5's "overheating" issues were only in 3 video modes

From a SW perspective, there are differences and incremental cost are higher. The R5C has a separate cinema menu for instance but the R5 incorporates most of those functions within the standard menu. Many of the firmware updates have been for video features.

Canon must produce hybrid video/stills bodies to keep up with the competition and provide many users what they are need for their use and video is definitely being used more.
Video hasn't made the R5 weaker for stills but there is definitely a cost that we cannot estimate. A pure stills body is unlikely to be a high volume seller and hard to believe that there would be a significantly different cost without video.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 8, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Many of the firmware updates have been to fix bugs ("phenomenon"), add support for lenses and incrementally improve existing functions with the main one being AF.
> 
> The big one was thermal management in different releases going from time-based shutdown to measuring internal temperatures, updated algorithms and having a high temperature option for the 3 overheating video modes. The need for a R5C is greatly reduced and you still get IBIS.
> 
> ...


For those who shoot mainly stills, they are mainly tweaks, and I haven't been able to google with it. I haven't noticed any real improvement in tracking or AF, though it did recognise cars, as mine has been excellent all along - no complaints from me. What I want is to be able to change the fps in ES shutter and have a pre-burst mode, which would make a difference for me.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 8, 2022)

AlanF said:


> For those who shoot mainly stills, they are mainly tweaks, and I haven't been able to google with it. I haven't noticed any real improvement in tracking or AF, though it did recognise cars, as mine has been excellent all along - no complaints from me. What I want is to be able to change the fps in ES shutter and have a pre-burst mode, which would make a difference for me.


No doubt that there are a few things that would be simple to change in firmware that Canon (in their wisdom) hasn't. 
Arbitrary 30 minute record limit can be added to the list. 
Being able to remap the Rate button and high res pixel shift shooting should be simple to add.
Ultimately, the arbitrary list is pretty short though.

Fixing banding under indoor lighting in eshutter would be very useful.
Pre burst would hit battery life I think.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 11, 2022)

AndrewJ19312926 said:


> I’d love to see canon make the r52 for photography or a separate model just for photography. I don’t need or want any video capability out of a camera. In 2 years of owning an r6 I may have recorded 4 minutes of 120 just for and giggles


I have never shot a single video, and do no expect to change in the future.
The video possibilities don't bother me, I just do not use them.
But: the day I'll sell my camera, chances are extremely high the next customer will need those features.
On the other hand, Leica didn't implement video in their new M 11, but only because their customer's feed-back told them hardly anybody used an M camera for video. This isn't the case with CaNiSoPaFuOlPe, or even with Leica's SL.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 11, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> No doubt that there are a few things that would be simple to change in firmware that Canon (in their wisdom) hasn't.
> Arbitrary 30 minute record limit can be added to the list.
> Being able to remap the Rate button and high res pixel shift shooting should be simple to add.
> Ultimately, the arbitrary list is pretty short though.
> ...


I just wonder: is there anybody using the "rate" button?
If yes, when or how, please?


----------



## unfocused (Dec 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I just wonder: is there anybody using the "rate" button?
> If yes, when or how, please?


Yes. It’s very important for pros shooting on deadline. During halftime, breaks between games or right after the game I would go through my shots and star the possible keepers. Once the images were downloaded I didn’t have to wade through 5,000 frames to find ones to process and post.

People who denigrate the rate button have never had to deliver a photo under time pressure. Even shooting portraits in the studio it was helpful as a first pass through the images so you don’t waste time sifting through hundreds of frames on the computer which takes much longer.


----------



## scyrene (Dec 11, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I just wonder: is there anybody using the "rate" button?
> If yes, when or how, please?


I've used it for years. Basically what @unfocused said above but without the professional/deadline element. When there's lots of similar shots it can help to give ratings during a break to save time later.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 12, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> I just wonder: is there anybody using the "rate" button?
> If yes, when or how, please?


Yes, to mark the most important shots, that are the first to be edited.
Sometimes I take a lot of similar shots, but there is a particular detail in a shot that I like and want to mark it.
Sometimes we edit images together with my coleagues and I want to emphesise the shots that I think are important.
Sometimes I have time in the middle of a shoot and I try to go over shots to save time later.
Sometimes when shooting on a tripod I take a lot of images that I'm gonna stack together later, and if I do a slight change in between (move the camera a bit or maybe refocus) I mark the image on the beginning of a new series.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 12, 2022)

Ph0t0 said:


> Sometimes when shooting on a tripod I take a lot of images that I'm gonna stack together later, and if I do a slight change in between (move the camera a bit or maybe refocus) I mark the image on the beginning of a new series.


Anyone know if the Rate metadata mark shows up in DxO PL? Typically, I just snap a pic with my hand in front of the lens to separate image groups for stitching or stacking.


----------



## Ph0t0 (Dec 13, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Anyone know if the Rate metadata mark shows up in DxO PL? Typically, I just snap a pic with my hand in front of the lens to separate image groups for stitching or stacking.


Yes it shows up.
And yeah sometimes I use my hand and sometimes I fotget and go back and rate the first frame of the sequence.


----------



## mpmark (Dec 20, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you’re referring to your own posts, congratulations you’ve finally make a correct statement.
> 
> Read the following slowly and carefully: assuming a similar generation of sensor technology, pixel size has virtually no impact on image noise, the primary determinant of image noise is sensor size.
> 
> You seem to be confusing pixel noise with image noise. The latter matters to photographers, the former to measurebators. Which are you?


Immature insults show your age, they do nothing for the conversation.

Secondly, I will tell you in simple english so you understand. Lower mexapixel cameras have better ISO performance than higher megapixel cameras. That is a FACT, you can take that as you please.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 20, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Immature insults show your age, they do nothing for the conversation.


Hearing this often, don't you?



mpmark said:


> Secondly, I will tell you in simple english so you understand. Lower mexapixel cameras have better ISO performance than higher megapixel cameras. That is a FACT,


Technically, that is a conjecture, not a "FACT". Do you have the word "conjecture" in your Simple English vocabulary?

A fact is a result of measurement on the particular object, not a conclusion from a (potentially incorrect) thought experiment.

The results of the actual measurements (the facts) don't support your opinion. Which likely means that your thought experiment was indeed incorrect.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 20, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Immature insults show your age, they do nothing for the conversation.
> 
> Secondly, I will tell you in simple english so you understand. Lower mexapixel cameras have better ISO performance than higher megapixel cameras. That is a FACT, you can take that as you please.


I understand what you are saying in simple English. You could just as well have said, "The Earth is flat." That's also a statement in simple English, and it's just as wrong. Your ability to use the shift key and type four letters doesn't make your incorrect statement true.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 21, 2022)

mpmark said:


> Immature insults show your age, they do nothing for the conversation.
> 
> Secondly, I will tell you in simple english so you understand. Lower mexapixel cameras have better ISO performance than higher megapixel cameras. That is a FACT, you can take that as you please.


Simple English. *Years ago*, lower megapixel cameras had better ISO performance than higher megapixel cameras. *Now, with current sensor technology*, this is no longer true.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 21, 2022)

From Photons to Photos.
Top: Canon R5 (45 MP) and R6 (20 MP)
Bottom Sony A7 IV (33 MP) and A7R V (61 MP)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> View attachment 206847
> View attachment 206848
> 
> From Photons to Photos.
> ...


Do you think actual data will impact the opinion of someone convinced of his FACTs? Well, hope springs eternal.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 21, 2022)

entoman said:


> I've had 2 SanDisk 64GB SD cards corrupt in the last couple of years. Fortunately, so far, none of my 4 CFE-B card have corrupted, but if one did while I was far from the nearest city, it would be near impossible to find anywhere where I could quickly get a replacement.



That ought to tell you something about why CFe cards are preferable to SD cards. 

QC doesn't seem to be near the priority with SD cards when compared to CFe.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 21, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Pixel binning loses pixel detail and hence will always be worse than oversampling the full sensor.
> Yes, pixel binning will be "raw" in nature just with a smaller light gathering capacity but oversampling uses the light from the full sensor irrespective of the final file size.
> mRAW/sRAW oversampled options would still (as far as I know) have a CR3 file prefix rather than jpg/HEIF file.
> Having 2 processors would be needed to do the oversampling at fast frame rates.



What cameras with .CR3 output have mRAW/sRAW options? As far as I'm aware, that stayed with .CR2 and cRAW replaced it with .CR3.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 21, 2022)

entoman said:


> I don't think anyone here *objects* to more MP. The problem is that we'll likely have only 2 choices - either shoot at maximum megapixel RAW, or if we want smaller file sizes, shoot on lower quality JPEG or HEIF.
> 
> It would be much better IMO if hi-res cameras had an option to shoot RAWs at lower resolutions via pixel-binning, so that the full tonal and colour gamut was present. What I'd really like to see is the option to choose between (e.g.) 90MP, 45MP and 22.5MP RAWs.



Canon will easily offer those options: R1 for 90MP, R5 for 45MP, and R6 Mark II for 24MP.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 21, 2022)

Dragon said:


> Adjusted for inflation, The R7 is only 2/3rds of the price of the 7D II and it does way more. I'd say it is a bargain by just about any standards.



It doesn't do/have a few things the 7D Mark II does/has, either: 

Take a battery grip with vertical controls. 
A full magnesium alloy body. 
+/- 5 stops exposure compensation. 
Built-in GPS. 
Top LCD. 
Optical VF.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 21, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> SD cards are far more convenient



So are smart phones. That doesn't mean they're always the best choice.


----------



## StefanoEsse (Dec 21, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> View attachment 206847
> View attachment 206848
> 
> From Photons to Photos.
> ...




I really would not like enter into such a discussion, but I think that the following graph it more appropriate, if we are speaking about noise. But, maybe I'm wrong....


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2022)

StefanoEsse said:


> View attachment 206850
> I really would not like enter into such a discussion, but I think that the following graph it more appropriate, if we are speaking about noise. But, maybe I'm wrong....


Read the first note under the graph: 
"Notes:
These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for gain or area."

So yes, you are wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

StefanoEsse said:


> View attachment 206850
> I really would not like enter into such a discussion, but I think that the following graph it more appropriate, if we are speaking about noise. But, maybe I'm wrong....


In addition to Alan's correct comment, the read noise chart is measuring noise at the level of the individual pixels, the units are proportional to electrons. It is true that larger pixels have lower noise at the level of the individual pixel, that is not and has never been in question. But that is only relevant at the pixel level, something engineers care about but is not very relevant to photography. What is relevant to the photography is the noise in an image, not the noise in one pixel. The point is that for a sensor size or a given area of an image sensor, if the technology generation is similar the noise will be similar (the qualification is important because comparing noise from an original 5D and a modern sensor, for example, isn't valid).


----------



## StefanoEsse (Dec 21, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Read the first note under the graph:
> "Notes:
> These raw values are not appropriate for comparing camera models because they are not adjusted for gain or area."
> 
> So yes, you are wrong.


Thank you for your comment. You have to compare similar sensor area and density. It is clear and logic. The point has been clarified by Bryan years ago (https://www.the-digital-picture.com...d-of-the-R5-for-the-Lowest-Image-Noise-Levels):

" Comparing same-size imaging sensors, the lower the resolution, the larger the photosites. Larger pixel wells can collect photons at a higher rate than smaller ones, generating a higher SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) that results in lower noise levels. Therefore, do not expect pixel-level noise performance from an ultra-high-resolution imaging sensor to match that from a similar generation low-resolution imaging sensor.

That said, the final output size is what matters in the real world. To make the Canon EOS R5 vs. Canon EOS R6 comparison relevant, the R5 image (oversampled in this case) must be reduced to 20 MP. An R5 image can be very simply downsized to R6 image dimensions, and then the R5 noise levels appear at least as good the R6 noise levels.".

But if you do not dowsize an R5 image, the R5 one could have more noise at the pixel level, it seems to me. 
Again, maybe I'm wrong (and ever happy to learn something new).


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2022)

StefanoEsse said:


> Thank you for your comment. You have to compare similar sensor area and density. It is clear and logic. The point has been clarified by Bryan years ago (https://www.the-digital-picture.com...d-of-the-R5-for-the-Lowest-Image-Noise-Levels):
> 
> " Comparing same-size imaging sensors, the lower the resolution, the larger the photosites. Larger pixel wells can collect photons at a higher rate than smaller ones, generating a higher SNR (Signal to Noise Ratio) that results in lower noise levels. Therefore, do not expect pixel-level noise performance from an ultra-high-resolution imaging sensor to match that from a similar generation low-resolution imaging sensor.
> 
> ...


That is a very good way of looking at it. I think the basic way of looking at it is that DR, S/N etc are all measured by viewing the image at the same physical size, for example on the photonstophotos site it's equivalent approximately to an 8" wide print viewed at arms length. People get confused by this fact as they read that smaller pixels have more noise and lower well depth and think of everything at the the pixel level. The physics is quite simple. The S/N of the image at high iso is just due to the fluctuations in the number of photons ( = sqrt number) hitting the sensor, and this depends on the area of the sensor and not the number of pixels, as long as the gaps between them are effectively small (and/or the light collected by microlenses) and all else being similar. If you compare, say, a 1000px x 1000px crop on an R6 with a 1000px x 1000px crop on the R5 the R5 will, of course be noisier because it has a small area.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 21, 2022)

StefanoEsse said:


> But if you do not dowsize an R5 image, the R5 one could have more noise at the pixel level, it seems to me.
> Again, maybe I'm wrong (and ever happy to learn something new).


Yes, the R5 will have more noise at the pixel level. Why does that matter? Would you rather compare pixels, or pictures? Say you need to print at a size large enough that the R5's image is at 1:1. In that case, the noise would be more evident than in the same picture takes with the R6. However, the R6 will have lower resolution and thus will suffer from a loss of sharpness. Of course, you could apply the heavier NR to the R5 image, which would remove more of the noise...and bring the sharpness down so it's more comparable with the lower resolution R6.

The bottom line is that for all practical purposes, noise at the pixel level is irrelevant. Only noise at the image level matters, and that noise is proportional to the area of the sensor, not to the size of the pixels the compose the sensor.


----------



## Kit. (Dec 21, 2022)

Arguably, when using an AI denoiser, the higher pixel count may result in both cleaner and sharper images.


----------



## David - Sydney (Dec 21, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> What cameras with .CR3 output have mRAW/sRAW options? As far as I'm aware, that stayed with .CR2 and cRAW replaced it with .CR3.


As far as I know, only the 5Ds/r released in 2015 had mRaw/sRaw options due to the high mp sensor. The .CR3 format came out with the M50 and R bodies in 2018.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 21, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Arguably, when using an AI denoiser, the higher pixel count may result in both cleaner and sharper images.


You can see this in practice with DxO PL6 and Topaz AI noise reduction with the R7.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> As far as I know, only the 5Ds/r released in 2015 had mRaw/sRaw options due to the high mp sensor. The .CR3 format came out with the M50 and R bodies in 2018.



My 15MP 50D, 18MP 7D, 20MP 7D Mark II, and 30MP 5D Mark IV all have mRAW (≈75% linear resolution) and sRAW (≈50% linear). My 21MP 5D Mark II and 22MP 5D Mark III have sRAW 1 (≈66%) and sRAW 2 (50%). The 1Ds Mark III and 1D Mark III had a single sRAW (50%), as did the 40D. The 1D Mark IV, 1D X, and 1D X Mark II had mRAW (75%) and sRAW (50%).

sRAW, and then shortly thereafter mRAW as well, were included among all of the higher tier bodies from around 2007 on until .cr3 replaced .cr2 with the introduction of DiG!C 8 in 2017 (M50, EOS R).

Every DiG!C III xD and X0D introduced in 2007 had a 50% linear sized sRAW, and from the DiG!C 4 introduction in 2008 through the end of DiG!C 7 every xD or x0D had either two sizes of sRAW (≈66%, 50%) or both mRAW (75%) and sRAW (50%).


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 22, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The R came out 4 years ago.



It's been five years since the EOS R was introduced in late 2017. The RP was the 2018 model.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> This side of the Atlantic, poo-poo is baby talk for excrement while pooh-pooh means dismissing an argument as fallacious.



Over here both poo-poo and pooh-pooh are used interchangeably and can mean either one.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 22, 2022)

justsomedude said:


> Waiting. Waiting. And more waiting.
> 
> The general vibe in the marketplace (in my opinion) just seems to be that Canon is following along in the advancement of mirrorless. We were all on the edge of our seats when the EOS M came out, thinking it was going to be some grand foray into Canon's mirrorless play... but the R5 didn't come until 8 years later.
> 
> ...



The EOS M was introduced in 2012. 
The EOS R was introduced in 2017. 

Since when is from 2012 to 2017 EIGHT. YEARS?

WTF? Indeed!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 22, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> It's been five years since the EOS R was introduced in late 2017. The RP was the 2018 model.



Fact check #1: The EOS R was announced on September 5, 2018.





The All-New EOS R System | Press Release | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Canon Press Release Details: Evolution Meets Revolution as Canon Announces The All-New EOS R System. MELVILLE, N.Y., September 5, 2018.




www.usa.canon.com





Fact check #2: The EOS RP was announced on February 13, 2019.





EOS RP Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera | Press Release | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Canon Press Release Details: Full Frame For The Masses! Canon Introduces Its Second Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera — The EOS RP. February 13, 2019.




www.usa.canon.com





Fact check #3: It is 2022, therefore it has been four years since the EOS R was introduced (use a calculator if you need to).



Michael Clark said:


> The EOS M was introduced in 2012.
> The EOS R was introduced in 2017.
> 
> Since when is from 2012 to 2017 EIGHT. YEARS?
> ...



Repeat of Fact check #1: The EOS R was announced on September 5, 2018.





The All-New EOS R System | Press Release | Canon U.S.A., Inc.


Canon Press Release Details: Evolution Meets Revolution as Canon Announces The All-New EOS R System. MELVILLE, N.Y., September 5, 2018.




www.usa.canon.com





The period from 2012 to 2018 comprises SIX. YEARS. (not eight, silly but real mistake on my part, and what I get for multitasking – thanks, @SteveC ). Still, either way it's more than the FIVE years between 2012 and 2017.

Score for @Michael Clark: 0 of 4 correct statements. Record fail? Indeed!

We all know you have a nearly insurmountable difficulty admitting you're wrong, but that's a personal best for number of completely false statements in two posts. Ermmm...congratulations?


----------



## SteveC (Dec 22, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> The period from 2012 to 2018 comprises EIGHT. YEARS. (Again, use a calculator if you need to.)
> 
> Score for @Michael Clark: 0 of 4 correct statements. Record fail? Indeed!
> 
> We all know you have a nearly insurmountable difficulty admitting you're wrong, but that's a personal best for number of completely false statements in two posts. Ermmm...congratulations?


Even being inclusive on both ends, January 1 2012 through December 31 2018, that's seven years (minus one day). Exclusive on both ends (Dec 31 2012 through 1 Jan 2018), it'd be five years (plus one day). Realistically with random dates at both ends, it's about 6 years; but there's just no way to torture it into being 8.


----------



## entoman (Dec 24, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon will easily offer those options: R1 for 90MP, R5 for 45MP, and R6 Mark II for 24MP.


Yes they could. But my point is that I (and probably others) would like all those RAW resolution options in a single body, i.e. the R1, with the lower resolutions uncropped, which is perfectly possible via pixel binning, and would retain the full colour gamut and DR (unlike JPEG).

Having said that, it's highly unlikely that I'd get a R1 as I couldn't justify the cost, so I'll stick with my R5 for at least one more year, and probably longer, unless the R5 Mkii provides really worthwhile additional features, which is rather unlikely.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 25, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Fact check #1: The EOS R was announced on September 5, 2018.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Concerning #1, #2, and repeat #1: 

I was, as Uncle Roger likes to say, "... um, less correct than I originally thought." In other words, *I was wrong*. I was looking at the chart in this Wikipedia template and got lost in the columns. Maybe the dyslexia that has been getting worse as I am evidently developing early onset dementia had some effect. Maybe not.

Merry Christmas!

Concerning #3: Context is everything. The comment to which I was replying was the one which made the claim that it had been (and I quote to make it more obvious for the more obtuse among us): 

"EIGHT. YEARS."

"WTF?"

My apologies for replying by using some of the exact same words the comment to which I was replying used verbatim without making it so obvious that the words I used were the exact same words as the end of the comment to which I was replying. I can see how that might confuse some simpleminded readers.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 25, 2022)

entoman said:


> Yes they could. But my point is that I (and probably others) would like all those RAW resolution options in a single body, i.e. the R1, with the lower resolutions uncropped, which is perfectly possible via pixel binning, and would retain the full colour gamut and DR (unlike JPEG).
> 
> Having said that, it's highly unlikely that I'd get a R1 as I couldn't justify the cost, so I'll stick with my R5 for at least one more year, and probably longer, unless the R5 Mkii provides really worthwhile additional features, which is rather unlikely.



And my point is that Canon, who gets to decide what each of their products offer and do not offer, would prefer that you buy all three of those cameras instead of just one of them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 25, 2022)

Michael Clark said:


> Concerning #1, #2, and repeat #1:
> 
> I was, as Uncle Roger likes to say, "... um, less correct than I originally thought." In other words, *I was wrong*.


It’s a Saturnalia miracle!


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 25, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You can see this in practice with DxO PL6 and Topaz AI noise reduction with the R7.


OK...
And once again you "sold" me another Topaz product.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 26, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> 9,44 M-dot EVF sounds almost too good!
> Give it an eye-control AF, and it will be the perfect camera for me.
> Or is it just a wet dream???


Every camera I've had was the perfect camera.


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 26, 2022)

entoman said:


> *This is just me*, but...
> 
> I'm happy with 45MP and don't want or need larger file sizes or more MP *unless* the camera also has an option to produce uncropped, uncompressed pseudo-RAW images.
> 
> ...


Sounds like you need to buy my original R. **


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 26, 2022)

Ozarker said:


> Every camera I've had was the perfect camera.


So, I guess you didn't own a Sony...


----------

