Canon announces development of the EOS R5 full-frame mirrorless camera

I'm in the same boat, really suprised they didn't at least put a dedicated iso button on the camera... at least the control ring on the lens can be set to that function I suppose
I was really wishing the R5 was coming with personal buttons for ISO, drive, flash....that is what I miss a lot coming from 5D series. It's a pain go into M-fn button on an event and find what you need.
On my 5D I never use that iso button, too small and cumbersome to use /find without looking. I use the front main dial for shutter speed....the back control wheel for aperture... And iso is changed with the front main dial while pressing the set button with my thumb. I can change any of it blindly with the camera to my eye
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
ONLY time I ever use auto ISO is when I've shot dance recitals/competitions. Constant, radically changing lighting situations with LED spots sweeping across a wide stage etc... and I had to keep my shutter speed up and apertures at 2.8. Apart from those special situations where you're trying to stop fast action in changing light... Eh... I dunno why I'd ever need Auto ISO

In my experience, when stage lighting is changing rapidly it often changes between metering and exposure. I have better luck setting a specific exposure and "sitting" on it (by holding the AF-ON button) with the camera pre-focused until the light comes back to where I've set exposure, especially if the lighting has a cyclical pattern. Another strategy I use is to set exposure for the "best light" (think multi-colored LED lighting going through patterns of different colors - when all three primary colors are lit at the same time you have the most light and the fullest spectrum you're going to get) and then shoot for peak action and play the percentages that some will be underexposed but the ones that are properly exposed will also have the best light to work with. YMMV.
 
Upvote 0
On my 5D I never use that iso button, too small and cumbersome to use /find without looking. I use the front main dial for shutter speed....the back control wheel for aperture... And iso is changed with the front main dial while pressing the set button with my thumb. I can change any of it blindly with the camera to my eye

I've used that setup at times.
 
Upvote 0
In my experience, when stage lighting is changing rapidly it often changes between metering and exposure. I have better luck setting a specific exposure and "sitting" on it (by holding the AF-ON button) with the camera pre-focused until the light comes back to where I've set exposure, especially if the lighting has a cyclical pattern. Another strategy I use is to set exposure for the "best light" (think multi-colored LED lighting going through patterns of different colors - when all three primary colors are lit at the same time you have the most light and the fullest spectrum you're going to get) and then shoot for peak action and play the percentages that some will be underexposed but the ones that are properly exposed will also have the best light to work with. YMMV.
That works great at Live concerts most of the time when you’re shooting relatively stationary subjects. What I’m talking about is a flock of dancers moving and leaping through all those moving lights. You really cant wait for things. If you do, you missed the apex of the jump, the turn, etc... like this one. (And yes, they also have a 30 foot wide 4K LED panel behind the dancers with constant motion graphics. The AF processor on my camera drinks heavily after these shows
 

Attachments

  • 1F7D9AFC-F01D-4D58-9191-D00BD66FDC01.jpeg
    1F7D9AFC-F01D-4D58-9191-D00BD66FDC01.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 176
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0
That works great at Live concerts most of the time when you’re shooting relatively stationary subjects. What I’m talking about is a flock of dancers moving and leaping through all those moving lights. You really cant wait for things. If you do, you missed the apex of the jump, the turn, etc... like this one. (And yes, they also have a 30 foot wide 4K LED panel behind the dancers with constant motion graphics. The AF processor on my camera drinks heavily after these shows

Catching them at the top of their leap helps ;) (Yeah, he had just stepped off the riser and wasn't moving that fast yet.) Notice the audience facing strobe is still at the tail of a very high energy discharge. If I had relied on any kind of metering for that one it would have been pretty much solid black.

201405175097HR.JPG
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
These are two different things:
While a *rear* element can be bigger (magnifying) that is not an argument against the fact that the *front* entrance lens element must have at least the diameter of the aperture (and no, the video is no evidence against).

You cannot magnify the front entrance light with a magnifying element in front of the aperture. It would mean that a lens, say with an f-stop of 1.2 would have a t-stop much worse (depending on magnifying) like 2.0 or so.

Got it?

The magnification between the front of a lens and the physical diaphragm is the only reason an 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 is not an 18-55mm f/3.5-11, a 70-300mm f/4-5.6 is not a 70-300mm f/4-17, or a 70-200mm f/2.8 is not a 70-200mm f/2.8-8.

The "effective aperture" is the entrance pupil as viewed by the subject (i.e. from the front of the lens). With narrow angle lenses (telephoto lenses), the front element must be at least as large as the entrance pupil because the light it is focusing is almost collimated. With wider angle lenses, the entrance pupil can actually be larger than the diameter of the front element when viewed from a point on the len's center axis, though that causes severe vignetting and "cat's eye" bokeh for objects in the periphery. To keep the entire entrance pupil visible from the entire field of view is why many wide angle lenses have those bulbous front elements that are much larger than the e.p.

When light is refracted by a converging lens, the field density increases in proportion to the magnification, just as the cross sectional area through which the light passes decreases in proportion to the magnification. With a simple thin lens, there is a point halfway between the lens and the point of focus where all light passing through the lens passes through a single point where the two cones of light meet at their tips. That's why the image projected on the film/sensor is inverted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
He also said in another comment, "Not necessarily. I will delete images during a lull while in the field whatever the fullness of the memory card. "
I'm pretty sure that switching from using "Rate" button to pressing the shutter and switching from using "Delete" button to pressing the shutter takes about the same time on Canon ILCs.

Or writing them quickly to another card...
And how would you use that "Rate" button if the images you want to rate are on another card?
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Note how making the rear elements bigger and putting them closer to the
sensor allows for smaller overall diameters and better balanced systems.

Yes, that is physics.
That's how you magnify the exit pupil.

In order to magnify the entrance pupil so that it's larger than the front lens diameter, you need to put the front element closer to the object. While it might have its use for dedicated macro lenses, it won't work in non-macro settings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
What are we putting the 1.4 and 2x converters on then? Surely not the 100-500(which would make a 1000mm f/14)

Maybe the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS? But I'm guessing something else as well, like an RF 300mm f/2.8 L IS.

The EF 300mm f/2.8 L was introduced in November 1987 only eight months after the introduction of the EOS system. It was one of the earliest EF lenses introduced. No "pro" EOS body was introduced until the EOS-1 in September 1989, almost two years later.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Personally, my viewing distance is the same as when working or watching.
I’m quite certain that you’re with the majority there. I treat an iMac playing a video as I would treat a 27-inch TV. At your working distance you may be able to distinguish between 1080p and 4K video. At normal viewing distances you probably cannot distinguish if you are not prejudiced to see the 4K as sharper by knowing in advance which resolution you are looking at.
 
Upvote 0
Very insightful about the flow on benifits of achieving 8k... promising!

I've heard this theory a few times now that the 8k could only be raw due to processor limitations... I'd love to believe that's the case but wouldn't that severly undercut the c500 mark ii ? I have a hunch they may return to MJPEG
I feel like motion jpeg is unlikely just because I wonder if 8k mjpeg would require more data throughput than a card could receive. That's why I also wonder if it will use SD UHS II cards - I don't know what the max write speed is to them right now, but I wonder if 8k is going to outrun it's capacity and need a cfexpress just to handle 8k at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0