A few Canon EOS R5 Mark II specifications [CR2]

[alanphotography]

I'm not sure about examples from the R5 specifically, but generally you get something like this

that is, bokeh circles kinda get cut.

However this problem wont apply to the R1 because it's not going to have a curtain shutter, it looks like it's going to be fully electronic which will completely eliminate this problem.

I'm not sure about the R5II. If it has fast enough readout, its electronic shutter will be perfectly fine too.

Thanks ! I will watch and learn.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

This leads me to think there will be no mechanical shutter at all. We've seen this kind of misunderstandings before, sometimes due to translation issues.

I highly doubt we'll see a mechanical shutter capable of 30fps. IMO, the camera for that was the 1DX Mark III, yet it topped at 20fps.

The R3 already had sensor readout speed pretty close to that of a mechanical shutter. If they're improving on that, why even keep the mechanical option? Why even invest in mechanical shutter development at this stage, when we're moving towards electronic and global shutters?

I'm thinking that perhaps the original information was something in the lines of "mechanical and electronic shutter all being the same", or "the electronic shutter is the mechanical shutter on the R5 II", due to their similar performance, and that it was interpreted as the camera having both options.

Also, we've had previous rumors stating that the R5 Mark II will not have mechanical shutter.

Just my two cents...

If you watch Jan's video he says that the R5 II will shoot 60 FPS and also have a mechanical shutter.
He never states to highest FPS of the mechanical shutter.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Does anyone have an explanation why electronic shutter reduces the bit depth?

It doesn't.
Canon needs to reduce the bit depth to read faster but at the same FPS ES and MS have the same bit depth.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

So what are the practical benefits of a stacked sensor? The R5 is a front-side sensor, right? So stacked should cut noise just a tiny bit? And maybe a bit more dynamic range? But then what practical advantages would we see between back-side and stacked?

Stacked needs to be BSI.
Stacking memory and some image processing on the sensor allows for faster reads.
There is limited advantage to BSI on a full-frame sensor unless pixel density goes up a lot.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

There's really no reason to use full mechanical shutter on the R5.

If you want the full dynamic range then you need to use the MS.

 

[koenkooi]

If you want the full dynamic range then you need to use the MS.

And fewer than 8fps, full MS in H+ also drops down to 13-bit. From the R5 spec page:

14-bit with Mechanical shutter and Electronic 1st Curtain, 13-bit A/D conversion with H+ mode, 12-bit A/D conversion with Electronic shutter

So EFCS in H mode should also give you the full 14-bit, provided you're at ISO800 or lower.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

The mechanical shutter is a big letdown

Please don't fall for the hype.
Subtraction of a feature is not an addition.
Maybe your name should be Electronic Shutter Bug.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Canon needs to reduce the bit depth to read faster but at the same FPS ES and MS have the same bit depth.

Have you confirmed that yourself? Canon states that ES on the R5 is 12-bit, making no distinction between single shot and continuous (20 fps) shooting. In other words, comparing single shot electronic vs. mechanical shutter. Certainly you see the loss of bit depth in the DR reported by Bill Claff for ES vs. mechanical.

 

[koenkooi]

Have you confirmed that yourself? Canon states that ES on the R5 is 12-bit, making no distinction between single shot and continuous (20 fps) shooting. In other words, comparing single shot electronic vs. mechanical shutter. Certainly you see the loss of bit depth in the DR reported by Bill Claff for ES vs. mechanical.

Making single shot ES 14-bit would introduce even heavier rolling shutter effects, which is likely why Canon kept all ES modes at 12-bit. Slower readout also has a knock-on effect on AF, it's one of the reasons why the R7 AF performance isn't at R5 levels even with having much newer firmware.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

If you want the full dynamic range then you need to use the MS.

No, MS is not better than EFSC in anything. Dynamic range will be the same. I have no idea where you get that information from? Lower dynamic range, 13 bit depth? That's absolutely wrong.

Again the only advantage of MS is high shutter speed and wide aperture case. Disadvantage - very real shutter shock at around 1/100s.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

And fewer than 8fps, full MS in H+ also drops down to 13-bit. From the R5 spec page:


So EFCS in H mode should also give you the full 14-bit, provided you're at ISO800 or lower.

No, EFCS gives you 14 bits at any ISO in any mode except H+. ISO doesn't matter at all.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Making single shot ES 14-bit would introduce even heavier rolling shutter effects, which is likely why Canon kept all ES modes at 12-bit. Slower readout also has a knock-on effect on AF, it's one of the reasons why the R7 AF performance isn't at R5 levels even with having much newer firmware.

Agreed. My point was that @EOS 4 Life seems to think the only reason to drop to 12-bit is for high fps shooting, which is clearly not the case. He stated, "...at the same FPS ES and MS have the same bit depth," and I believe that's false.

 

[neuroanatomist]

No, EFCS gives you 14 bits at any ISO in any mode except H+. ISO doesn't matter at all.

ISO doesn't matter for the specified bit depth of the recorded file, but it matters for the dynamic range of the actual image data recorded in that file. The point @koenkooi was making is that above ISO 800 there's no difference in the actual DR of images captured with MS vs. ES. You could save the file as 20-bits and it would still have only 9 stops of DR at ISO 800, or 5 stops of DR at ISO 12800. But at ISO 100 you'll get 12 stops of DR with MS and only 10.5 stops with ES.

 

[Michael Clark]

I could be mistaken but, if I remember correctly, the 1DX3 was able to achieve 20fps in live view, both on mechanical and electronic shutter.


There’s videos of that on the internet. To damage the camera, you need to point a long lens directly at the sun, and leave it that way for several seconds. Why would you ever do such a thing? You didn’t do it with DSLRs either, because you’d end-up in hospital.
If anything, my guess is that the shutter curtains would burn quicker than the sensor. They’re black, plasticky and very thin.

You can burn both the shutter leaves and the sensor at the same time. This is one of the cameras lensrentals got back after the 2017 total eclipse.

 

[Michael Clark]

In a controlled light environments with strobes/flashes, shutter speeds around 1/100s are not uncommon. Same for outdoor portraiture during golden hour. And this is where you'd have the shutter shock if you use the Mechanical shutter on the R5.

Let's see:

- Dynamic Range (Oops, Canon's best camera has better DR at base ISO than Sony's)
- Shutter Shock
- Big & Bulky
- No third party lenses (Yet. Soon to be in the same category as DR above)

Does that about cover the list of Sony talking points they gave you?

 

[Michael Clark]

Agree. Like at EOS 5D Mark II, no suprises. Mark III was much bigger step. So, I'll wait for R5 III.

I remember when Canon announced the EOS 5D Mark III. Lots of folks were complaining about how it was only a minor, incremental upgrade from the 5D Mark II, mostly due to a very modest increase in resolution (21.0MP to 22.1MP).

As Roger Cicala put it at the time:

Despite my well-recognized modesty, I will also point out that when the 5D Mk III was first released, and Canon fanboys were dropping off cliffs right and left, I said “the 5D III is no minor-upgrade camera; it’s an entirely new camera using the old camera’s name”. Its autofocus system is certainly not a minor upgrade–it’s moved over to the big-boy camera side.

As we all should now recognize, the upgraded AF system gave the 5D Mark III usability the 5D Mark II didn't have in low light situations requiring quick and accurate AF. In many ways, the 5D Mark III was the successor to the 1Ds Mark III, which was discontinued at the same time the 5D Mark III was introduced in 2012 along with the 1D X, which replaced the 1D Mark IV.

 

[Michael Clark]

I'm sure some day we will have a great camera that 60mp or more, but right now 45 feels like a sweet spot to me. I switched from the 60mp A7R4 to the R5. In my tests, I lost nothing at all in image quality, and the file sizes are much more manageable.

60MP is only 15.5% denser linearly than 45MP if both sensors are the same width & height. It's not really that significant of a difference.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

ISO doesn't matter for the specified bit depth of the recorded file, but it matters for the dynamic range of the actual image data recorded in that file. The point @koenkooi was making is that above ISO 800 there's no difference in the actual DR of images captured with MS vs. ES.

That's true, but @koenkooi 's statement implies EFCS doesn't give 14 bits above ISO 800. And that would be incorrect.

So EFCS in H mode should also give you the full 14-bit, provided you're at ISO800 or lower.

Also - small correction - MS and ES in the R5 converge at ISO 800, not above

 

[Michael Clark]

In reviews MII and MIV were generally seen as the two "large" upgrades. You may see this otherwise according to your needs - but the MII launch was seen as a revolution (and marketed accordingly) while MIII was seen as an incremental improvement. Especially MII sensor quality and video capability were seen as significant improvements. MIII was a well rounded camera but not revolutionary.

That's not how Roger Cicala saw it.

He said:

Despite my well-recognized modesty, I will also point out that when the 5D Mk III was first released, and Canon fanboys were dropping off cliffs right and left, I said “the 5D III is no minor-upgrade camera; it’s an entirely new camera using the old camera’s name”. Its autofocus system is certainly not a minor upgrade–it’s moved over to the big-boy camera side.

My own experience with both the 5D Mark II (my primary body for almost 4 years) and 5D Mark III (my primary body for 5 years) agrees with his assessment. There wasn't much improvement in terms of resolution or image quality, but the much more advanced AF system (the PDAF array was the same part # as the PDAF array in the 1D X) allowed one to get shots in focus that the consumer grade AF system in the 5D Mark II couldn't handle.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Let's see:

- Dynamic Range (Oops, Canon's best camera has better DR at base ISO than Sony's)
- Shutter Shock
- Big & Bulky
- No third party lenses (Yet. Soon to be in the same category as DR above)

Does that about cover the list of Sony talking points they gave you?

Sorry I don't follow your line of thoughts. Talking points? What are you talking about?
I don't care about Sony, also I said nothing about the size and bulkiness of the R5, and nothing about the third party lenses.
The discussion was mostly about comparison of shutter modes in the R5: mechanical vs electronic 1st curtain.