Are two cameras going to replace the Canon EOS R5? [CR]

[AlanF]

If it isillegible it is illegible. So obviously if it produced accurate alphanumerics there was enough data to sharpen and interperet the image correctly. And extremely convincing is different than real.
Even if the subject is an everyday object -> if it has an abnormality that is not recorded by the sensor, then it wont be shown on an AI image either.
In some cases it might even be remowed, even if it is captured by the sensor.

And don't get me wrong I tottaly understand that for most cases AI generated detail is good enough. But there are also plenty of cases where you might want the real detail.
I shoot a lot of commercial stuff for ads and usualy I don't care if those images are AI enhanced or not.
But I'm also working on some editorial stuff and some personal projects. Last week I photographed a 92 year old farmer/hunter in front of his house with his fathers rifle in his hand and some tools and trophies up on the wooden walls of the house. There were plenty of details that are interesting. Some are visible some not. But in this case I would rather choose a higher MP camera to show the hand made engravings on his rifle, the details on his face, engravings on trophies, details on old tools, then have AI make up "extremely convincing" ones.

And about MP needs.... even when the AI generated detail is convincing enough or when you just need to sharpen or to clean the image with the help of AI, there are cases when you might have a need for a high MP camera. Otherwise you might just want to tell the AI to create everything from scratch.

That pretty well sums it up nicely.

 

[Deleted member 378875]

Personally the one and only single feature I am after is a high-resolution low-latency viewfinder on a full frame camera at a low price (~£1400 or less)

I've had a 5D mark IV since it was first released and don't want to spend a fortune replacing all my old kit.

24 to 30MP would be more than adequate ... but right now good viewfinder resolution is only available on uber-expensive cameras.

Come on Canon - once you've sold me a camera with a decent resolution then its inevitable I will start replacing my lenses one by one ... but right now I haven't spent a penny on your kit for years ...

Essentially I want the equivalent mirrorless to a 6D with an outstanding viewfinder which is as good as optical ...

 

[koenkooi]

I’m not sure your logic holds up. RAW is also turned off by default. The default option on a camera fresh from the box is Large JPG. If one decides to shoot RAW, it’s one click of the wheel for RAW and two clicks for cRAW.

I did consider that, but it still requires people being knowledgable, adventurous or both. From personal experience, which is both anectdotal and skewed, switching to RAW already requires above average dedication to the hobby. My father keeps his Olympus in JPG, because he doesn't want to post process and in workshops my co-participants don't really care about which flavour of RAW they are using. The most recent workshop did touch upon RAW vs JPG,

In the subset of people nerdy enough to post on the internet about photography and commenting on cRAW, a majority says something like "I don't care, I want maximum RAW".

I also don't know how camera users differ from customers I dealt with (companies designing electronics), most of them had a "If you wanted us to use this feature, you would've made it the default" mentality.

I really hope everyone using ILCs has made an informed choice about the storage format, but I wouldn't be surprised if at the 5 series level, more than half of the users shoot JPG only.

 

[koenkooi]

I would like to think that is true but in the current Canon lineup, every camera from the R10 up has sports and wildlife features and would benefit from CRAW.
The R50 seems more like a JPEG camera for those activities.

I certainly agree that cRAW has huge benefits and in almost all cases is visually indistinguishable from regular RAW. The JPG engine in Canon cameras is very good, I was surprised at how well the R5 performed at doing JPG and the R8 is even better.
With the default (JPG) being very good, I understand that tweaking-averse people won't bother changing the setting.

 

[Fischer]

I think most people here at CR who shoot bursts and don't use JPEG (an JPEG is what R3 is for) use CRAW.

Now, if you use R5 as a landscape camera, you don't need bursts. But if you use it for something like birds in flight....

Not really convinced that it changes the odds of people using it - but we can certainly agree that choice is good. Enjoy!

 

[davidespinosa]

How lossy is cRAW ?
And what's the typical compression ratio compared to RAW ?

 

[koenkooi]

How lossy is cRAW ?

The consensus is that it only looses information in deep, deep shadows. So if you're not pulling up shadows 6 stops, it is visually identical to regular RAW. My personal experience matches that, but I have either decently exposed pictures or very high ISO at night shots, so take my experience with a grain of salt

And what's the typical compression ratio compared to RAW ?

it's about 50%, but like RAW file sizes, it depends on the ISO and subject.

 

[Kit.]

Clearly a generalisation but in my case (data set of n=1), I have no issues to shoot bursts in full raw with my M1 MBP.

cRAW would be faster to clear to buffer but Bryan's testing at
https://www.the-digital-picture.com...-R6-Buffer-Capacity-During-High-Speed-Capture
shows dual raw = 175 images for 14 bit/mechanical shutter and 104 images for 12 bit/electronic shutter
>14 seconds of burst for mechanical and >5 seconds @ 20fps is a long burst IMHO
without using cRAW.

These measurements are about filling the buffer, not about clearing it. They don't represent a situation when one takes series of short bursts.

Storage size limitations might also be of a bigger issue when you shooot lots of bursts.

 

[amorse]

I've never used burst from an airplane but am taking many shots to look for different perspectives. I am looking for abstracts more that traditional landscapes though so sharp banking is common (if stomach churning) Sharpness is not critical for abstracts and that helps as I am using the 24-105mm/4 in any case.

My main issue with the GFX system is the lack of UWA lenses. It would seem like going backwards to need to shoot panoramas (as well as stacking) for an image. Having one FF system and lenses from 8-500mm covers everything so far

Agreed! Last time I was in a plane I didn’t really notice how hard the pilot was banking until I felt my eyelids start drooping! Fun experience looking back - and thank god I don’t get motion sick from that kind of flying.

UWA is another massive gap in their lineup - but I assume they’ll fill that eventually. At least I have more faith in them making a UWA some day versus releasing the equivalent focal length as a 100-400. And to be fair, if they did release a 100-400 equivalent on medium format, that would be one big and expensive lens (compared to full frame anyway)!

 

[AlanF]

So far, 17 have answered the poll of whether you use cRAW if you have the choice.

Do you CRAW or RAW for cameras with the choice?

It has been proposed that less than 10% use CRAW in the recent cameras that have this facility. So, what is the reality?

www.canonrumors.com

10 use exclusively RAW and 7 mainly or exclusively cRAW. However, I recognise one person who exclusively uses RAW has a camera that doesn't shoot cRAW.

 

[unfocused]

I certainly agree that cRAW has huge benefits and in almost all cases is visually indistinguishable from regular RAW. The JPG engine in Canon cameras is very good, I was surprised at how well the R5 performed at doing JPG and the R8 is even better.
With the default (JPG) being very good, I understand that tweaking-averse people won't bother changing the setting.

This is a good reminder to me. I really do need to do a decent comparison between JPG and Raw/CRaw. The only comparison I've done was an accidental case where I stupidly formatted the wrong card in camera. (meant to format Card 2, which I usually shoot as JPG as a backup, and accidently hit Card 1, so I had no choice but to use the JPGs. Honestly, in that case, it worked out fine and the only difference I found was that in order to process the images in Camera Raw I had to open the JPGs as smart objects. I suspect the Canon and Adobe have both made sufficient improvements that JPGs work just about as well as Raw files, with color balance being the main difference, but even then, it's not that difficult to adjust the balance in Adobe.

Getting back to Raw vs. CRaw, I suspect that most people who shoot Raw have never tried CRaw (and unless you are consistently running into buffer problems, there isn't a lot of reason to try it.) I think that most who do try it, find they can't tell any difference and appreciate the benefits (bigger effective buffer, fewer card changes, faster download times).

 

[Nemorino]

there isn't a lot of reason to try it.

Focus stacking with 100+ frames per final picture

 

[David - Sydney]

These measurements are about filling the buffer, not about clearing it. They don't represent a situation when one takes series of short bursts.

Storage size limitations might also be of a bigger issue when you shooot lots of bursts.

The point of Bryan's measurements is what length of time/images does the buffer hold. It shows that Canon has included a significant buffer depth
Clearing the buffer is a different story and will be completely dependent on card type (SD or CFe or both) and the selected card speed.

For those R5/R6 owners shooting lots of bursts close to each other - to the extent that the buffer does clear then your options are:
- buy only fast cards
- change to cRAW
- shoot only to one card ie the CFe with ~1500Mb/s sustained write speed
The general limitation will be the SD card and there is still quite a range of speed differences see https://havecamerawilltravel.com/fastest-sd-cards/
There are also websites testing various cards with the R5 etc to peruse.

Or buy a R3

Storage limitations are self defined. If you take lots of bursts - especially at high frame rates - then you will always need more disk space and time to go through them.
Choices and consequences.

 

[David - Sydney]

I really hope everyone using ILCs has made an informed choice about the storage format,

They will think that they made an informed choice but may not have tried all the options. I tried cRAW and although it seemed okay, I often pull up shadows and my PC etc wasn't an issue so I decided to stick to raw only. The only exception was when I was running out of space at a sports event (too many bursts on eshutter!) and needed to change to cRAW to not miss a shot

but I wouldn't be surprised if at the 5 series level, more than half of the users shoot JPG only.

That is a big call. I've been post processing since I had a 7D (4 bodies ago) so it has been raw from the beginning for me.
You could also say that fair % of 1D users only use jpg... but a deliberate choice for size and immediate usage at sports events.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

14-35/4 + 24-105/4 + 100-400/4 + 200-400/4 + 600/4

You left out the 11-24 f/4 (which could really replace the 14-24) and the 500 f/4 (which the 200-500 f/4 will replace and it will also replace the 200-400).
I also was not aware that a 100-400 f/4 ever existed.
The 70-200 would fit in better anyway.

 

[neuroanatomist]

You left out the 11-24 f/4 (which could really replace the 14-24) and the 500 f/4 (which the 200-500 f/4 will replace and it will also replace the 200-400).
I also was not aware that a 100-400 f/4 ever existed.
The 70-200 would fit in better anyway.

Gentlemen, please. For those who live in the real world:

15-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8
—or—
14-35/4, 24-105/4, 70-200/4

Or the EF versions they replace.

Ok, you may now return to your fanciful debate.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

If it isillegible it is illegible. So obviously if it produced accurate alphanumerics there was enough data to sharpen and interperet the image correctly. And extremely convincing is different than real.

Not necessarily.
If trained with the fonts and patterns of enough license plates it could recreate what was missing from what is there.
It could even guess the license plate number wrong.
It just needs to look convincing enough.

 

[David - Sydney]

Gentlemen, please. For those who live in the real world:
Ok, you may now return to your fanciful debate.

This is canon rumours - right?

 

[neuroanatomist]

This is canon rumours - right?

No, it's not (technically).

 

[David - Sydney]

I

No, it's not (technically).

I can't help it if they can't spell correctly... English - right? not American