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

[Michael Clark]

"Lull" rather suggests there's nothing for him to miss, don't you think?

If you've ever shot wildlife, or even a crime scene or fire department fighting a fire from a distance, you would know that "lull" can become "shot of the year" in the blink of an eye. It can be like combat has been described: Endless hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

If you've ever shot wildlife

Oh, FFS - seriously? That's pretty much all I've done for the last 15 years!

I don't need you to lecture me on the realities of wildlife photography (or the Real World value of Auto ISO, for that matter).

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Some shooting situations are more conducive to auto ISO than others. Not everyone shoots the same thing you do the same way you do. I rarely use Auto ISO because I don't usually shoot in situations that are best shot using it. With multiple off-camera flashes, for instance, AUTO ISO is worse than useless.

Who uses Auto ISO with multiple off-camera flashes?

But no, you carry on making up your Strawman arguments to "prove" your point.

 

[Michael Clark]

Oh, FFS - seriously? That's pretty much all I've done for the last 15 years!

I don't need you to lecture me on the realities of wildlife photography (or the Real World value of Auto ISO, for that matter).

I'm not lecturing you about the real world value of Auto ISO. As I've already said, there are situations where it is very useful. I'm taking you to task implying that it is the ONLY viable option for all shooting scenarios. It is not.

 

[padam]

Seven lenses were for 2019, not 2020.

There are nine slots for this year on your attached chart. Last year CR said there would be eight in 2020. So it's "approximately eight or nine." Of those "approximately eight or nine", we know what four of them are. That leaves "approximately four or five" others that we don't yet know.

In my previous comment my mind got ahead of my fingers. I've went back and included the missing words so it says what I meant:

"The point remains, we know what four of them are and the other four or five out of the eight or nine are unknown at this time. "

Not sure why you are arguing about something, that has been clearly laid out by Canon itself. It's called an official roadmap.
It is Not a rumour you know, which is not to be taken as granted
Of course I did not count the teleconverters as 'lenses', so there is five more out of seven lenses in total for 2020. No more, no less, but you can continue denying it

 

[Michael Clark]

Not sure why you are arguing about something, that has been clearly laid out by Canon itself. It's called an official roadmap.
It is Not a rumour you know, which is not to be taken as granted
Of course I did not count the teleconverters as 'lenses', so there is five more out of seven lenses in total for 2020. No more, no less, but you can continue denying it

Canon counts extenders as lenses, and obviously included them in two of the nine slots on your attached roadmap.

But even if they are not, and there are going to be seven lenses, then we only know what two of those seven are. That leaves five yet to be revealed.

5 > 2

 

[Deleted member 381342]

Actually, there is only five of them remaining.
And I don't think they need to rush it until they have a sports oriented body to match these, they are better off coming with other lenses that sell better.
So I don't expect super telephoto primes just yet, the EF lenses will probably just do fine for now.

What are we putting the 1.4 and 2x converters on then? Surely not the 100-500(which would make a 1000mm f/14)

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I'm taking you to task implying that it is the ONLY viable option for all shooting scenarios. It is not.

You got that from what I wrote? (Actually, I know you didn't. You made it up so that you had an excuse to pontificate).

I didn't "imply" anything. I stated very clearly - in response someone lamenting the apparent lack of an ISO button on the R5 - that "there's no excuse not to use Auto ISO on a camera like this".

There's simply no debating the fact that well-executed Auto ISO removes the need to worry about being able to quickly adjust the ISO on a camera.

But I certainly didn't suggest that it's the only - sorry, ONLY - "viable option for all shooting scenarios". That's a complete fabrication.

 

[Michael Clark]

Who uses Auto ISO with multiple off-camera flashes?

But no, you carry on making up your Strawman arguments to "prove" your point.

Thanks for agreeing with me that it would be silly to use Auto ISO with off-camera flash.

I must have missed that (and many other) qualification(s) when you said, "There's no excuse not to use Auto ISO on a camera like this."

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Thanks for agreeing with me that it would be silly to use Auto ISO with off-camera flash.

I must have missed that (and many other) qualification(s) when you said, "There's no excuse not to use Auto ISO on a camera like this."

Do need a hand moving those goalposts, Michael?

You seem to be struggling with context. The post I responded to with the Auto ISO reference was worrying about the lack of an ISO button: in off-camera flash situations there's generally no need for fast, on-the-fly ISO adjustment.

Is there?

So off-camera flash - in this context - is essentially an irrelevance.

Isn't it?

 

[Famateur]

The body looks bulkier than eos R, and rumours prcing it around $4000
I do hope r6 will be more like RP and much cheaper.(sub $2000)

A price of $4,000 for the R5 would betray the R5 moniker that strongly indicates it's intended to be the RF equivalent of the 5D series DSLRs. Those have consistently been in the $3,299-$3,499 range, with the exception of the 5DS, which was a niche specialization that shared the same body but was aimed at a different market segment.

While features are certainly related to price, the floor and ceiling of price ranges are primarily determined by product positioning relative to its intended market. It's possible that Canon is rearranging its market segmentation and product positioning, but highly unlikely with the R5 moniker. I see that as a clear message to 5D shooters that a mirrorless body is in the works for them.

If anything, the global contraction in ILC camera sales, coupled with Canon's statement that it will aggressively win marketshare in the full-frame mirrorless space would point to:

• More features at historically consistent prices for a given segment, or
• Lower prices for a modest (generationally appropriate) boost in features, or
• A combination of both.

While I think a launch price of $3,499 for this feature-packed R5 seems most likely to me, I would not be surprised one bit if Canon launched the R5 at $3,299.
In a contracting market, raising prices doesn't win you marketshare, and saying, "But it has a whole slew of redical features to support the higher price!" doesn't mean the target market has (or will spend) the money to buy it.

 

[PureClassA]

However, how you interpret this: "...as well as process 8K video into higher-quality 4K video." Again, this are not my words, this is the announcement statement from Canon. And again, this for me at least is the least important thing in the R5. I will/would buy the camera with the 4k60 without the 8k.

It will shoot 8K video "as well as...." So Sounds like it will do real 8K, but also give you the option to shoot in 8K and downconvert to 4K... which sounds like a FF readout of oversampled 4K... which is to say simply a FF readout on 4K. Not sure how else to interpret that. The wording seems somewhat ambiguous. I mean, I can shoot something in 8K, put into FCP or Adobe and "process it into higher quality 4K video". Hard to say where they are going with this. Can the camera shoot an 8K file and then give you the option IN CAMERA to re-render it into 4K? I can't imagine that. The processing power that sort of operation takes is tremendous.

We barely have ANY true 8K TVs out there, and we have only had a small handful of actual live TV events even shot and broadcast in 4K. The only real worthwhile 4K delivery system thus far is Blu-Ray 4K. The difference between streaming 4K content and watching the same thing on a disc hard copy is often huge. I just re-watched the NUN recently. Started streaming it from my iTunes library which gives me "4K HDR". I switched back and forth to the regular HD Blu-Ray copy I own. The Blu-Ray at 1080p blew away the "4K" stream. All the blacks were completely crushed and that movie has a ton of shadows. But I bet most folks today are watching 4K content via highly compressed streaming services and NOT on discs.

We are very quickly reaching the point of diminishing returns on these formats mainly because without a delivery system that won't compress the hell out of the source material, what good is it? It's not.

Furthermore, almost every movie today that uses post production special effects like CGI get mastered in 2K DCI even though principal photography was done in 4K or even 6K. Why? Because rendering things like Iron Man's suit or Thanos in 4K would take way more animation and processing power. Once they master it with all the effects in 2K, they Up-Convert the footage back into higher resolutions for theatrical distribution.

So NOW... we're talking 8K. Which is great. It's nice that Canon is pushing the envelope. But we can still only half utilize true 4K in most of the biggest Hollywood films. The Joker is a good recent example of a straight through 4K production. Principal Photography. Mastering. Distribution. All 4K. No compression or down converting to Master. Why? No CGI. And the 4K Blu Ray of that movie looks gorgeous.

 

[scyrene]

How many shots have you missed that you didn't even see while you were chimping instead of watching?

In my experience, there are plenty of lulls in bird photography especially. Frantic bursts of action, followed by more waiting. So 'chimping' rarely causes missed shots, and is a way of passing the time. I delete in camera not so much to save memory card space (unless it's full), but rather to save time when I come to upload. I have to sort through them sooner or later, so if I have a spare moment in the field, why not then? If a shot is clearly out of focus etc. then there's no reason to keep it. Finer choices that can't be easily discerned on the small LCD can wait until home.

(Edit: I wrote this before the preceding discussion, I'm not taking sides in people's arguments, just noting my experiences).

 

[PureClassA]

Some shooting situations are more conducive to auto ISO than others. Not everyone shoots the same thing you do the same way you do. I rarely use Auto ISO because I don't usually shoot in situations that are best shot using it. With multiple off-camera flashes, for instance, AUTO ISO is worse than useless.

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

 

[scyrene]

Not when working! That’s the appropriate distance for watching an HD video.

Ah right

 

[Michael Clark]

Do need a hand moving those goalposts, Michael?

You seem to be struggling with context. The post I responded to with the Auto ISO reference was worrying about the lack of an ISO button: in off-camera flash situations there's generally no need for fast, on-the-fly ISO adjustment.

Is there?

So off-camera flash - in this context - is essentially an irrelevance.

Isn't it?

You're doing that quite fine yourself.

Someone expressed a desire to have an ISO button on the R5.

Your response was basically, "No one needs an ISO button on this camera. There's no excuse to not use Auto ISO with this camera."

If that's not moving the goalposts I do not know what moving the goalposts is.

 

[padam]

What are we putting the 1.4 and 2x converters on then? Surely not the 100-500(which would make a 1000mm f/14)

As I said before, super telephotos are coming, just not necessarily so soon, when there are so many other lenses they can release that will sell.
Who would spend that much money on these primes, if there is no suitable camera body to mount them on yet?
f/14 AF with the new body might become a possibility anyway, so with the dual IS, it might not be that bad if high shutter speed is not needed.

Looking at Sony, they've released their 1.4x and 2.0x teleconverters with their 70-200/2.8 in 2016
The 400/2.8 only came two years later in 2018 (which came after the A9 released in 2017), 600/4 in 2019 and there is still plenty more to come.

 

[Famateur]

I do question them. If they are accurate, then the converters won't be compatible with any lenses other than long telephotos which haven't even had development announcements yet. That strikes me as being silly and unlikely...

I see it kind of the opposite: If the teleconverters (which are real -- those are official photos from Canon) don't fit currently released RF lenses because of the protruding element, I see it as a hint to wildlife and sports photographers that some super-telephoto RF lenses are coming soon. The official announcement for the R5 specifically mentioned sports shooters while touting the frame rate of the R5.

Canon teased the number of lenses that are coming in 2020 but didn't specify which. I think the teleconverters are a clue for at least one, if not two of the imminent lens releases.

 

[Michael Clark]

You got that from what I wrote?

Yep.

(Actually, I know you didn't. You made it up so that you had an excuse to pontificate).

You obviously have no idea what you're talking about when you claim to know what I think.
To claim you do is either a complete fabrication or a severe delusion.

I didn't "imply" anything. I stated very clearly - in response someone lamenting the apparent lack of an ISO button on the R5 - that "there's no excuse not to use Auto ISO on a camera like this".

"There's no excuse not to use Auto ISO on a camera like this. "

That certainly implies to me that you are suggesting that anyone who does not use Auto ISO on a camera like this has no excuse.

There's simply no debating the fact that well-executed Auto ISO removes the need to worry about being able to quickly adjust the ISO on a camera.

I'll debate you all day long that there are some situations where being able to manually change ISO is superior to using Auto ISO. Because it's true.

But I certainly didn't suggest that it's the only - sorry, ONLY - "viable option for all shooting scenarios". That's a complete fabrication.

That's certainly what it suggested to me.

"There's no excuse not to use Auto ISO on a camera like this."

Without qualification.

 

[joestopper]

The entrance pupil diameter is not necessarily equal to the aperture
stop diameter, because of the magnifying effect of lens elements in
front of the aperture. "Apparent aperture" is the key.

Canon explains it very nicely illustrated in this video:

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.

And also yes, Sony can't do that with their small mount diameter.

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?