Canon officially announces the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II

[JonasGillmann]

I have heard it was there, and then it wasn't. Maybe something wasn't right or it was buggy, who knows? I'm guessing.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a firmware update relatively soon after the R52 starts shipping. One has to remember that these aren't complete cameras. I could see some marketing influence there. Really making a big deal about feature updates has helped in the past, and I think they should do it more, and be way more transparent about it.

That would make sense. Although I would've expected them to say that they're planning to add 8K oversampled 4K60p with a firmware update. Without a confirmation, it kinda feels like they once planned to put it in (It's even still on the website) and Canon then suddenly decided to strip it from the R5 Mark II to perhaps leave it as an exclusive feature for another camera..

...WITHOUT a technical reason for the removal of 8K oversampled 4K60p! It leaves a bad taste..

And yes, I agree! Transparency regarding planned firmware updates would be appreciated!

Please, let us know if you hear anything about an update bringing 8K oversampled 4K60p to the R5 Mark II THANKS

 

[koenkooi]

Limiting one product to leave room for another product you're planning to release is a real thing. They might simply want to leave it as an exclusive feature for another camera!

Market segmentation makes sense from an economic POV but it's frustrating for customers nevertheless.

If that was the plan, it wouldn't be in the marketing materials. I don't buy that Canon said "Shoot, we completely forgot about the R5IIC" somewhere in June this year.

 

[JonasGillmann]

If that was the plan, it wouldn't be in the marketing materials. I don't buy that Canon said "Shoot, we completely forgot about the R5IIC" somewhere in June this year.

I hope you're correct on this one! Because if you are, it's only a matter of time until a firmware update brings 8K oversampled 4K60p to the R5 Mark II.

 

[koenkooi]

I hope you're correct on this one! Because if you are, it's only a matter of time until a firmware update brings 8K oversampled 4K60p to the R5 Mark II.

I really hope so, it's a feature I'm looking forward to! The 4k30 on my R7 looks great, but for 'wildlife' like butterflies and dragonflies the 4k60 on my R8 looks much better. Not by having more detail, the extra fps just makes it look nicer (IMO).

If Canon doesn't add it in a later firmware update, I hope I can figure out a workflow with 8k60 that doesn't melt my computer or storage

 

[JonasGillmann]

I really hope so, it's a feature I'm looking forward to! The 4k30 on my R7 looks great, but for 'wildlife' like butterflies and dragonflies the 4k60 on my R8 looks much better. Not by having more detail, the extra fps just makes it look nicer (IMO).

If Canon doesn't add it in a later firmware update, I hope I can figure out a workflow with 8k60 that doesn't melt my computer or storage

I couldn't agree more! Anything other than that would quite frankly be a huge disappointment. PLEASE CANON! Give us a firmware update!

I never thought that we'd even talk about this. 8K oversampled 4K60p should've been "a given" after the years-old R5C was already capable of it. The Nikon Z8 has extremely impressive video specs. I hoped Canon would match that.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

It's a proven fact that the image processor can handle 8K oversampled 4K60p (more capable image processor | Digic X + Coprocessor).

This leaves us with heat dissipation. Well, the R5 Mark II also has active cooling just like the R5C so this isn't an issue either although it should even be possible to record 8K oversampled 4K60p WITHOUT any active cooling as the Nikon Z8 doesn't need any active cooling in order to pull this off and it's been like that for years.
At the very least the R5 Mark II should be capable of 8K oversampled 4K60p with the active cooling grip.

It has a different power draw, a new battery, and a new coprocessor which generates more heat.
Also the sensor is completely different.
The R5 II also has IBIS.
The active cooling is also different.
I honestly do not see how you can draw anything from the R5 C.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

I don't think it's intentional crippling, more a matter of it not working as expected and removed because of that.

It would make no sense for Canon to intentionally cripple the R5 II with features that the R8 has.
Even the R5 C is cheaper.
That being said, either a camera has a feature or it doesn't.
I do not spend much time trying to speculate why or why not.

 

[scyrene]

As far as megapixels, people need to leave the early noughties behind.

What cameras had 24MP in the early 2000s?

 

[scyrene]

Canon is turning the R5 into the "it does everything" camera. What this is doing is pushing the price up because Canon needs to expend more effort to produce a camera that can do everything well.

The 5 series was always a generalist line. And why do you think that widening the audience for it means it's more expensive, whereas two (or more) specialist bodies with fewer potential buyers would instead cost less?

 

[scyrene]

the inclusion of 8K oversampled 4K60p was really important to me.

We'd never have guessed.

 

[scyrene]

So much for CR having inside sources to get specs when they were not even close. And no, guessing it have 24mp doesn't count. That was super obvious to anyone in the photo industry.

Here we go again.

 

[tpatana]

Also I wish they would add (at least) one more digit on the counter. 5 digits would be good start.

 

[koenkooi]

Also I wish they would add (at least) one more digit on the counter. 5 digits would be good start.

The file name counter? I think some outdated standard locks everything to 8.3 filenames, it would be nice if Canon would selectively ignore bits and give us more digits.

 

[David_B]

The 5 series was always a generalist line. And why do you think that widening the audience for it means it's more expensive, whereas two (or more) specialist bodies with fewer potential buyers would instead cost less?

The R5-II's initial MSRP is $300 more than the R5. On the assumption that it isn't because of exchange rates or "because Canon feels like it", a more expenesive "thing" usually means that increased expense was required to create it vs the other thing that is/was cheaper.

Canon have had to re-engineer the physical body (plus battery grip) to provide more cooling to the R5-II. That R&D effort costs money and it is more effort than would be required to deliver a camera that didn't do 8K and thus didn't need that extra cooling.

What *I* care about is how much a camera costs me, which ideally means that I want Canon to do the minimum required to provide a camera that suits me (if they do more than I require then that's expense that doesn't benefit *me*.)

Widening the audience for a device is a careful line to walk because if it involves too much extra work and thus extra expense, the audience for the camera shrinks. There's a balancing game that Canon needs to play.

Canon have already decided that creating a specialist body for video (R5-C) was a worthwhile thing to do. Canon's problem is that they committed to 8K in the original R5 so they've been obliged to fix it in R5-II. IMHO what Canon need to do next is decide that the R6-III is going to be more about stills photography and inherit the sensor from either the R5 or R5-II but leave the video options at a basic level, effectively creating a specialist stills camera.

 

[scyrene]

The R5-II's initial MSRP is $300 more than the R5. On the assumption that it isn't because of exchange rates or "because Canon feels like it", a more expenesive "thing" usually means that increased expense was required to create it vs the other thing that is/was cheaper.

I don't think that's a safe assumption fwiw. In addition to inflation, exchange rates etc, the price is set at a point they think the market will bear, and that's influenced by all sorts of things; cf Nikon, which is desperate to regain market share, so seems to have to price their offerings more keenly.

Canon have had to re-engineer the physical body (plus battery grip) to provide more cooling to the R5-II. That R&D effort costs money and it is more effort than would be required to deliver a camera that didn't do 8K and thus didn't need that extra cooling.

Sure, but they might have spent that R&D money anyway, if they had produced a video-oriented body as well as one without it. So they'd be developing two different designs, which would presumably cost more overall? Do we even know if the development costs for a given body are only reflected in the price of that model, or whether it's spread across the whole lineup?

What *I* care about is how much a camera costs me,

We all do.

Widening the audience for a device is a careful line to walk because if it involves too much extra work and thus extra expense, the audience for the camera shrinks. There's a balancing game that Canon needs to play.

Sure.

Canon have already decided that creating a specialist body for video (R5-C) was a worthwhile thing to do. Canon's problem is that they committed to 8K in the original R5 so they've been obliged to fix it in R5-II. IMHO what Canon need to do next is decide that the R6-III is going to be more about stills photography and inherit the sensor from either the R5 or R5-II but leave the video options at a basic level, effectively creating a specialist stills camera.

Maybe. I would personally be surprised if an R6III also got 45MP because it would overlap too much. It might be cheaper for them to use an existing sensor though.

 

[neuroanatomist]

The file name counter? I think some outdated standard locks everything to 8.3 filenames, it would be nice if Canon would selectively ignore bits and give us more digits.

Definitely agree. My solution, at least on cameras that allow custom file name prefixes, is to implement the higher values manually. So the custom prefix is XX_0####, and when the counter gets to 9999 I change that 0 to 1, etc. It does require keeping on top of the fike numbers, and with today’s high frame rates, that underscore can become a 1, 2, etc.

 

[koenkooi]

Definitely agree. My solution, at least on cameras that allow custom file name prefixes, is to implement the higher values manually. So the custom prefix is XX_0####, and when the counter gets to 9999 I change that 0 to 1, etc. It does require keeping on top of the fike numbers, and with today’s high frame rates, that underscore can become a 1, 2, etc.

In older bodies, it would move the counter forward if you used a card from a different camera, which has lead to ‘duplictates’ for me. A few years ago I wrote a script that uses exiftool to rename the files during import, so loosing pictures due to filename clashes doesn’t happen anymore
The script renames the pictures to something like this:

20240722 1503 IMG_0528 Canon EOS R8 - Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM at 24.0 mm - 81.91 m - Electronic Shutter - CRAW - IMG_0528.CR3

A keen observer will notices that 'IMG_0528' is listed twice, this is mainly to help Helicon Focus sort the focus stacks properly, at 30fps a lot will have the exact same time stamp.

I welcome any improvements that the camera will do!

 

[neuroanatomist]

In older bodies, it would move the counter forward if you used a card from a different camera, which has lead to ‘duplictates’ for me.

Every time I put a card into a camera, I format that card immediately.

 

[koenkooi]

Every time I put a card into a camera, I format that card immediately.

If there’s a picture on the card, it might already be too late

But formatting before each session is a good habit to have. The combination of a FAT derived filesystem and an operating system written by camera nerds is not a recipe for success, to put it mildly.

 

[SHAMwow]

The R5-II's initial MSRP is $300 more than the R5. On the assumption that it isn't because of exchange rates or "because Canon feels like it", a more expenesive "thing" usually means that increased expense was required to create it vs the other thing that is/was cheaper.

Canon have had to re-engineer the physical body (plus battery grip) to provide more cooling to the R5-II. That R&D effort costs money and it is more effort than would be required to deliver a camera that didn't do 8K and thus didn't need that extra cooling.

What *I* care about is how much a camera costs me, which ideally means that I want Canon to do the minimum required to provide a camera that suits me (if they do more than I require then that's expense that doesn't benefit *me*.)

Widening the audience for a device is a careful line to walk because if it involves too much extra work and thus extra expense, the audience for the camera shrinks. There's a balancing game that Canon needs to play.

Canon have already decided that creating a specialist body for video (R5-C) was a worthwhile thing to do. Canon's problem is that they committed to 8K in the original R5 so they've been obliged to fix it in R5-II. IMHO what Canon need to do next is decide that the R6-III is going to be more about stills photography and inherit the sensor from either the R5 or R5-II but leave the video options at a basic level, effectively creating a specialist stills camera.

The R6 is and has been, a pocket mirrorless 1DX. The enthusiasts/prosumers refusal to accept this baffles me. You guys are never getting a "stills" only camera, with video stripped out, for less money.