How recent are those home runs? JohnSil wrote:
Given Canon's history
Were you alive when the T-90 came out? The T-90 even knocked the socks off of people that only knew what an Instamatic was!
What about EOS?
What about the 50 f1.0 with AF?
What about the 200 f1.8 with AF
What about IS in a 500 f4?
What about the 5D mkl and mkll?
What about the 200-400 with a built-in extender?
Canon has a long history of Home Runs!!!
John
Isn’t the M6 APS-C? evertdoorn wrote:
If the M6 ii can shoot 14 fps with servo, a 32mpix consumer model not equipped with a digic x, why should this camera not be able to do this at 12 fps?
Furthermore the current 5d4 is not mirrorless; big difference which opens up whole new ways in AF.
There were other good Canon cameras that were incremental improvements over the ones I've listed, but the real ground breaking home runs for my "team" were:
F1-n
EOS-1
EOS 1Ds
EOS 10D (because it was the first affordable Canon digital camera with IQ that was much better than 35mm film)
EOS 1DsMkIII
EOS 5DSR
I'd note that in the 7 years between the 1DsMKIII and the 5DSR there was nothing with better low ISO file quality than the 1DsMKIII until the 5DSR happened. I had a 1DX that worked perfectly but its files were mediocre at best. I make prints for some others and the 5DMkIV files are a definite step up from those made by other cameras in that series. If I owned one I might say it was a home run, but I'm on the fence about its balance of pixel quality versus resolution. Still, it's a very good camera.
TeamSpeed wrote:
If you couldn't have gotten the same results with the other gear you own or did own, then something is wrong already with your assessment. Your stitched landscape photos don't need high speed bursts, and could have been done with an M series even. Doing static scenery stitched photos isn't some magic sauce found on the EOS R. .
Once you master reading context of replies, your world may change figuring out what people said.
My post was very tailored to what the other person barked about frames per second, missing connect the dots my a mile, because earlier I was dwelling on the nature of how Canon could have hit a home run with the EOS R ... and something the EOS R accomplished that Sony did not.
I do get $800 photos with my older gear. And not because of frames per second.
The confusion may stem from you trying to focus on some things I use cameras for, and not a closing sentence I wrote in a recent reply. I didn't state exactly what Canon EOS R accomplished, so folks may think about what that may actually be, rather than just write it and say it.
The EOS R was a cornerstone for at least a couple things.
Obviously the R5 is going to come with some caveats based on the specs we know. I’m inclined to think that it won’t have tracking at 12fps mechanical and 20fps electronic but the Mark III has tracking at 20fps mechanical and electronic so it’s not outside the realm of possibility. Even if it does lack tracking at those speeds it’ll probably have tracking at 8-10fps mechanical and 14-16fps electronic. It’s unlikely but I could also see this camera being completely no-compromises for one reason — taking market share from Sony. If Canon really is serious about taking over the FF mirrorless market then this would be the camera to get them headed in that direction. They’ve already laid the groundwork for a solid stable of lenses with the adapter being as good as it is and putting out RF glass that nobody else is currently matching. I think it’s safe to say that even with caveats, it’s going to be one hell of a camera.
mdvaden wrote:
Once you master reading context of replies, your world may change figuring out what people said.
My post was very tailored to what the other person barked about frames per second, missing connect the dots my a mile, because earlier I was dwelling on the nature of how Canon could have hit a home run with the EOS R ... and something the EOS R accomplished that Sony did not.
I do get $800 photos with my older gear. And not because of frames per second.
The confusion may stem from you trying to focus on some things I use cameras for, and not a closing sentence I wrote in a recent reply. I didn't state exactly what Canon EOS R accomplished, so folks may think about what that may actually be, rather than just write it and say it.
The EOS R was a cornerstone for at least a couple things.
You totally discounted the need for higher FPS and dual card slots because YOU don't need them. The EOS-R might be a home run for YOUR photographic needs, but definitely not for many other types, given its obvious limitations. Step outside of your bubble for a minute.
Not sure which is more grating, your constant white knighting for the R, or telling us how much you sell your pictures for. The point is, no one wants to hear either one.
mdvaden wrote:
I get paid up to $800 per single photo shooting one frame per 5 seconds.
The mumbo jumbo you are writing about is a nothing burger in regards to what I get from the EOS R body.
If you can't succeed with an EOS R .. simple. Don't buy one.
artsupreme wrote:
We've seen almost all the R5 specifications and people seem excited. The big question seems to be whether it truly does 12fps in AI servo and what the exact MP count will be.
Given Canon's history, do people really think they are going to release a screamer that knocks everyone socks off with 12fps in AI servo at 40MP+?
Or, do you think it will end up being a slightly better 5DIV with slightly better if not the same IQ, and just more cropping power?
Based on history, I think we'll see the latter. Basically a 5DIV with 10 more MP. If that's true, I wonder where the price will land? Close to $4000?
If it's a legitimate 12fps in AI servo and performs like a sports body then this body would have to be close to $5000.
I understand the video might be better, but I'm not sure what the demand is for an 8K video camera right now....Show more →
One R5 model just doesn't work for me to replace the 5D IV and 5DsR. There should be a version with about 30-32MP and one with around 50-60MP.
RoamingScott wrote:
Not sure which is more grating, your constant white knighting for the R, or telling us how much you sell your pictures for. The point is, no one wants to hear either one.
Then feel free to skip reading, it's an easy solution to complaining.
On the flip side, I've read notes PM'd about what people think of your rhetoric (specifically), yet they never told you to cork it. It's easier for folks to just scroll past your posts. But if you think everybody thinks your oration on all the threads is the gold standard, think again.
There's a lot of users, and lots of opinions, and lots of examples.
Me too for 5DSR and landscape and all but BIF- Sony has still not matched it, after several years. Intervalometer, timer built in, a tank in cold weather. The Sony A7IV might have 61mpx now after several years but still is 12bit in bulb beyond 30s, lousy ergonomics, lousy cold performance, lousy lcd, lousy dust control, huge vignetting in lens.... The only thing Sony has done better than 5dsr for landscape is dynamic range (&weight) at iso100 but it does not matter for me because AEB/bliending does a better job with colours and noise in shadows. [ I have a7rii for backpacking and 5dsr for everything else]
And the EFM lens and system on my m5 are way better for me than the a6000 series. Sony sucks at high quality small lens (compare 16-55 of Sony vs 15-45 EFM or 11-22) and Nikon did not exist in this space until 6 months ago.
Feel free to share those PMs, I could use a laugh.
Instead of passive aggressively sharing notes behind people’s backs, it’s more instructive to call out ridiculousness as you see it. And in case you can’t tell, you’ve convinced 0 people in this thread about why the R is the pinnacle of Canon engineering.
mdvaden wrote:
Then feel free to skip reading, it's an easy solution to complaining.
On the flip side, I've read notes PM'd about what people think of your rhetoric, but never told you to cork it. It's easier to just scroll past your posts. But if you think everybody thinks your oration on all the threads is the gold standard, think again.
There's a lot of users, and lots of opinions, and lots of examples.
rscheffler wrote:
These pre-release announcements with limited information and hints at vague specs are specifically tuned to generate hype, so of course the final, fully disclosed list of specifications will include disappointments.
Just look at the 1DXIII. The pre-release conveniently omitted sensor resolution (like the R5). No change at 20MP was a disappointment, but other aspects of the camera are considerable improvements and in many respects I would consider it a home run product.
So what does the R5's 'up to' 12fps mechanical shutter and 'up to' 20fps electronic shutter really mean? Likely that One Shot AF will be at those speeds and AI Servo will be slower. How much slower? I have no idea but I believe it's risky to look at the R and RP to directly extrapolate the R5's capabilities. Both of those cameras were built around old sensor tech probably coupled with adequate but not great processors. Instead look at the 1DXIII in live view with AF tracking at 20fps, all while getting considerably better life out of the existing battery. Or as mentioned, the M6II, which IMO is massively faster and more usable than the M5 or M6 with a considerably higher pixel count, in an 'amateur' 'dead end' sub-system.
I didn't notice that you referred to Roger's law already
Your guess is as good as mine or better, but I have a hunch that Canon will do some sort of AF tracking even at the highest speed. The caveat could be something else like they only do one exposure /readout per cycle, and it is done in dual pixel mode. In that case the dynamic range could be lowered a bit, and the tracking performance could be so-so. But only speculation from my side.
mdvaden wrote:
Canon USA basically laid out much of it themselves in 2018.
I’m an EOS R shooter. I am a multi system shooter.
A great photographer can make great photographs of many genres with any camera.
The EOS R was the least capable camera in its segment when it launched. Dynamic range, autofocus, burst rate, video capabilities, usability, customizability, were all worse than Sony and Nikon.
Canon has improved the autofocus system and it is potentially now better in some ways than Nikon.
So, I’m just curious what Canon managed to do better than someone else.
I will tell you the one and only thing that I believe they did better: the grip and the shutter button are more well shaped and placed than the competition.
I would be curious what you believe to be so substantially impactful about the EOS R to make audacious claims like Canon pulled off something the competition was unable to.
I think if you could enumerate the things that the EOS R does better than others, we could make this thread useful.
Jesse Evans wrote:
I’m an EOS R shooter. I am a multi system shooter.
A great photographer can make great photographs of many genres with any camera.
The EOS R was the least capable camera in its segment when it launched. Dynamic range, autofocus, burst rate, video capabilities, usability, customizability, were all worse than Sony and Nikon.
Canon has improved the autofocus system and it is potentially now better in some ways than Nikon.
So, I’m just curious what Canon managed to do better than someone else.
I will tell you the one and only thing that I believe they did better: the grip and the shutter button are more well shaped and placed than the competition.
I would be curious what you believe to be so substantially impactful about the EOS R to make audacious claims like Canon pulled off something the competition was unable to.
I think if you could enumerate the things that the EOS R does better than others, we could make this thread useful. ...Show more →
I would also like to learn more about the merits of the R, but maybe you could start a new thread about it or append to another? The topic of this thread is R5 speculation, useful or not
alundeb wrote:
I would also like to learn more about the merits of the R, but maybe you could start a new thread about it or append to another? The topic of this thread is R5 speculation, useful or not
Whoops, sorry.
I didn’t mean to step in to the middle of the super useful 8th R5 speculation thread that was super on topic and definitely not a mud slinging competition about peoples behavior on the forum 🙃
Scott Stoness wrote:
Me too for 5DSR and landscape and all but BIF- Sony has still not matched it, after several years. Intervalometer, timer built in, a tank in cold weather. The Sony A7IV might have 61mpx now after several years but still is 12bit in bulb beyond 30s, lousy ergonomics, lousy cold performance, lousy lcd, lousy dust control, huge vignetting in lens.... The only thing Sony has done better than 5dsr for landscape is dynamic range (&weight) at iso100 but it does not matter for me because AEB/bliending does a better job with colours and noise in shadows. [ I have a7rii for backpacking and 5dsr for everything else]
And the EFM lens and system on my m5 are way better for me than the a6000 series. Sony sucks at high quality small lens (compare 16-55 of Sony vs 15-45 EFM or 11-22) and Nikon did not exist in this space until 6 months ago. ...Show more →
I use the 5DS for landscape, macro, and some studio shooting (plus, whatever, when it's in-hand). I've been out of action photography for about four years; otherwise I'd probably be deciding between 1DX III and A9, at about now. I also have a M5 (and M6), which are great for travel and casual stuff.
