If you are the sort who has to change cards a lot in very risky environments and who therefore worries about losing or damaging them...
... you are a perfect candidate for large capacity cards that can make it unnecessary to change them in the field.
If you aren't in such situations you might consider economizing by using smaller cards, but you might still determine that the convenience is worth the extra cost.
RexGig0 wrote:
I remain un-excited. I am, however, somewhat less discouraged, than I was. Thankfully, my “team” of a 5D IV, a 5Ds R, and a pair of 7D II cameras, plus my older cameras in reserve, should remain viable and relevant for quite some time, while Canon camera development remains lost in The Wilderness. (I have no plans to quit Canon. I just added an EF 28/2.8 IS, and a 600EX II RT, and am strongly considering a locally-available, pre-owned Zeiss Milvus ZE.)
I could see using an R5 for landscape shooting, but convincing myself to spend the money is a going to be a problem, as my 5Ds R and 5D IV show no signs of being claimed by attrition. They may still be serving, a decade from now, or longer. I might rather buy an Otus ZE, for EF, than buy an EOS R-series body, in order to use one of the optically wonderful RF lenses.
The optical quality of the RF lenses is encouraging. I would like to use one or more of them, someday, especially that 28-70mm f/2 zoom....Show more →
I'll be interested if the R5 really cranks out 12fps in AI servo with performance better than the 7DII and close to the original 1DX. This would mean it's two bodies in one for travel and it might be worth the price of $3500-$4000. If not, and it's 7-8fps then I see it a compact 5DIV with more cropping power and I won't feel the urge to buy one. I'll keep the 5DIV's and wait for the second generation.
artsupreme wrote:
I'll be interested if the R5 really cranks out 12fps in AI servo with performance better than the 7DII and close to the original 1DX. This would mean it's two bodies in one for travel and it might be worth the price of $3500-$4000. If not, and it's 7-8fps then I see it a compact 5DIV with more cropping power and I won't feel the urge to buy one. I'll keep the 5DIV's and wait for the second generation.
In an earlier post you pointed to the fps progression of the 5 series bodies as your reason to think the R5 will follow suit. Actually at 7-8 fps your suggesting it would remain the same.
If one hangs onto this thinking I guess I understand why you keep suggesting this R5 will likely only achieve 7-8 fps in servo.
However, this is not a DSLR we're talking about. The R5 doesn't have a mirror box flopping around.
And as I already pointed out. Canon has already released a $850 mirrorless crop body that shoots 32.5mp @ 14 fps.
Why would anyone think they would then later release a prosumer FF body shooting 40+mp @ only 8 fps costing $3499 or possibly more? Why on earth would they go backwards in tech?
lighthound wrote:
In an earlier post you pointed to the fps progression of the 5 series bodies as your reason to think the R5 will follow suit. Actually at 7-8 fps your suggesting it would remain the same.
If one hangs onto this thinking I guess I understand why you keep suggesting this R5 will likely only achieve 7-8 fps in servo.
However, this is not a DSLR we're talking about. The R5 doesn't have a mirror box flopping around.
And as I already pointed out. Canon has already released a $850 mirrorless crop body that shoots 32.5mp @ 14 fps.
Why would anyone think they would then later release a prosumer FF body shooting 40+mp @ only 8 fps costing $3499 or possibly more? Why on earth would they go backwards in tech?
Lighthound, I'm glad you are very optimistic, and I hope you are right. But I really think you are turning a blind eye to the cripple hammer. Why is there even such a term "cripple hammer"? Do you know where this came from? Take a look at the history.
You mentioned an $850 crop camera above. Key word, crop. It's not a professional full frame camera with flagship IQ. How's the AI tracking performance on that camera? Is it as good as a 1DX for only $850? Doubt it.
As for the mirror box, I would hope everyone on this forum knows the difference between a DSLR and mirrorless body. Can you explain the fps of the R then? The R doesn't have a mirror box either....according to your thought process the R should have done 14fps especially since it was 3x the cost of your $850 camera.
I hope I eat crow on the R, but I'm not so sure it will do 12fps at full resolution and perform close to a 1DX. We'll see what happens.
If you are the sort who has to change cards a lot in very risky environments and who therefore worries about losing or damaging them...
... you are a perfect candidate for large capacity cards that can make in unnecessary to change them in the field.
If you aren't in such situations you might consider economizing by using smaller cards, but you might still determine that the convenience is worth the extra cost.
CFExpress cards get cheaper per GB as you buy larger capacity so there is no economizing using smaller cards. The 1TB card is actually the best value when $/GB is considered. However, putting all your eggs in one basket is something one must at least consider.
artsupreme wrote:
As for the mirror box, I would hope everyone on this forum knows the difference between a DSLR and mirrorless body. Can you explain the fps of the R then? The R doesn't have a mirror box either....according to your thought process the R should have done 14fps especially since it was 3x the cost of your $850 camera.
As for cameras, you could also hope everyone on the forum knows that processors vary too, when posing that kind of question. Likewise, what data gets processed, or how components are controlled.
Because factors like that can throw a wrench in rhetorical questions.
arbitrage wrote:
CFExpress cards get cheaper per GB as you buy larger capacity so there is no economizing using smaller cards. The 1TB card is actually the best value when $/GB is considered. However, putting all your eggs in one basket is something one must at least consider.
mdvaden wrote:
As for cameras, you could also hope everyone on the forum knows that processors vary too, when posing that kind of question. Likewise, what data gets processed, or how components are controlled.
Because factors like that can throw a wrench in rhetorical questions.
Sounds like buying a "Big Gulp" !!
Exactly my point of why he's comparing an R5 to an $850 camera. It's not apples to apples.
I know this probably makes me somewhat in the minority but I would really like it to have 2 CFExpress slots so I could throw 2x512gb cards in them, set them to redundant storage and never think about it again... Unless one of them fails of course.
Jesse Evans wrote:
I know this probably makes me somewhat in the minority but I would really like it to have 2 CFExpress slots so I could throw 2x512gb cards in them, set them to redundant storage and never think about it again... Unless one of them fails of course.
That would be amazing but I think it's highly unlikely.
Canon says: "The Company’s Most Advanced Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera Ever – The EOS R5".
To date the the 1DXIII takes this place so let's expect something more advanced
greenfield wrote:
Canon says: "The Company’s Most Advanced Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera Ever – The EOS R5".
To date the the 1DXIII takes this place so let's expect something more advanced
They tricked you. The 1DXIII is not mirrorless. They're just saying it's more advanced than the R...
arbitrage wrote:
CFExpress cards get cheaper per GB as you buy larger capacity so there is no economizing using smaller cards. The 1TB card is actually the best value when $/GB is considered. However, putting all your eggs in one basket is something one must at least consider.
It is a good thing that large cards are good value. On the other hand you might buy more than you actually need from day 1 instead of filling up as the prices fall.
Regarding putting all eggs in one basket, isn't that the problem dual cards is supposed to solve anyway?
arbitrage wrote:
CFExpress cards get cheaper per GB as you buy larger capacity so there is no economizing using smaller cards. The 1TB card is actually the best value when $/GB is considered. However, putting all your eggs in one basket is something one must at least consider.
Yep, I was thinking the same thing, as you put it, "all your eggs in one basket" Personally I prefer having a few smaller cards for just that point, but I can see why folks who shoot video prefer larger cards ..
For me (and YMMV), the ideal is to have a camera with two slots where both slots have fast enough cards with high enough capacity that I essentially never have to swap out cards in the field. This means no fussing with cards in the field (dropping them, "where did I put that other card?!," having to switch at an inopportune time), redundancy in case of (extremely rare these days) card failure, sufficient speed, and a camera that behaves almost as if it came with built in memory.
As I wrote earlier, at times when there is a transition from an older to a new technology (in this case cards) there is no one decision about how to make the transition that will make everyone happy. Some just want redundancy, some want speed, some want lower cost.
But there is one other factor to consider — how the product will appear to the market over its lifetime. While today the cost issue, for example, may loom large for some buyers, it is almost certain that in a year to two as CFExpress cards become less expensive and common that a camera that isn't compatible will have a strike against it in the marketplace.
Dan
IndyFab wrote:
Yep, I was thinking the same thing, as you put it, "all your eggs in one basket" Personally I prefer having a few smaller cards for just that point, but I can see why folks who shoot video prefer larger cards ..
It is not a given, I would say it is rather unlikely, that CFExpress in this form factor will replace SD cards as the mainstream technology.
These propositions remain true as the technology advances:
- Faster cards are more expensive than slower
- Card formats optimized for the highest performance are more expensive than card formats with the highest sales volumes.
That being said, I have never complained about the type of cards in any camera I have bought. I would take my cloves off before changing microSD cards though
alundeb wrote:
That being said, I have never complained about the type of cards in any camera I have bought. I would take my cloves off before changing microSD cards though
Most people are way over carded in their cameras. They are using super fast, super expensive cards and the camera doesn't require it. It's almost a Red Badge to say you're using a $500 super duper card with a turbo on it!!
In the days of printed Canon manuals, in the first couple of pages was always listed the memory card requirement of THAT particular camera. It's probably still in there, if you look!!!
Yes it's true that Testers seem to test with the fastest cards made but that's just so they're testing the camera and not the cards. They want to test the buffer not the card!
The Canon engineers that designed that camera seem to have a knack for knowing what speed cards a camera was designed to use and it's the highest use of the camera. Anything less, like single shot or non-video uses just don't require max speed.
I'll go with the engineers, not my own kitchen table test!!!
John
JohnSil wrote:
Most people are way over carded in their cameras...
Absolutely true. And true. While there are some exceptions, almost everyone gets plenty of card speed out of any current card that meets the camera manufacturer's basic system requirements — and they will see no meaningful (or just plain "no") improvement by paying more for expensive brands or cards that vastly exceed the specs.
(IF you have the right card reader and IF you have the right cards and IF you download a ton of images at once and IF you don't typically do something else while waiting for transfer and IF you place a lot of value on a few seconds of file transfer time... faster cards may offload more quickly to your computer. Maybe.)
As to taking the "cloves" off, I think you will have warmer hands if you replace the cloves with gloves... ;-)
I think the so-called canon 'cripple hammer' has been blown well out of proportion. People seem to forgot that the 5D mkIV was launched 3.5 years ago. Back then its main competitor was the D810, which did 36MP @5fps. The mk iv is capable of (30MP@7fps) and for those who wanted extra detail, the 5DS/R was already avaliable. Similarly, A7RII provides 8 fewer MPs at the same frame rate compared to the 5Ds. I certainly do not believe any of the 5D series are crippled.
Of course, during the 4 year release cycle, Nikon and Sony has surged ahead with the D850 & A7RIII/IV. Now the time has come for the next iteration of the "5", and I see no reason why canon wouldn't release something that wasn't competitive.
Similarly, Canon's 1d series cameras has always had spec advantages (on paper at least) over Nikon's flagships.
Yes, canon's lower end models could do with some more features and for the DSLR video folks yes the crop is frustrating, but on the photography side, all high end Canon models (1dx, 5D, 7D) are every much competitive at the time of launch.
This is why I believe R5 will do ~45mp @ 12fps with AF, simply because they will spec it to beat the d850's 45mp @9fps.
In fact I think it will even AF @20fps, which likely be pretty poor, just like the AF on the M6 II with the fps RAW burst, but it will be better than nothing.
Good catch. For the record, I don't use gloves when cooking.