ChrisMak wrote:
Actually, for me using the 7DII and looking to upgrade, a 45mp R5 would be ideal. The 32,5mp 90D is too much for my liking, so I would hope that Canon does not bring that sensor along to a possible mirrorless 7DII, which is unsure to ever materialize anyhow. So my personal hope is for a 45-50mp FF R body. I would not know otherwise what to put the 400DOII on.
But I agree, it will not be to everyone's liking. Perhaps Canon decided that they had to put something against the Nikon Z7 and the Sony A7RIV, and could not get away with yet another 30mp 5-series body....Show more →
I haven't really followed the R5 discussion because it does not look like the camera I would be interested in. But I guess it would fit Canon marketing strategy to introduce a 40-50MP ML camera with improved AF/tracking compared to EOS R that can run even faster (framerate, EVF, storage etc.) in APS-C crop mode, making it a potential 7D2 replacement plus it looks good on the spec sheet. And then maybe at later time a cheaper version with real APS-C sensor and even later a hires version that has the same high performance running in FF mode. Milking the market, they are really good at that
alundeb wrote:
That doesn't sound right to me. If the buffer is before Digic, why do all cameras have unlimited buffer for jpg but very limited buffer for RAW?
Few reasons. Mirrorless bodies place more demands on internal bus and memory bandwidth because they're constantly having to move and process image data to support LV and the on-sensor focusing system. Next, the reduced size of the jpg means much lower bandwidth consumption on the shared internal memory when writing out to the media card interface, which means more internal bandwidth available for the multiple trips the intermediate raw data has to move in and out of DIGIC to be processed.
snapsy wrote:
Few reasons. Mirrorless bodies place more demands on internal bus and memory bandwidth because they're constantly having to move and process image data to support LV and the on-sensor focusing system. Next, the reduced size of the jpg means much lower bandwidth consumption on the shared internal memory when writing out to the media card interface, which means more internal bandwidth available for the multiple trips the intermediate raw data has to move in and out of DIGIC to be processed.
It still doesn't add up for me. A consequence of what you say, is that moving raw data to the card would only be a small part the total bandwidth requirement.
The other part is that the if the primary buffer really is the buffer, it would not have room for all the raw data. Or the size of the buffer in number of images would be identical for raw and jpeg.
alundeb wrote:
It still doesn't add up for me. A consequence of what you say, is that moving raw data to the card would only be a small part the total bandwidth requirement.
The other part is that the if the primary buffer really is the buffer, it would not have room for all the raw data. Or the size of the buffer in number of images would be identical for raw and jpeg.
I recently completed a similar analysis on the Nikon Z bodies, where I found they were Expeed//system bandwidth limited. I haven't compared them to the D850 since I don't own one but IR's tests show the D850 can shoot limitless jpgs whereas the Z's do not. There may be some unique image processing requirements on the Z's that the R5 won't have or for which DIGIC is better optimized for but nonetheless the bandwidth demands for mirrorless are much higher. Here's a link to my analysis on the Z:
Unlikely that the 20FPS e-shutter will be usable for action without encountering distortion. The 1DXIII reportedly got to 1/60 readout speed but I doubt this R5 will improve on that. You need to get to A9 territory at 1/160.
evertdoorn wrote:
Not sure how compressed raw on the A9 is but c-raw (lossy compressed) on Canon is great because there’s virtually no visible difference in IQ in real world practice.
It’s probably about the same as Canon’s c-RAW — potential artifacts in certain situations if you look hard enough but generally no visible difference for the vast majority of situations (yet still subject to rancorous debate, of course). The big problem with Sony is that it doesn’t offer lossless compression, so the options are either giant uncompressed RAW files or smaller lossy RAW files.
snapsy wrote:
I recently completed a similar analysis on the Nikon Z bodies, where I found they were Expeed//system bandwidth limited. I haven't compared them to the D850 since I don't own one but IR's tests show the D850 can shoot limitless jpgs whereas the Z's do not. There may be some unique image processing requirements on the Z's that the R5 won't have or for which DIGIC is better optimized for but nonetheless the bandwidth demands for mirrorless are much higher. Here's a link to my analysis on the Z:
snapsy wrote:
We can't see black holes but can deduce their presence and behavior by analyzing how they interact with the matter around them
I'm not against that. You just started off as if you knew how it looks inside. I just see a lot of behavior around the black hole that doesn't match what you say.
alundeb wrote:
I'm not against that. You just started off as if you knew how it looks inside. I just see a lot of behavior around the black hole that doesn't match what you say.
Mistakes are always possible. Likely even, considering we're working off indirect and incomplete information. Which aspect of DIGIC's behavior that I theorized about do you disagree with?
snapsy wrote:
Mistakes are always possible. Likely even, considering we're working off indirect and incomplete information. Which aspect of DIGIC's behavior that I theorized about do you disagree with?
In short, two things. That the bottleneck is the rate at which raw data can be processed, and that the primary buffer is the main buffer. The proof is that jpg images can be written at a higher rate than the raw writing bottleneck speed, so they have to be processed at a higher rate. Second that the number of images that will fill the buffer with an extremely slow card, is higher for jpg than raw. What I did not disagree with, is that the processor architecture can be the bottleneck.
ChrisMak wrote:
The EOS-R5 should logically be an allround mirrorless pro body like the 5DIV is an allround pro dslr. There is not yet a reason to release a 1DX like mirrorless AF and speed monster because Canon still needs a couple of years to make the RF lenses for such a body, like a 300mm f2.8, 500mm f4, 400mm f2.8
Because the existing EF lenses adapt very well to the EOS-R, everybody seems to think that Canon will be content to develop a mirrorless top body without the neccessary EF lenses, but that is not like Canon.
Look at the EF lenses developed so far: they all fit a 5DIV like pro allround mirrorless body like a glove. Canon has most likely with intent worked on the lenses for the EOS-R5, and now they're here, it's time for the body. I don't expect super sports wildlife performance yet though, that is for what comes after, when they have the lenses ready. ...Show more → EB-1 wrote:
The R5 should be an all around body like the 5D IV, but at 45MP it certainly is not.
EBH
alundeb wrote:
I am at a loss regarding your resolution requirements. There will be three resolution classes from Canon in the new generation RF mount cameras. 20, 45 and 84 MP (roughly). Three resolutions with sensible doubling between. How can 45 in the middle not be an allround body?
There will be an 80MP camera!? That doens't seem to be the current rumor of 45MP.
45MP is too noisy for general purpose IME.
In terms of Canon 'home-runs' there have been a lot from MY POV:
- the Digital Rebel (EOS 300) was the first DLSR I could afford, and at the time the image quality was extremely good. I sold all my Nikon Film gear to afford it
- The 20D - clearly better than anything Nikon had, who where struggling with sensor striping and transitioning from CCD to CMOS (I could be a bit off with the timelines here)
- The 40D - while it was an evolution from the 20D, it was big leap in AF and I loved it.
- The 7D/7D mk2. Extremely rugged and capable.
