Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

3 4 5 end

R5 mkII rumors, questions

Imagemaster
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

rscheffler wrote:
While these exposures are done quickly, there are situations where subject movement will cause problems and result in strange artifacts. For example moving water in a river, branches and leaves blowing in the wind, people walking through a scene, etc. Tripod use is also recommended, though some cameras allow handheld use. And some are better than others at mitigating the problems introduced by subject movement.

Of course subject movement causes blur. Olympus has had this feature for years, both handheld and tripod shooting.

Nov 26, 2022 at 10:35 PM

garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

JRobertson wrote:
The R62 isn't a huge leap forward and it's not even in the same ballpark as the R3.

Source? I don't think I have seen published information about the actual readout speeds on the R6 II.

We know it could be as much as twice as fast as the R6, since it can clear its (higher resolution) sensor fast enough to hit 40fps.

I don't know if this qualifies as a "huge leap", but it seems like progress to me. (Most of the reviewers who shot sports for 2 days at the Canon reveal seemed to feel rolling shutter was well controlled, though still present.)

Edit: according to a DPReview TV piece just published where they chose the R6II as the best wildlife camera under $3,000, the sensor readout speed is 18ms. This compares to 30.6ms for the R6: not quite twice as fast but close. The readout speed of the R3 sensor is something over 6ms, IIRC.

Edited on Nov 27, 2022 at 02:26 PM · View previous versions

Nov 27, 2022 at 12:57 AM

mehrdad sadat
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

I bet u if you do a poll, not too many people are interested in 61 meg camera, this will keep r5 alive with more sales than R52??

Nov 27, 2022 at 02:04 AM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

You could do this exact poll now on the Sony board to get an idea whether your assumption is correct or not.

Leica recently put that Sony 60MP sensor in the M11. A lot of people wondered why. A version of the previous model was 40MP, with the rest of those and all of the previous generation dating back to 2012 were 24MP with the general consensus being that it was good enough for almost everyone. There was a lot of scepticism about the merits of 60MP in a manual focus camera that is usually used hand held and doesn’t have IBIS. But you know what? Regular Leica diehards are buying it and like it. I’ve worked on some files from that camera and they’re excellent. Leica was also smart to include multiple in-camera resolution options using the full sensor area: 18, 36 and 60MP so that everyone has a choice to use the resolution they prefer. I haven’t seen that feature in any other camera for raw files (rather than JPEGs).

Nov 27, 2022 at 03:28 AM

koenkooi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

rscheffler wrote:
[...]Leica was also smart to include multiple in-camera resolution options using the full sensor area: 18, 36 and 60MP so that everyone has a choice to use the resolution they prefer. I haven’t seen that feature in any other camera for raw files (rather than JPEGs).

If you scale a raw image, it's not raw anymore, but cooked. Stanj has posted many times about sRAW and mRAW being basically debayered, downscaled images saved as TIFFs, not actually RAW.

The Leica option is likely better-than-JPEG, but it's not RAW. I suspect that most people calling for 'smaller RAWs' would be happy with the HEIC images modern Canon bodies support, it has better-than-JPEG compression and colour depth. Provided Canon fixes the downsides of enabling HEIC support: the EVF doesn't support the nice modes anymore, you can't use anti-flicker, fast drives modes, etc. And Adobe is being Adobe by requiring you to rename the files before it deigns to read them.

Nov 27, 2022 at 08:41 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

garyvot wrote:
Source? I don't think I have seen published information about the actual readout speeds on the R6 II.

We know it could be as much as twice as fast as the R6, since it can clear its (higher resolution) sensor fast enough to hit 40fps.

I don't know if this qualifies as a "huge leap", but it seems like progress to me. (Most of the reviewers who shot sports for 2 days at the Canon reveal seemed to feel rolling shutter was well controlled, though still present.)

A couple of the Youtube video reviews on annoucement day showed some photos with rolling shutter articfacts in them for the R6II. That's all the data we have right now, as far as I know. So 'huge leap' forward is hard to define, but at least in the pre-production models we can say 'still there'. I am interested in seeing actual results when the camera's hit the streets and the tech heads can measure the actual sensor readout speed.

-Brian

Nov 27, 2022 at 10:30 AM

jedibrain
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

koenkooi wrote:
If you scale a raw image, it's not raw anymore, but cooked. Stanj has posted many times about sRAW and mRAW being basically debayered, downscaled images saved as TIFFs, not actually RAW.

The Leica option is likely better-than-JPEG, but it's not RAW. I suspect that most people calling for 'smaller RAWs' would be happy with the HEIC images modern Canon bodies support, it has better-than-JPEG compression and colour depth. Provided Canon fixes the downsides of enabling HEIC support: the EVF doesn't support the nice modes anymore, you can't use anti-flicker, fast drives modes, etc. And Adobe is being Adobe by requiring...Show more →

cRAW in the newer bodies seems to offer almost no downsides in most situations, despite being 'not raw' anymore. A few years ago there was a lot of talk about how no RAW files were really RAW anymore. Every mfg applies some kind of magic or alteration to them, even if just something minor like noise reduction.

-Brian

Nov 27, 2022 at 10:32 AM

burningheart
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

Rumors are fun to read but always taken with a grain of salt.

As to an R5 would people buy a 61MP R5. It is the same story with each iteration of any camera model. Many people say they won't buy it that they don't need the extra megapixels. First it was one doesn't need more than 12MP, then 18, then 24, then 30, then 50 and when the R5 came out at 45 MP some complained it was less than the 5DsR/5Ds. Nevertheless people still bought.

Time and time again the story plays out the same those who want more MP will buy it, then some but not all will relent and buy it after seeing how others are responding to it.

Eventually the R5 would no longer be manufactured and those for whatever reason who would want an R5 would only have the choice of a used R5 or buy a current model R5 II or R5 III, R5 IV.

In the end those that state no one will buy it are left in the minority. Manufacturers know this and unless the camera is a bad design and unreliable early adopters will buy into it, the followers will come later and the diehards will stay with what they have.

Nov 27, 2022 at 11:14 AM

garyvot
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

jedibrain wrote:
A couple of the Youtube video reviews on annoucement day showed some photos with rolling shutter articfacts in them for the R6II. That's all the data we have right now, as far as I know. So 'huge leap' forward is hard to define, but at least in the pre-production models we can say 'still there'. I am interested in seeing actual results when the camera's hit the streets and the tech heads can measure the actual sensor readout speed.

-Brian

Yes, and to clarify, I was not claiming the R62 was free of this artifact, just that it is being reported as being better controlled.

I felt that the comment I originally replied to was overly dismissive.

Nov 27, 2022 at 01:26 PM

exdeejjjaaaa
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

rscheffler wrote:
haven’t seen that feature in any other camera for raw files (rather than JPEGs).
P40+ , P65+ backs from PhaseOne dated ~13-14 years back... they have binning mode ( 4->1 sensel ) and naturally output raw files ( https://downloads.phaseone.com/User_Guide_P65_1.0_HI-res.pdf & https://downloads.phaseone.com/User_Guide_P40_1.0_HI-res.pdf )

Nov 27, 2022 at 02:52 PM

EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

"2x/4x/8x digital tele-convertor"

Does anybody understand what this is? I must be misunderstanding it. Is this not the same as "digital zoom"; just cropping away pixels?

Nov 27, 2022 at 04:17 PM

EverLearning
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

The release date for the R5 II is (rumoured to be) Q2/2023. One can only hope that Canon FINALLY releases an RF 500mm prime at that time (if not before). It is ridiculous that they come out with the R5, a fantastic camera for wildlife, but expect people to go buy an (almost) 12 year old, 7+ lb EF 500mm II to pair with it. I understand that many already have this lens, but for those who don't, why would you pay $9000US for such an old, heavy lens that is as little as 61 months away from end of repairable life?

Fingers crossed!

Nov 27, 2022 at 04:27 PM

Sy Sez
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

EverLearning wrote:
"2x/4x/8x digital tele-convertor"

Does anybody understand what this is? I must be misunderstanding it. Is this not the same as "digital zoom"; just cropping away pixels?

May involve a form of interpolation as opposed to crop?

Nov 27, 2022 at 06:33 PM

EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

EverLearning wrote:
The release date for the R5 II is (rumoured to be) Q2/2023. One can only hope that Canon FINALLY releases an RF 500mm prime at that time (if not before). It is ridiculous that they come out with the R5, a fantastic camera for wildlife, but expect people to go buy an (almost) 12 year old, 7+ lb EF 500mm II to pair with it. I understand that many already have this lens, but for those who don't, why would you pay $9000US for such an old, heavy lens that is as little as 61 months away from end of...Show more →

They expect you to buy the 400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6 or 1200/8 RF lenses.

EBH

Nov 27, 2022 at 06:37 PM

koenkooi
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

jedibrain wrote:
cRAW in the newer bodies seems to offer almost no downsides in most situations, despite being 'not raw' anymore. A few years ago there was a lot of talk about how no RAW files were really RAW anymore. Every mfg applies some kind of magic or alteration to them, even if just something minor like noise reduction.

CRAW is what I use as well, I haven't been able to spot a difference between regular and CRAW in my pictures, so I decided to not waste disk space on something I can't distinguish

Nov 28, 2022 at 08:43 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

koenkooi wrote:
CRAW is what I use as well, I haven't been able to spot a difference between regular and CRAW in my pictures, so I decided to not waste disk space on something I can't distinguish

I have not used a compressed raw format on Canon cameras, but when it became available on my Fujifilm system I did a bunch of tests to see if I could see ANY difference between its regular raw and its compressed raw format — aside from the files being half the size.

I looked really closely, and I could see no difference at all. Since then the compressed format has been my default on Fujifilm.

Has anyone tried a similar experiment wiht Canon files?

Nov 28, 2022 at 11:28 AM

evertdoorn
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

yes, I use c-raw for everything on my R5's. Done some extensive testing and to me there's no difference

Nov 28, 2022 at 11:30 AM

cohenfive
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

I would prefer resolution to stay about where it is, but if it bumps up to 60mp I'll be ok with it--assuming that af performance is a bit better than it is now, that rolling shutter is better behaved than it is now, and that you have fps choices for elec shutter. Personally I'd prefer something between 5 and 20 fps, I hope Canon listens to its customers on this one. Oh, it has to stay around the same price point as the current R5...which is also where the A7r5 and upcoming Z8 will likely be. The resolution is higher than I need, but that is where Sony and Nikon are headed, so no big surprise Canon heads there as well.

Nov 28, 2022 at 01:30 PM

rscheffler
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

I don't yet own a camera that does cRAW (will get the R6II sometime this week)... for a ~24MP sensor and ~20-30MB regular raw file sizes, I don't have much concern about storage and doubt I will use cRAW. When I demoed the R5, yes, all of my shoots ended up double the storage requirements compared to my 20-24MP cameras. IMO, higher resolution means even if you're 'throwing away' some image information with cRAW, there's a larger remaining range of information from which to sample and still get good results than a lower resolution sensor.

Years ago I decided that for my archiving routines that all my non-critical outtakes (pretty much all paid work that will never see reuse or re-editing), I would compress the cameras' lossless compressed raw files into lossy compressed DNGs with Adobe DNG Converter. With high ISO images this usually resulted in a space savings of half of the originals. With low ISO wide open blown out backgrounds type of photos, the space recovery could be as much as 2/3 to 3/4 of the originals. The basic tests I did showed that it was primarily when pushing higher ISO files, such as for shadow recovery, that the lossy compressed files started to fall apart more quickly. But in virtually all 'normal' processing situations I could not see any significant differences.

Nov 28, 2022 at 01:41 PM

Mike Jacks0n
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · R5 mkII rumors, questions

gdanmitchell wrote:
I have not used a compressed raw format on Canon cameras, but when it became available on my Fujifilm system I did a bunch of tests to see if I could see ANY difference between its regular raw and its compressed raw format — aside from the files being half the size.

I looked really closely, and I could see no difference at all. Since then the compressed format has been my default on Fujifilm.

Has anyone tried a similar experiment wiht Canon files?

The only difference I saw was in extreme shadow bumping. The CRAW falls part a little sooner (mostly with a slight pattern in the deep shadows). That said, I use CRAW exclusively. Nothing worth worrying about, at least for me.

Nov 28, 2022 at 02:07 PM

1 2 3 4 5 end
FM Forums \| Canon Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 5 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.