p.11 #1 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Cduff406 wrote:
Do you think current R5 l-brackets and such will fit, or will it require a new one? I'm thinking the bottom shape looks a little different. Just trying to get my stuff together before they start shipping out...
I was wondering about this too. I use it with a grip.
The fact that the new R5II grip is backward compatible with the R5, R6, R6II, suggests that it might be fine dimension wise. The larger USB/HDMI plug cover might be an issue depending on the design of the L bracket.
p.11 #3 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Cduff406 wrote:
Do you think current R5 l-brackets and such will fit, or will it require a new one? I'm thinking the bottom shape looks a little different. Just trying to get my stuff together before they start shipping out...
I hope it is so I can re-utilise my PMG L bracket without having to replace them
p.11 #4 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
Based on the TDP R5II review, he states ES is 14 bits and that ES is available up to 30 seconds exposure time.
Correct this is mentioned in the Canon website too however based on TDP it is available only for lossless RAW but not cRAW but we'll find out soon enough. I hope the latter gets 14bit, keeping my fingers crossed.
p.11 #5 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
highdesertmesa wrote:
Yes, all AF systems currently have their own issues where they miss focus, but missing iris focus even at f/1.2 is not something the R5 does very often. It knows to look for and focus on the iris. The Zf I had, even with an f/2 lens had trouble hitting iris focus about 20-30% of the time. That's a significant issue for me. In fairness, I suspect the Z8 and with a better lens has a higher hit rate.
But Nikon, Fujifilm, Panasonic – basically everyone but Sony and Canon have not figured out how to engineer AF algorithms to get a nearly infallible lock on the iris. Missing the iris is not a small detail, at least not for headshots. Looks freaking weird to have eyelashes (or near side or far side of the eye) in focus but not the iris at f/1.2....Show more →
I find your post to be confusing. Are you saying that in your experience only Sony and Canon have nailed eye AF?
p.11 #6 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
robinleess wrote:
Correct this is mentioned in the Canon website too however based on TDP it is available only for lossless RAW but not cRAW but we'll find out soon enough. I hope the latter gets 14bit, keeping my fingers crossed.
p.11 #7 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
wind30 wrote:
Nikon z8 is almost perfect except it is heavy. its price is reasonable so I don't understand why no manufacturers have done a camera like z8 but in a lighter body at that price point (USD3.5k) (a7r5/z7/r5 size).
Perhaps Canon and Sony see it as giving away too much too quickly that they could otherwise charge more for, so have refused to play the game and accelerate a 'race to the bottom' in this product category. This certainly benefits Nikon the longer the Z8 remains the best value proposition on paper.
My guess, at least for Canon, is that they still consider themselves the market leader and therefore can command a greater premium that people will pay at time of release. But they certainly can't ignore the competition. I believe the fact that the R5II even has a stacked sensor is because of the Z8 and that Sony will also eventually have to respond (but whether it will be the 7r in addition to the plain old 7 model remains to be seen).
p.11 #8 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Upscaling and denoising in-camera images are better done on a computer with a graphics card. Canon’s upscaling JEPGs in camera is a bit of a joke and a gimmick and no where near as good as pixel shift. As they said on a the Petapixel podcast.
rscheffler wrote:
Interestingly, both the R5II and R1 include Canon's neural image processing for upscaling and denoising in-camera images. Seems to be a step in that direction yet hasn't been keyed in on by the Sonikon fanboys as example of compensation by Canon for their inferior hardware...
---------------------------------------------
The Sonikon faithful are out in force to be sure the Canon folks don't get too 'delusional' about the real world capabilities of the new cameras, which of course must be shown to only have performance advantages in 'inconsequential' photographic scenarios and therefore are once again examples of Canon continuing to lag behind the competition.
I'm kind of surprised by some getting all bent out of shape over the introductory price of the R5II (and probably also the R1 - I haven't yet read that thread). Canon almost always prices their higher-end cameras ~10% higher than the competition on introduction. IMO it's to take advantage of the early adopters. Given time the prices will come down and there will be a much smaller difference, if any, compared to the direct competition. The R5II's intro price isn't to lure in Sonikon shooters, it's to take advantage of the Canon shooters who would lose a lot more money switching systems than the $800 they'd save with the Z8, for example. Waiting for the dust to settle and price to moderate is part of the game, if you don't want to pay the early premium....Show more →
p.11 #9 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Nina Bailey, author of many excellent EOS camera guides has done a deep dive into the EOS R5 II menu system - gives a better sense of how the camera has/hasnt changed in practical use than some more component-focused predictions. Interesting to see how much the R1/R3/R5 menus are aligned now, and some new useful menu options that havent been highlighted in the discussions I've seen e.g. customising high speed shutter options and capping the shot burst numbers.
Chris
p.11 #10 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
Perhaps Canon and Sony see it as giving away too much too quickly that they could otherwise charge more for, so have refused to play the game and accelerate a 'race to the bottom' in this product category. This certainly benefits Nikon the longer the Z8 remains the best value proposition on paper.
My guess, at least for Canon, is that they still consider themselves the market leader and therefore can command a greater premium that people will pay at time of release. But they certainly can't ignore the competition. I believe the fact that the R5II even has a stacked sensor is because of the Z8 and that Sony will also eventually have to respond (but whether it will be the 7r in addition to the plain old 7 model remains to be seen)....Show more →
Exactly...there is no reason for Canon to try and compete on price with the Z8 immediately. IMO, based only on the specs and based on my time shooting the Z8 and my ownership of the R5, I'd say the R5II is a better camera than the Z8 in every way that is important to me for my bird shooting.
Canon BEAF is already better in the R5 than it is in the Z8 so the R5II can only widen the gap.
R5II has precapture in RAW up to the full 30FPS and 0.5s is an okay time if we are forced to only have one option.
R5II has the same MPs and 10FPS extra
R5/II has much better button layout and button customization options than the Z8
The Z8 EVF is great to actively fire on BIF with the dual stream but is the worst modern EVF for exposure evaluation IMO. The R5 EVF is gorgeous in comparison...R5II with the stacked sensor the BIF shooting experience should get close to the Z8 (but I believe the Z8 will be better when letting off the shutter where it won't stutter yet the R5 will based on my R3 shooting).
The only reason I wouldn't buy an R5II over a Z8 is the lens selection. That would be enough to probably make me choose Nikon. Canon needs to step it up. Just release the damn 600/4DO Canon...you already built it 11 years ago.
p.11 #11 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
Indeed and Nikon has probably already sold more Z8 than they thought they would so I guess they have a huge amount of flexibility on the price, also thanks the commonality of many parts with the Z9.
Cheers,
Bernard
Would that be before or after the Z8's two recalls where lenses were getting stuck or peoples cameras and lenses crashing to the ground after the strap lug ripped off the mighty Z8 that (as you point out) was slapped together using parts out of the Z9 parts bins?
p.11 #12 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
The Sonikon faithful are out in force to be sure the Canon folks don't get too 'delusional' about the real world capabilities of the new cameras, which of course must be shown to only have performance advantages in 'inconsequential' photographic scenarios and therefore are once again examples of Canon continuing to lag behind the competition.
It's no surprise that half the posts here are from the same old delusional Nikon trolls, most of whom have never even used any other brands, but zealously police all the other forums to make sure no one disparages their sacred brand. Facts are meaningless to them so they can't be dissuaded, but Fred thoughtfully provided us with the mighty 'Hide Me" button to silence their shrill, hysterical whining.
p.11 #13 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
It's no surprise that half the posts here are from the same old delusional Nikon trolls, most of whom have never even used any other brands, but zealously police all the other forums to make sure no one disparages their sacred brand. Facts are meaningless to them so they can't be dissuaded, but Fred thoughtfully provided us with the mighty 'Hide Me" button to silence their shrill, hysterical whining.
Well having owned Canon equipment for years prior to, and including, RF mount gear (including R5, R3, RF 400mm 2.8L, RF 100-500mm, RF 28-70mm 2.0L, etc.) I wouldn't say Canon is any better or worse than my Nikon kit (Z9, Z8, 400mm 2.8TC, 600mm 4.0TC, etc). However the R5ii and R1 isn't anything ground breaking.
p.11 #14 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
robert_in_ca wrote:
Well having owned Canon equipment for years prior to, and including, RF mount gear (including R5, R3, RF 400mm 2.8L, RF 100-500mm, RF 28-70mm 2.0L, etc.) I wouldn't say Canon is any better or worse than my Nikon kit (Z9, Z8, 400mm 2.8TC, 600mm 4.0TC, etc). However the R5ii and R1 isn't anything ground breaking.
Robert, you're clearly not a Nikon troll, but I suspect you know the people I'm referring to...
p.11 #16 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
rscheffler wrote:
Based on the TDP R5II review, he states ES is 14 bits and that ES is available up to 30 seconds exposure time.
This does bring up a point that just makes me scratch my head a bit. I'm not trying to do brand war crap, because well, frankly that's dumb. I currently shoot Nikon because it works best for what I shoot and I like the lenses for what I shoot, but I shot Canon RF and Sony E for many years, and all of these cameras are great. (I actually still own my R8, an RF 50/1.8, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 and control ring adapter, and the Samyang RF 85/1.4).
However: why is it that of all the camera manufacturers, only Nikon (edit: and Fuji) allows shutter speeds longer than 30 seconds without bulb? There are some others (Panasonic, maybe Olympus) that will go to 60 seconds...but Nikon can go to 900 seconds (15 minutes) in manual mode without using bulb.
This seems like a simple firmware setting, as with modern technology, all of these cameras are easily capable of high quality long exposures, but most hide them in bulb settings or timer settings, and that's a pain. Canon has the bulb timer feature which I also find very helpful since I don't need to watch a bulb countup or set a stopwatch...but why not just move that functionality into the shutter speed dial? I find it very confusing that this 30 second limit is still a thing on so many current cameras.
Anyway, not trying to steer things too off topic, but it just struck me as odd. Of course, it's a super tiny thing for a camera like this. The R5 II looks to be a pretty awesome body.
p.11 #17 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Jman13 wrote:
However: why is it that of all the camera manufacturers, only Nikon allows shutter speeds longer than 30 seconds without bulb? There are some others (Panasonic, maybe Olympus) that will go to 60 seconds...but Nikon can go to 900 seconds (15 minutes) in manual mode without using bulb.
Fuji cameras have had timed shutter speeds down to 60 minutes for years now.
p.11 #18 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
On this, there are 2 reasons why I am happy that Nikon doesn't bake NR in their raw files:
1. My computer is a lot more powerful than my camera and desktop software will do a far better job at suppressing shadow noise while retaining detail, so I will always get better image quality without NR applied to files in camera,
2. I want to be able to compare equipment on fair grounds to decide myself which one meets my needs. I believe you are a landscape photographer, you must know the importance of DR.
And yes, Canon is currently the only company baking in NR in their raw files at low ISO (at least Sony and Nikon don't), which is used to compute DR values. They have started to do this after years of getting hammered for the low DR of their sensor resulting from inferior sensor tech (many of the current Sony shooters moved away from Canon in part because of this, it's a known issue). I think it's quite obvious why they did it. They didn't do it for Canon photographers, they did it for their own marketing good. Actually it's very obviously going against the interest of Canon photographers which is why I am surprised by some of the reactions here. Talk about self-defeating brand defensiveness.
It's maybe just my preference, but I prefer to be able to make my own choices instead of my camera manufacturer making them for me. That's why I shoot raw and not jpg.
Some posters here seem to think that Canon mirrorless cameras have a better DR than Sony or Nikon. Sorry, but this is simply delusional with the possible exception of the a9III. But even so, we don't know as there is no way to know what the DR of Canon cameras actually is....Show more →
I do not think that you are correct when you write that Canon is th only company applying NR to raw files. Do you have a source for that claim? If so, I’d love to see it. If not…
My understanding is that one of the reasons that all camera systems handle noise better these days, especially at high ISOs, is that they are suppressing it in camera to some extent.
I get that you are interested — and the classic gear analysis sense — in knowing something about the inate noise performance of sensors. But that’s not necessarily a relevant issue when it comes to photographic results. That was the thrust of my post — basically, if the end result is an excellent file with low noise and otherwise excellent quality, why would it matter if NR is applied in camera?
(As a sort of analog question, why would it matter if a camera compensates for light falloff in camera? On that count, I think it does matter, and I can point to photographic reasons: I have very definitively seen color shifts in the corners when photographing certain low contrast subjects with relatively consistent color across the frame. For example, when photographing in fog in low light I can see — and sometimes have to compensate for — such shifts.)
But when it comes to some relatively subject NR before I begin my post processing, I’m not so sure it is a problem nor that I would do it any better in post. Yes, I do know how to manage noise in post.
p.11 #19 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
Fuji cameras have had timed shutter speeds down to 60 minutes for years now.
Yes, they do in the T mode on the dial, which is close enough. Forgot about that. I don't see 60 minutes on my X100VI, though...it can go to 15'. Still...all should have it. Seems easy enough.
p.11 #20 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Jman13 wrote:
This does bring up a point that just makes me scratch my head a bit. I'm not trying to do brand war crap, because well, frankly that's dumb. I currently shoot Nikon because it works best for what I shoot and I like the lenses for what I shoot, but I shot Canon RF and Sony E for many years, and all of these cameras are great. (I actually still own my R8, an RF 50/1.8, EF 28-105 3.5-4.5 and control ring adapter, and the Samyang RF 85/1.4).
However: why is it that of all the camera manufacturers, only Nikon allows shutter speeds longer than 30 seconds without bulb? There are some others (Panasonic, maybe Olympus) that will go to 60 seconds...but Nikon can go to 900 seconds (15 minutes) in manual mode without using bulb.
This seems like a simple firmware setting, as with modern technology, all of these cameras are easily capable of high quality long exposures, but most hide them in bulb settings or timer settings, and that's a pain. Canon has the bulb timer feature which I also find very helpful since I don't need to watch a bulb countup or set a stopwatch...but why not just move that functionality into the shutter speed dial? I find it very confusing that this 30 second limit is still a thing on so many current cameras.
Anyway, not trying to steer things too off topic, but it just struck me as odd. Of course, it's a super tiny thing for a camera like this. The R5 II looks to be a pretty awesome body. ...Show more →
I'm guessing it's because the metering system accuracy is lower at the very low light levels associated with very long shutter speeds. I believe Nikon only recently added the longer shutter speeds - I agree, they're very useful to have.
