p.4 #1 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Scott Stoness wrote:
Noted about "I". I was not being critical just being helpful to other than "I" I am still looking for the reference to adjustable fps in electronic. Where have you seen this. That would be a big deal to me. It might make the difference to me in pre-ordering. Would cause higher buffer usability and less culling.
Adjustable FPS in ES: DPReview article (someone replied above with the exact quote), Jan's video, Gordon Lang's article (haven't watched his video yet).
Quote from Gordon's article:
"As for burst shooting, the mechanical shutter offers the same 12fps at up to 1/8000 as before, but the electronic shutter has accelerated to a top speed of 30fps at up to 1/32000. In a small but very useful upgrade, you can also select slower frame rates at more intervals including 20, 15, 12, 10, 7.5, 5, 3, 2 or 1fps."
p.4 #2 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
garyvot wrote:
I think you might be wrong about a few of your assumptions here.
According to DPReview, the R5 Mark II frame rate is variable in electronic shutter mode:
According to Petapixel, RAW buffer depth is effectively doubled if shooting C-RAW.
The camera is being reported now to be 14-bit in all capture modes.
Nobody has had a chance yet to evaluate the camera's eye control, or new "smart" features like blur detection for automatic culling in a burst, registered person recognition, or the new activity-aware autofocus algorithms. For certain photographers with certain workflows, these features could be game changers.
Other than having a slightly faster sensor readout speed, I'm not sure what you feel puts the Z8 ahead of this camera....Show more →
The Nikon does not pause for 4s after the buffer is filled - it just slows down. But if you are right about adjustable fps in electronic this solves the issue.
p.4 #3 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
garyvot wrote:
I think you might be wrong about a few of your assumptions here.
According to DPReview, the R5 Mark II frame rate is variable in electronic shutter mode:
According to Petapixel, RAW buffer depth is effectively doubled if shooting C-RAW.
The camera is being reported now to be 14-bit in all capture modes.
Nobody has had a chance yet to evaluate the camera's eye control, or new "smart" features like blur detection for automatic culling in a burst, registered person recognition, or the new activity-aware autofocus algorithms. For certain photographers with certain workflows, these features could be game changers.
Other than having a slightly faster sensor readout speed, I'm not sure what you feel puts the Z8 ahead of this camera....Show more →
It's not really slightly faster...it's fairly substantially faster readout (between 1/125 and 1/160s for the R5II, 1/270s for the Z8). However, overall, yes, they are fairly comparable bodies. It's worth noting that while the Z8's buffer is 'only' around 100 shots at 20fps in uncompressed RAW, Nikon's HE* format produces effectively identical image quality, and increases the buffer to 670 shots. The HE RAW format, which is just a touch lossier (and still generally imperceptable difference except in very specific low ISO scenarios with lots of shadows), it is effectively unlimited.
p.4 #8 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Today is the last day for Rakuten 10% Cash Back at Canon Online for those with a Rakuten account. The cash back will apply to pre-orders paid for with a credit card.
p.4 #9 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Wins:
- stacked sensor
- useable electronic shutter
- RAW pre-capture
- improved AF (to be confirmed?)
- on/off switch moved to right side of camera
- full-size HDMI port
Fails:
- no dual cards slots - still two mis-matched slots
- no tilting LCD - same old selfie screen
- requires new batteries
- no exposure zebras in stills mode (to be confirmed?)
p.4 #10 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
Wins:
- stacked sensor
- useable electronic shutter
- RAW pre-capture
- improved AF (to be confirmed?)
- on/off switch moved to right side of camera
- full-size HDMI port
Fails:
- no dual cards slots - still two mis-matched slots
- no tilting LCD - same old selfie screen
- requires new batteries
- no exposure zebras in stills mode (to be confirmed?)
A small win for me is being able to shoot 1/32000th in ES mode. This helps when shooting f/1.2 in hot light and a few other scenarios
p.4 #14 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
I wish Canon had announced some mid-priced, high quality, lightweight, long telephotos to go along with this body. It might have been sufficient to make me want to return to the fold. Sadly, they did not though if by some miracle they do at least I have a couple of decent bodies to choose from.
p.4 #15 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
I would just like to say one thing:
My god are cameras today insanely good. We can argue small improvements here and there, of course, but when you look at what these bodies can do it's truly astounding. The image quality, autofocus, speed, in-body stabilization, buffer depth (especially), video, etc. It's all just light years beyond what was capable 10-15 years ago. Crazy times, to be honest.
p.4 #16 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Jman13 wrote:
I would just like to say one thing:
My god are cameras today insanely good. We can argue small improvements here and there, of course, but when you look at what these bodies can do it's truly astounding. The image quality, autofocus, speed, in-body stabilization, buffer depth (especially), video, etc. It's all just light years beyond what was capable 10-15 years ago. Crazy times, to be honest.
That’s a really important and accurate perspective.
Virtually all of today’s cameras are very, very good. We can do things — often with great ease — that we wouldn’t have imaged just a couple of decades ago. The idea that we can produce really excellent 40’ x 60” prints from “35mm” systems would have been regarded as laughable in the late 1900s.
Yet here we are.
Even more impressive: If you account for inflation the costs of this gear have actually gone down over time.
p.4 #17 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
armd wrote:
I wish Canon had announced some mid-priced, high quality, lightweight, long telephotos to go along with this body. It might have been sufficient to make me want to return to the fold. Sadly, they did not though if by some miracle they do at least I have a couple of decent bodies to choose from.
I agree 100%
A couple of fast, wide primes would be nice, too - along the lines of the Sony 14mm f1.8 GM and 20mm f1.8G. Right now, Canon's widest L-series prime is the newly announced 35mm f1.4...
I had been hoping there might have been one or two new lenses announced along with the new cameras.
p.4 #18 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
Wins:
- stacked sensor
- useable electronic shutter
- RAW pre-capture
- improved AF (to be confirmed?)
- on/off switch moved to right side of camera
- full-size HDMI port
Fails:
- no dual cards slots - still two mis-matched slots
- no tilting LCD - same old selfie screen
- requires new batteries
- no exposure zebras in stills mode (to be confirmed?)
Adding
Good:
- much lessened rolling shutter
- 30fps capable
- variable electronic fps speed in 14 bit
Bad:
- 45 mpx with AA instead of 85 without
- not new cfexpress v4 for faster buffer
p.4 #19 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Since the Z8 is the R5II's closest competitor, one big win for the Canon is size and weight. I can carry two R5II's and an RF 35.14 for the same weight as just two Z8's without a lens. There's about a 1 pound difference between two R5II's and two Z8's. The R5II is also more compact for those who care.
Battery grip
Battery grip plus ethernet
Battery grip plus ethernet and cooling
Somehow the cooling version costs $150 less MSRP than the one without the cooling fan. As far as I can tell they offer the same functionality.
BHPhoto confirms this discrepancy, but the pricing is much less than the made up MSRP numbers.
BG = $349
BG + Eth = $499
BG + Eth + cooling = $399
And those prices also match the Canon USA store.
It seems like Canon is incentivizing you to take the one with the cooling fan.
I think you may want to double check this but it looks to me the last one has only Ethernet and cooling and no battery compartment. I believe B&H may have listed the spec incorrectly which is why it is cheaper.
I am still looking for the reference to adjustable fps in electronic. Where have you seen this. That would be a big deal to me. It might make the difference to me in pre-ordering. Would cause higher buffer usability and less culling.
