p.10 #2 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
armd wrote:
I suspect it will though perhaps Canon sought a compromise with a slower read speed and reduced noise. We’ll have to wait until some real world testing is available.
Again... these DR numbers mean absolutely nothing.
DR is measured by measuring the range of illumination between sensor saturation on the highlights and the shadows with a certain level of noise. It's very easy to cheat by applying NR in camera to the shadows, making them artificially cleaner at the cost of detail... and boom... you have great DR numbers. But all you have done is preventing users from applying NR themselves in their software running on GPUs tens of times more powerful than in camera SOCs. The only people benefiting from this are Canon marketing, not Canon photographers.
This is what Canon has been doing.
Would they have developped a specific NR raw function if their sensors were competitive in terms of native DR? The answer is obviously no.
p.10 #3 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
HicHic wrote:
A big advantage for Nikon are the telephoto lenses if you're choosing between R5ii and Z8/Z9 for wildlife. Canon's telephoto offerings are so lackluster.
The 600/4 is basically an EF 600/4iii, which is softer than the version 2.
The 100-500 is softer and slower than the 200-600. I do like that it's so light and has great macro.
The 200-800 is heavy and soft.
Interesting fiction.
I presume you mean the Tamrikon 180-600, since Nikon doesn't have a 200-600. The RF 100-500 may be 1/3 of a stop slower, but it is most definitely sharper than the Tamrikon. The RF 200-800 is actually lighter (2200g) than the Tamrikon 180-600 (2325g), and the sharpness is about the same.
p.10 #4 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
The one spec that you forgot to mention but that is far important is of course read out speed. 1/160s for R5II vs 1/270s for Z8.
I really doubt, Bernard, that you (or anybody else) will be able to spot the difference As I already replied before, maybe in golf but definitely not in football / basketball / etc.
Regarding the EVF - yes, my bad, I already replied on JMan's post. I think my old R7 had a 2mpx EVF which I didn't like.
wind30 wrote:
[? U can’t compare intro price since they are released in diffferent times….
Other than that the adv for r5ii looks solid.
The major adv for z8
1 lcd tilt both ways, I like that a lot of my Sony a7r5.
2 read out speed is faster for z8. This at the end if the day is a huge plus as most people will be using es for r5ii, esp if u say the es speed in z8 is insufficient sometimes. That problem will much so much more for r5ii making u have to switch between es and ms… I rather get a super high speed es and shoot es all the time
3 3499 vs 4299 ...Show more →
Thank you for reminding me to adjust the Z8 price for inflation:
$4124 vs $4299
There is no point for Canon to introduce a more advanced camera at a lower price. It's a business after all.
You can tilt the screen on the R5. You just need to open it completely and then rotate. I have the tilting & rotating screen on my A9III (it's the same as the A7V I believe). I'm not a huge fan of it because the tilt angle is very limited and it looks more fragile. In 90% cases I have to open it and rotate, the same way I'd work with the R5. That's a personal preference/need though, and if someone finds the tilt function usable - the Z8 is getting a +1 here.
As I already mentioned - good luck finding a use case when 1/160s is not enough. I'd only switch to mechanical shutter if I shoot in mixed LED light to avoid banding.
p.10 #5 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
Again... these DR numbers mean absolutely nothing.
DR is measured by measuring the range of illumination between sensor saturation on the highlights and the shadows with a certain level of noise. It's very easy to cheat by applying NR in camera to the shadows, making them artificially cleaner at the cost of detail... and boom... you have great DR numbers. But all you have done is preventing users from applying NR themselves in their software running on GPUs tens of times more powerful than in camera SOCs. The only people benefiting from this are Canon marketing, not Canon photographers.
This is what Canon has been doing.
Would they have developped a specific NR raw function if their sensors were competitive in terms of native DR? The answer is obviously no.
I just don't think this is that big of a deal for most shooters.
IMO, if it's possible to do image processing in the RAW domain that results in cleaner files and lower noise without obvious degradation, then party on.
There are a ton of criticisms leveled at Canon all the time, but poor IQ due to supposed "cooking" of RAW files is not generally one of them.
Computational photography is everywhere around us. If anything, traditional camera makers are far behind where they should be in utilizing these techniques to improve image quality.
p.10 #6 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
Interesting fiction.
I presume you mean the Tamrikon 180-600, since Nikon doesn't have a 200-600. The RF 100-500 may be 1/3 of a stop slower, but it is most definitely sharper than the Tamrikon. The RF 200-800 is actually lighter (2200g) than the Tamrikon 180-600 (2325g), and the sharpness is about the same.
Huh? What makes you say that 180-600 is tamron rebadge? Tamron does not make such a lens. Are you thinking of 70-180mm?
Good luck zooming in and out with your 200-800 and dealing with the tripod collar.
But to remind you, nikon also has 400/600/800 low cost (relatively speaking) primes, has 400/600 high end primes with built in TC, and to boot tamron 150-500 is also available in Z mount which is actually very sharp and fast focusing (but the stabilization for video is meh).
(came here to learn more about R5II but seems like there is more talk about nikon then Canon).
p.10 #7 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
bernardl wrote:
Again... these DR numbers mean absolutely nothing.
DR is measured by measuring the range of illumination between sensor saturation on the highlights and the shadows with a certain level of noise. It's very easy to cheat by applying NR in camera to the shadows, making them artificially cleaner at the cost of detail... and boom... you have great DR numbers. But all you have done is preventing users from applying NR themselves in their software running on GPUs tens of times more powerful than in camera SOCs. The only people benefiting from this are Canon marketing, not Canon photographers.
This is what Canon has been doing.
Would they have developped a specific NR raw function if their sensors were competitive in terms of native DR? The answer is obviously no.
So, if the noise is low because the sensor generates little noise or because its software suppresses it or because the camera somehow processes it, what difference does it make? As long as the image quality is otherwise excellent, doesn’t seem to matter much how the noise level gets low, right?
And do you think that Canon is the only company suppressing noise in raw images? I have news…
p.10 #8 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
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.
p.10 #9 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
molson wrote:
Interesting fiction.
I presume you mean the Tamrikon 180-600, since Nikon doesn't have a 200-600. The RF 100-500 may be 1/3 of a stop slower, but it is most definitely sharper than the Tamrikon. The RF 200-800 is actually lighter (2200g) than the Tamrikon 180-600 (2325g), and the sharpness is about the same.
Speaking of fiction, the Nikon 180-600 is not a Tamron or "Tamrikon" design That one is entirely Nikon.
The Nikon branded versions of the Tamron designs are the 17-28/2.8, 28-75/2.8 and 70-180/2.8. Not sure why you seem to view that as a negative, they are actually great lenses for the price and give customers a "budget" path to the F2.8 trinity with guaranteed native compatibility. Some of them are improved as well. Adding in the 180-600 you can cover 17mm-600mm without breaking the bank.
The Nikon 180-600 compares very well to the Canon 100-500, depending on what FL you are comparing. 300-400mm are the sharpest on the Nikon, 400mm on that lens is about as good as the Z100-400 and extremely close to the Z400/4.5. It's better than it has any business being for the price. Sharpness falls off very slightly at 500-600mm as do all super zooms towards the end of their zoom range including the Canon at 500mm. The Canon 100-500 is pretty good too, they are very similar performers. The Canon is better up to about 250mm. Build quality on the Canon is also a bit better which is mostly what the extra $1200 USD is buying you. The lens collar on the 180-600 is cheap. Both great lenses overall. F7.1 on the Canon and the poor TC compatibility design is a bit of a bummer but no lens is perfect.
p.10 #10 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
Sony I remember used to have the star eating issue that’s also noise reduction (not sure if it’s solved already), and they bake in some sort of vignetting compensation in the raw for some lenses. When I was recovering shadows I used to have horrible banding around the corners unable to be removed.
I shoot raw for the extra flexibility in white balance and exposure, but if I can have excellent noise reduction, sharpening and even color out of the gate (in a tiff file with the size of a raw for example), then I think I would prefer that most of the time, as I would not need as much to mess up with software to get the Canon Colors and contrast curve I love from jpg(with HTP or smart lighting) or the good sharpening and noise reduction from the manufacturer that knows very well the sensor, or the lens optimizarios…
About the R5 Ii my concerns are:
Electronic shutter 14 bits confirmed?
Electronic shutter for longer exposure than 0.5s?
Better DR and noise than R5?
Zebras in photo mode? I think this is a no
I don’t care about AF as my R5 is more than good enough.
In the past it was best to shoot with a 180 degree shutter so that frames blend together well and show a nice smooth motion image. Since exposure times are long and often the lens is wide open for DOF, it was often necessary to use ND filters. That meant extracting frames to make still photos yielded motion blurred images. Today it is possible to shoot with short shutter speed and then digitally smooth the frames in the video processing. I use DaVinci Resolve Studio that has multiple sophisticated methods to achieve that (I think they are in the free version too) and the results look excellent. Stabilization in post processing is also often commonly done and shooting with shorter shutter speeds is desirable to avoid artifacts in the stabilized video. The fact that shorter shutter speeds can and often are used in video capture makes extraction of still frames more practical. I shoot wildlife video with relatively short shutter speeds (I don't use ND filters and I often stabilize in post) and can extract stills from 4K or 8K video clips. They are quite usable for many purposes. I consider that to be "non-bench, real world shooting".
Of course if you are shooting video for the single purpose of extracting stills, obviously you would use the same settings you would use for shooting stills....Show more →
Do you mind sharing your approach with DaVinci Resolve to smooth out inter-frame transitions with short shutter speeds? I use the Studio version with log files from OM-1mk2 and A1 but still learning the extensive Resolve features. Thanks!
p.10 #12 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
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...
p.10 #13 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
docusync wrote:
I really doubt, Bernard, that you (or anybody else) will be able to spot the difference As I already replied before, maybe in golf but definitely not in football / basketball / etc.
Regarding the EVF - yes, my bad, I already replied on JMan's post. I think my old R7 had a 2mpx EVF which I didn't like.
Thank you for reminding me to adjust the Z8 price for inflation:
$4124 vs $4299
There is no point for Canon to introduce a more advanced camera at a lower price. It's a business after all.
you are totally missing the point... the state of technology is DIFFERENT between now and when Z8 was launch. you can't compare camera prices like that.
you might as well compare canon R5ii to Nikon D1... common this is pure maths and logic.
For r5ii pricing to work, you have to compare CURRENT price of CURRENT competitors. honestly it is not that hard to understand.
p.10 #14 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
wind30 wrote: you are totally missing the point... the state of technology is DIFFERENT between now and when Z8 was launch. you can't compare camera prices like that.
you might as well compare canon R5ii to Nikon D1... common this is pure maths and logic.
For r5ii pricing to work, you have to compare CURRENT price of CURRENT competitors. honestly it is not that hard to understand.
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.
For them every unit sold is the guarantee of many lenses to follow so they can afford to be very aggressive on price at this stage. The only question for them is what it means in terms of Z6III volume.
p.10 #17 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
garyvot wrote:
Computational photography is everywhere around us. If anything, traditional camera makers are far behind where they should be in utilizing these techniques to improve image quality.
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...
---------------------------------------------
indusphoto wrote:
(came here to learn more about R5II but seems like there is more talk about nikon then Canon).
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.
p.10 #18 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, if the noise is low because the sensor generates little noise or because its software suppresses it or because the camera somehow processes it, what difference does it make? As long as the image quality is otherwise excellent, doesn’t seem to matter much how the noise level gets low, right?
And do you think that Canon is the only company suppressing noise in raw images? I have news…
The difference it makes is when researching and comparing the relative performance of camera systems being considered for purchase.
p.10 #20 · Official Canon EOS R5 Mark II Images & Specifications
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 →
I agree that canon prices their cameras much higher to take advantage of the early adopters, at least in my country. I just bought a canon r6ii a few months back just because it was so heavily discounted. Granted every manufacturers discount their cameras after a while, canon seems to do it so much more. The canon r6ii so like 30% cheaper than a7m4 when it is on sale. Assuming canon is not selling r5 anymore, there is a pretty big gap in price between r6ii and r5ii.
Nikon seems to be pricing their camera at a point to lure people to switch.
At the end of the day, people want different things. To me,
I want a high speed Electronics shutter so the higher the read out the better.
I want good AF tracking but current state of the art for both sony and canon is really good already.
I want the back screen tilting for a7r5/z8 which impacts quite a bit in everyday usage.
I want it to be light and CHEAP.
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).
I am pretty sure z7iii will be my ideal camera since Nikon is likely to reuse the z8 sensor. BTW, I am not a Nikon fan as I never bought a single Nikon mirrorless, although I did own and used the D750 for many years.
As I already replied before, maybe in golf but definitely not in football / basketball / etc.
you are totally missing the point... the state of technology is DIFFERENT between now and when Z8 was launch. you can't compare camera prices like that.