I see it's even worse, and at 25Mp. But I'm sticking with Canon. I can "get by" with my R5 until the next generation. But I can see how faster FPS is appealing to a niche.
Upvote
0
Three new segments of EOS R cameras coming in 2025
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
It's not only about fps. The faster readout speed allows 14-bit readout with electronic shutter, and electronic shutter allows faster shutter speeds (e.g., negates the need for an ND filter for sunlit portraits with fast lenses), allows silent shooting (important in some venues), and the faster readout also allows better sampling for improved AF tracking.
Upvote
0
Because, again, they sacrificed some 0.5 stops of dynamic range for faster rolling shutter. Was it worth it? Depends on your use case.
Next gen, thank you. 2024 and going the wrong direction with noise?
Upvote
0
In answer to some of the above points and including the condescending ones - my observation that the R7 with telephoto lenses is mainly used for action and wildlife/birding is because that is the only use I have seen whilst travelling about and seeing people with this combination. As for the lenses, they are are well catered for and I haven't said otherwise. The problems with the R7 are with rolling shutter due to slow sensor read, noisy mechanical shutter with slap and shortcomings with AF especially subject tracking. I know these for a fact because I also have an R8 which does track well. There are so many posts on forums confirming these shortcomings. Furthermore it was billed as a wildlife/birding camera being its strengths. I don't know why people have to start going on about Nikon or Fuji when I just want Canon to put these things right to make it an excellent APSC camera in this genre!
Upvote
0
The two are related. But regardless, yes it's just horrible that now when you use the R5II with electronic shutter, the read noise is as terribly high as the Nikon Z8/Z9. Not sure how people using these cameras sleep at night.
Upvote
0
You work your way around the problems of any camera to use its strengths and avoid its weaknesses. I use the R7, R5ii and formerly the R5 for wildlife and birding. With the R7 for birds, dragonflies in flight etc, I use EFCS or mechanical shutter at high shutter speeds where shutter slap is irrelevant and there is no rolling shutter. For static wildlife, I use ES where there are usually no problems of rolling shutter. If those making "so many posts" use the R7 with ES for fast movement or panning, and with mechanical shutter at low shutter speeds where slap can come in, then they should reflect upon themselves for not learning how to use the camera rather than blaming the camera.
Upvote
0
As I said before, I'm sticking with Canon. Why do you reflexively point to other brands when Canon is being critiqued?
The noise issue, trivial or otherwise, affects my upgrade decision. I understand that for photographers who work mostly in great to good light, or who rarely lift shadows, higher ISO noise is not a big issue when deciding to purchase.
I have the R5, and it's a well-rounded, highly capable body. If I had to replace it, I'd prefer the R5 again to the R5II, another fine body but with strengths more appealing to other photographers.
I'm quite confident that the R5III will be tempting.
Upvote
0
Obviously your decision. I've never understood any decision being made on the basis of a <0.5-stop difference in any sensor parameter. Even with lenses, people complain about f/6.3 being too slow (for example) but are fine with 400mm f/5.6. Mmmkay.
More importantly, you seem unaware that the differences (modest as they are) between the R5 and R5II noise and DR are at low ISO. You reference high ISO noise, above ISO 800 there is very little difference, if any, between the two sensors.
Upvote
0
Well if you trust photonstophotos, the difference at high ISOs is 0.10-0.15 stops. That's not much at a first glance isn't it?
But the higher we get up the ISO range, the more that 0.1 stop matters as a fraction of the total dynamic range at each given ISO.
Upvote
0
I've combined melatonin with Ilford Delta 3200 successfully
Upvote
0
The R7 will be addressed in 2025. As with the launch of the full frame EOS R system, APS-C R bodies were brought to market as quickly as they could. As with the EOS R & RP, and for lack of a better term, they are "parts bin" cameras. As much as I don't like the R7, it has aged pretty well when compared to the rest of the APS-C ILC world.
Canon needed time to develop and manufacture their new generation of sensors. They were 5 years behind.
There is also finding out what the market actually is for APS-C cameras in the mirrorless world and adjust accordingly. Full frame camera bodies along with L lenses are where the margins are, the APS-C line is about volume.
Give them a second!
Upvote
0
It seemed like lot of people were freaking out about no rf-s, so I can understand why Canon took this approach.
Upvote
0
I'm not discussing your beliefs about reality.
Wrong.
Rambling and revving the thinking machine won't help with understanding. Improving thought process by adding new concepts and restructuring will.
Last attempt:
1) Log coding in CLog2 supports higher DR than sensor can achieve and you can easily see full range you recorded withut the display gamma variable limiting it. You shoot CinemaRAW and choose CLog2 as output OETF. Recording is RAW but output a different transfer function.
2) NO with C-Log2 you DO NOT even have to use RAW to record or measure full DR.
3) It doesn't matter what.so.ever. is it stills or "video" RAW. It is the same dynamic range. The only variable affecting DR here is ADC bit depth. And same bit depth is compared to remove that variable.
4) 3rd attempt: RAW is NOT video.
5) Learn about linear encoding, log encoding and gamma encoding. Rationalising this last part will also help to remove the head scratching about stops above mid grey and avoiding logical errors, sweeping statements and if all works out also delusional beliefs about smaller buckets being as good as larger buckets.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
@Quarkcharmed is not wrong. Here is the dynamic range vs iso for the Canon R3 and R5, and Sony A9 A1, and R5, spanning 24-45-50-60 Mpx, taken from photons to photons https://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS R3,Canon EOS R5,Sony ILCE-1,Sony ILCE-7RM5,Sony ILCE-9
There is no correlation. And that is because the dynamic range of a sensor is measured from analysing the image at the same physical size, not blowing up the images to different sizes. 4 pixels of 3µx3µ have the same area as 1 pixel of 6µx6µ and their total well depth, all being equal, is the same as the single pixel. The dynamic range of a sensor depends primarily on its overall light gathering area, rather than the size of the pixels within it, though there can be and often are other factors that lower DR.
Upvote
0
Once again we have links to this web posted as gospel of reality, without clear unerstanding of some concepts and what are figures actually referring to.
And one more time:
1) This is not camera's dynamic range. This is camera data processed and "normalised to something" which someone calls "photographic range".
2) Full camera dynamic range is larger than this. If the test shows lower range then actual range the differences between camera with lower range and higher will appear smaller. Or be invisible. When looking at some charts and numbers. Further biased by wishful thinking.
3) Megapixel figures sell more cameras.
4) Anyone who actually bothers to test these cameras side by side instead of regurgitating online numbers void of context and direct experience can nicely see R5 clips sooner then R3 and shadows are poorer then R3.
5) Basic physics tells you larger bucket can hold more than smaller bucket. Basic math tells you larger largest number divided by smallest number gives a higher number. 7 year old kid can understand this.
6) It is not uncommon in 21st century for adults to have their brain bedazzled with technobabble into a belief system bypassing common sense.
Not interested in battling propaganda, wishful thinking and confirmation/purchase biases and resulting delusional nonsense about supernatural pixels bypassing laws of physics so if the upper part doesn't work, ignore my posts from now on.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
