Canon officially announces the Canon EOS R5 C

#401
entoman said:
Don't mislead - I haven't said that "a person can't get a sharp photo without sensor and/or lens stabilization", what I've said is that having OIS or IBIS (and preferably both) makes a very significant difference to the ability to hand hold at slow shutter speeds. And I'm not just talking about very slow speeds (1/30 or below) - stabilisation makes long zooms and telephotos MUCH more usuable. My rough estimates are in the post above.

Sure, you can turn the ISO up from 400 to 6400 to compensate for the lack of stabilisation with stills, if you are content with much higher noise levels and lower dynamic range. Or you could find a handy tree or lamp-post to brace yourself against, but they can be hard to come by in open situations such as deserts, beaches, grasslands...

Oh, and you are clearly unaware that the stunning landscapes taken by Ansel Adams, to which you refer, were taken on large format cameras, so the degree of magnification to produce the final prints is very low, unlike the very high magnification when enlarging a 1.5" across FF image to a 24" print! High magnification hugely exaggerates camera shake, if you didn't know.

Furthermore, for almost all of his famous landscapes, Ansel Adams had his camera mounted on a very sturdy TRIPOD. - I assume you comprehend that stabilisation is deactivated (or manually switch off) when working with tripods?

By the way, you can't "ask" Ansel Adams - unless one of your two heads is able to communicate with the deceased.
Click to expand...
The Ansel Adams bit was tongue in cheek. Clearly I know he's not alive. I mentioned tripods as a solution to make IBIS unnecessary, so I'm definitely aware of their impact on IBIS. As I said - specific situations are where IBIS shines. Your exaggerated "4 stops of ISO" example ignores aperture (though 6400 on an R5 is still very good), and yes - if you are shooting still subjects with a telephoto lens, with no IS, handheld, in the dark, then IBIS may provide some qualitative benefits. I don't know why a person who has the coin for an R5 or R5C would be doing that, but anything is possible I suppose.
 
Upvote 0
#402
twoheadedboy said:
The Ansel Adams bit was tongue in cheek. Clearly I know he's not alive. I mentioned tripods as a solution to make IBIS unnecessary, so I'm definitely aware of their impact on IBIS. As I said - specific situations are where IBIS shines. Your exaggerated "4 stops of ISO" example ignores aperture (though 6400 on an R5 is still very good), and yes - if you are shooting still subjects with a telephoto lens, with no IS, handheld, in the dark, then IBIS may provide some qualitative benefits. I don't know why a person who has the coin for an R5 or R5C would be doing that, but anything is possible I suppose.
Click to expand...
There's nothing "exaggerated" about my example of "4 stops of ISO". If anything, it was an understatement. That degree of stabilisation is very easily attained when using the combined OIS and IBIS of the R5. Alternatively you could use that stabilisation to enable shutter speeds as low as 1/60 with a hand-held RF 800mm, as I've done many times. When you are restricted by cost and weight to using a £800 F11 lens instead of a £15,000 big white, that stabilisation makes the difference between getting a razor-sharp shot, or an unrecognisable (without stabilisation) blur.

Of course there were very sharp photographs taken long before IBIS or OIS, but they were much harder to obtain with any degree of reliability or consistency. Under-estimating the value of IBIS is as crazy as under-estimating the massive improvements in sensors or AF which we currently have.

Sorry about the "two heads" leg-pull, but with a handle like that, you asked for it :p
 
Upvote 0
#403
entoman said:
I haven't suggested that the R5C isn't a hybrid cinema camera, in fact I think I've made it pretty clear that I think it's a superb camera. I'm not a videographer, but the R5C seems to be near-perfect for video use, especially considering the relatively low price. The only fault I can find from a video perspective is that it lacks a full size HDMI port.

But Canon advertise it as being ready for anything, and it isn't "ready" for shooting stills with non-stabilised lenses, due to the lack of IBIS. For stills, the digital stabilisation is non-functional, so we are back to relying on OIS, which is less efficient than the synchronised OIS and IBIS of the original R5.

Instead of "ready for anything", a more accurate (though less catchy) slogan might be "class-leading for video, and adequate but not outstanding for stills"
Click to expand...

I think that's why the R5 will continue to exist alongside the R5C. And that the R5C isn't mean to be a R5 Mark II. I love my R5 and was more of a photographer. But having used the video more and more (and it is gorgeous on the R5), it's gotten me really interested in video and that's where the R5C (which was originally off my radar) comes in. Yes, it would've been great if the R5C kept the IBIS for the photography side of things. that's why I wouldn't replace my R5 with the R5C.

I think if a person's focus is primarily photography with some gorgeous video, the R5 is fantastic. But if you're more video with features that made videography easier with need for high quality photography, then the R5C is great. And while IBIS is fantastic for the R5, you can still get amazing results with just lens IS because the R5 is just so fast. Of course I haven't tried the R5C but if it focuses as fast as the R5, then lens IS alone would still be great. In any case, I primarily shoot people so shooting at slow speeds doesn't help as you can't expect people to stay that steady.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#404
entoman said:
There's nothing "exaggerated" about my example of "4 stops of ISO". If anything, it was an understatement. That degree of stabilisation is very easily attained when using the combined OIS and IBIS of the R5.
Click to expand...
Most of that improvement is from the OIS. Every test I have seen shows that IBIS independently accounts for a 1 - 2 stop improvement at best. I have not seen anything suggesting that the OIS + IBIS combo is greater than the sum of its parts, either - if the former gives you 3 stops, the latter 1, the two combined give you 4, not 4.5 or 5.

As is such with the 800mm - most of the improvement comes from the OIS. I generally find Ken Rockwell's tests to be 1/2 to 1 stop better than my personal experience, so he must have steadier hands, but his tests with and without IBIS and that lens are here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#405
twoheadedboy said:
Most of that improvement is from the OIS. Every test I have seen shows that IBIS independently accounts for a 1 - 2 stop improvement at best. I have not seen anything suggesting that the OIS + IBIS combo is greater than the sum of its parts, either - if the former gives you 3 stops, the latter 1, the two combined give you 4, not 4.5 or 5.

As is such with the 800mm - most of the improvement comes from the OIS. I generally find Ken Rockwell's tests to be 1/2 to 1 stop better than my personal experience, so he must have steadier hands, but his tests with and without IBIS and that lens are here: https://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/eos-r/lenses/800mm.htm
Click to expand...
Yes, most of the stabilisation comes from OIS, I certainly don't dispute that. IBIS and OIS effectiveness will vary according to focal length, lens design, and how "shaky" the photographer is. I'm quite shaky, but I can still manage very sharp handheld shots at 1/60 with the RF800mm and a static subject. Rockwell clearly has less shaky hands than I do.

Note that in my original post I was talking about a *total* of 4 stops improvement, with OIS and IBIS combined. And that is an underestimate.

Note also that I deliberately ignored the option of opening the aperture, simply because it often isn't possible. I regularly work in low light conditions at dawn and dusk, and I'm nearly always shooting at full aperture already.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, just giving my own experiences below:

My own tests, using the non-stabilised EF 180mm F3.5, show an improvement of around 1.5-2 stops, as I've posted elsewhere.

So add that to the 3-4 stops (average) of optical stabilisation that I'd estimate my more recent lenses provide (EF 100-400mm F4-5.6L Mkii, RF 24-105mm F4L, RF 800mm F11), and you get between 4.5-6 stops of stabilisation with synchronised OIS and IBIS. Canon claim up to 8 stops with certain lenses, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but 4.5-6 stops is still pretty amazing, and personally I'd hate to lose the 1.5-2 stops that IBIS contributes to that. Which is why I find the lack of IBIS in the R5C disappointing for stills use.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#406
dirtyvu said:
I think that's why the R5 will continue to exist alongside the R5C. And that the R5C isn't mean to be a R5 Mark II. I love my R5 and was more of a photographer. But having used the video more and more (and it is gorgeous on the R5), it's gotten me really interested in video and that's where the R5C (which was originally off my radar) comes in. Yes, it would've been great if the R5C kept the IBIS for the photography side of things. that's why I wouldn't replace my R5 with the R5C.
Click to expand...
Completely agree.

The R5 and R5C will continue alongside each other, with the R5 being better for stills and less demanding video, while the R5C will be better for video and less demanding stills. That's what I've been saying all alng, although a couple of :censored: keyboard warriors have chosen to twist it to support their own arguments
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#407
entoman said:
My own tests, using the non-stabilised EF 180mm F3.5, show an improvement of around 1.5-2 stops, as I've posted elsewhere.

So add that to the 3-4 stops (average) of optical stabilisation that I'd estimate my more recent lenses provide (EF 100-400mm F4-5.6L Mkii, RF 24-105mm F4L, RF 800mm F11), and you get between 4.5-6 stops of stabilisation with synchronised OIS and IBIS.
Click to expand...
Just FYI, they don’t add linearly as you suggest. For example, IBIS alone gives 7-8 stops on some lenses. The same IBIS with some 5-stop OIS lenses doesn’t give 12-13 stops, the combo tops out at 8 stops.

1643569144195.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#409
entoman said:
Yes, most of the stabilisation comes from OIS, I certainly don't dispute that. IBIS and OIS effectiveness will vary according to focal length, lens design, and how "shaky" the photographer is. I'm quite shaky, but I can still manage very sharp handheld shots at 1/60 with the RF800mm and a static subject. Rockwell clearly has less shaky hands than I do.

Note that in my original post I was talking about a *total* of 4 stops improvement, with OIS and IBIS combined. And that is an underestimate.

Note also that I deliberately ignored the option of opening the aperture, simply because it often isn't possible. I regularly work in low light conditions at dawn and dusk, and I'm nearly always shooting at full aperture already.

I'm not arguing for the sake of it, just giving my own experiences below:

My own tests, using the non-stabilised EF 180mm F3.5, show an improvement of around 1.5-2 stops, as I've posted elsewhere.

So add that to the 3-4 stops (average) of optical stabilisation that I'd estimate my more recent lenses provide (EF 100-400mm F4-5.6L Mkii, RF 24-105mm F4L, RF 800mm F11), and you get between 4.5-6 stops of stabilisation with synchronised OIS and IBIS. Canon claim up to 8 stops with certain lenses, perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, but 4.5-6 stops is still pretty amazing, and personally I'd hate to lose the 1.5-2 stops that IBIS contributes to that. Which is why I find the lack of IBIS in the R5C disappointing for stills use.
Click to expand...
But no one is saying you should be "happy" that the R5C doesn't have IBIS. Just that lacking it doesn't make it a shit stills camera. Doesn't make it not a hybrid. Doesn't make it crippled, doesn't make it a ripoff. This is because the things the R5C DOES give you over the R5 *are* valuable (more skewed toward the video side than some of the things it's missing), and lacking IBIS is a design choice which not only impacts heat management positively, but also directly improves video quality in certain situations. In fact, it would be fair to say that it's presence or lack thereof impacts most shooters minimally, but based on what you actually shoot, having it or lacking it may be more preferable - and now you have the choice, carried with many other considerations much more important to output quality and workflow than IBIS.

-If you value HQ video without limits, the R5C is the choice. Lenses w/OIS on the telephoto end will likely be a worthwhile focal point on building your system (if you need telephoto), and perhaps wider, if you shoot in extremely dark situations handheld.
-If you value state-of-the-art features in how stills are captured, the R5 is the choice. You might be able to save money and weight on lenses w/o OIS in the wide to short telephoto range, or if your subjects move a lot as with sports, forego OIS in your bag entirely.
-If you absolutely cannot compromise between the two for a given job because you are a professional and your clients are paying for it, and renting isn't feasible because this is too frequently the case, own one of each; good news is you can focus on good glass that will be beneficial in any scenario.
 
Upvote 0
#411
neuroanatomist said:
Just FYI, they don’t add linearly as you suggest. For example, IBIS alone gives 7-8 stops on some lenses. The same IBIS with some 5-stop OIS lenses doesn’t give 12-13 stops, the combo tops out at 8 stops.

View attachment 202313
Click to expand...
I heard a theory, don't know how much truth there is in it, that it's impossible to get more than 8 stops of stabilisation - something to do with the rotation of the Earth, although it does sound a bit far-fetched.

Which camera/lens combination(s) provide 7-8 stops of IBIS? I've never heard even Sony claim that much, so I'm rather sceptical!

Presumably it would have to be an extreme wide-angle lens, as it seems to be generally accepted that OIS does most of the work with long focal length lenses.
 
Upvote 0
#413
twoheadedboy said:
But no one is saying you should be "happy" that the R5C doesn't have IBIS. Just that lacking it doesn't make it a shit stills camera. Doesn't make it not a hybrid. Doesn't make it crippled, doesn't make it a ripoff.
Click to expand...
Yet another example of someone deliberately twisting the words of another contributor, in a rather silly manner.

Where have I ever implied that the lack of IBIS makes the R5C a "shit" camera?
Where have I ever implied that the the R5C is "not a hybrid"?
Where have I used the term "crippled"?
Where have I called it a "rip off"?

To summarise what I've said, and I'll repeat what I wrote in my reply above to dityvu:

The R5 and R5C will continue alongside each other, with the R5 being better for stills and less demanding video, while the R5C will be better for video and "less demanding" stills.
 
Upvote 0
#414
entoman said:
Which camera/lens combination(s) provide 7-8 stops of IBIS? I've never heard even Sony claim that much, so I'm rather sceptical!

Presumably it would have to be an extreme wide-angle lens, as it seems to be generally accepted that OIS does most of the work with long focal length lenses.
Click to expand...
R3/R5/R6 with the RF 28-70/2L or RF 85/1.2 are rated for 8 stops. Those bodies with the RF 50/1.2 give 7 stops. None of those lenses have IS. So yes, it’s possible and no, it does not require a UWA lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#415
neuroanatomist said:
R3/R5/R6 with the RF 28-70/2L or RF 85/1.2 are rated for 8 stops. Those bodies with the RF 50/1.2 give 7 stops. None of those lenses have IS. So yes, it’s possible and no, it does not require a UWA lens.
Click to expand...
Now *that* is interesting, and to me very surprising that such a figure is possible (claimed) for IBIS alone with those lenses.
I just wish that Canon would bring out a new version of my favourite lens - the 180mm F3.5L that could manage 8 stops of stabilisation (by either method, or both).

There is of course a difference between "rated" stabilisation figures and *actual* ones - I've yet to see any video or read any article in which the reviewer has been able to match Canon's claim. It's very easy for Canon or anyone else to claim "up to 8 stops" because it's meaningless. Even a half-stop improvement qualifies as "up to 8".

But leaving aside my natural scepticism, I've been very impressed with the OIS + IBIS stabilisation of my RF 800mm F11, and the IBIS and new firmware of the R5 has finally made my EF 180mm F3.5 usable for hand-held macro.
 
Upvote 0
#416
entoman said:
I heard a theory, don't know how much truth there is in it, that it's impossible to get more than 8 stops of stabilisation - something to do with the rotation of the Earth, although it does sound a bit far-fetched.

Which camera/lens combination(s) provide 7-8 stops of IBIS? I've never heard even Sony claim that much, so I'm rather sceptical!

Presumably it would have to be an extreme wide-angle lens, as it seems to be generally accepted that OIS does most of the work with long focal length lenses.
Click to expand...
Are there other planets better suited for photography?
 
Upvote 0
#418
entoman said:
There is of course a difference between "rated" stabilisation figures and *actual* ones - I've yet to see any video or read any article in which the reviewer has been able to match Canon's claim. It's very easy for Canon or anyone else to claim "up to 8 stops" because it's meaningless. Even a half-stop improvement qualifies as "up to 8".
Click to expand...
What you call meaningless is determined based on the 55-page CIPA standard on Measurement and Description Method for Image Stabilization Performance of Digital Cameras (Optical System).

Please quote from that document where the standard permits calling a half-stop improvement ‘up to 8 stops’. Don’t bother, obviously it doesn’t.

Skepticism is healthy, as long as it’s not so extreme it results in failure to accept facts. In today’s world, overdeveloped skepticism is literally deadly.
 
Upvote 0
#419
neuroanatomist said:
What you call meaningless is determined based on the 55-page CIPA standard on Measurement and Description Method for Image Stabilization Performance of Digital Cameras (Optical System).

Please quote from that document where the standard permits calling a half-stop improvement ‘up to 8 stops’. Don’t bother, obviously it doesn’t.

Skepticism is healthy, as long as it’s not so extreme it results in failure to accept facts. In today’s world, overdeveloped skepticism is literally deadly.
Click to expand...
Skepticism isn't just healthy, it's downright essential for survival, particularly in modern times when the truth is twisted beyond all recognition for political or commercial gain.

CIPA figures are based on laboratory testing conditions that are rarely, if ever, met in the real world. That's why, e.g. energy consumption of modern cameras tends to be overstated, shutter life is invariably underestimated, and IBIS claims are rarely matched in real-world shooting conditions.

So while CIPA figures can be useful when comparing brands or models, they are *very* much an approximation.
 
Upvote 0
#420
entoman said:
Skepticism isn't just healthy, it's downright essential for survival, particularly in modern times when the truth is twisted beyond all recognition for political or commercial gain.
Click to expand...
Too much of anything is unhealthy. For example, skepticism of the COVID-19 vaccines based on the belief they contain government-linked nanotrackers.

entoman said:
CIPA figures are based on laboratory testing conditions that are rarely, if ever, met in the real world. That's why, e.g. energy consumption of modern cameras tends to be overstated, shutter life is invariably underestimated, and IBIS claims are rarely matched in real-world shooting conditions.

So while CIPA figures can be useful when comparing brands or models, they are *very* much an approximation.
Click to expand...
In my EF-M lens testing, I found the IS on some to be more effective than Canon’s rating. In practice, I find that I get within ±1 stop of Canon’s IS rating, so I’d call that a pretty good approximation. Perhaps you have difficulty holding a camera steady (which is partly innate and partly technique), just as you apparently find it too difficult to compose shots without an eye-level viewfinder.

Regardless, your claim that Canon could
market a half-stop improvement as ‘up to 8 stops’ was clearly ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon officially announces the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II
Replies
236
Views
13K
frankchn
F
Canon Rumors
The Canon Cinema EOS C80 and Cinema EOS C400 to get native Adobe.io Cloud Integration in future firmware update
Replies
0
Views
335
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Canon Rumors
Canon Announces New EOS C400 6K Full-Frame RF Mount Cinema Camera and RF-Mount CINE-SERVO Lens
Replies
27
Views
2K
Ozarker
Ozarker
Canon Rumors
Canon U.S.A. Redefines Imaging Excellence at NAB 2024
Replies
8
Views
2K
RunAndGun
R
Canon Rumors
Canon Announces Firmware Updates Delivering Enhanced Features for Cinema EOS Cameras and Pro Camcorders
Replies
13
Views
842
shadowsports
shadowsports
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu