• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Canon EOS R5 - the game changer? (1 Viewer)

temmie

Well-known member
Only today I learned about the R5 coming our way a bit later this summer. The specs look impressive as everything I was looking for in upgrading my current 7DII seems to be present in this body:
IBIS, good noise reduction, super fast and accurate focusing and fully compatible with older EF lenses through a (relatively cheap) adapter.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1510723498/canon-eos-r5-the-long-game-ends-with-a-big-leap

I wonder what everybody thinks about this camera, especially Chosun Juan ;)
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
There was already another thread on it here -
https://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=3991772#post3991772

Where I've said kudos to Canon - far less hobbling (from details released so far) than their recent history suggests, or I, or any of the long downtrodden Canonistas expected (don't worry Nikonians, Sonyites, Olympians and Fujians, etc also know the pain of continual disappointment and delay).

This might be one of those rare decadal-odd step changes for Canon (they've already turned the ship around nicely with the 1DX III). It's great to see. Good for Canon and good for competition in the industry.

I hold out less hope than ever before for a 7D III, but this R5 is virtually a 17.5MP APS-C (admittedly not trumping Fuji 26MP XT-4 Res, but better than nothing) so it somewhat does the same job. The market was shrinking rapidly anyway reducing new product development, but now it's a whole new world - if anything I think it will hasten the DSLR to Mirrorless transition.

With all this Pandemic stuff though - business conditions are brutal.

It will be interesting to see what this 'beast' performs like irl once it leaps off the development announcement pages .....





Chosun :gh:
 

temmie

Well-known member
aaah, I didn't see the other topic (the title was a bit vague maybe), so thanks for that!

I think it will be a game changer, at least for me. As my travel plans went down the drain, I have some money to invest in new gear before (hopefully) I can travel again! And in the meantime I try to improve my local patch birding and photographing...
 

Gronk08

Well-known member
I am guessing this is going to cost around £3.5 - £4k. Anyone seen any likely price yet?

I have seen quoted expected prices of $3.5K so I would expect you are right on the nose Roy in respect to pricing over here in the UK, looks like a great camera, plus Canon are expected to release another two mirrorless bodies this year as well, Canon looks like they have maybe caught up Sony body wise just need the glass now, still not sure about the 100-500 they are meant to be releasing for the mirrorless systems.

Tim.
 

temmie

Well-known member
I feel the Canon glass is already very ok, no?
They are bringing out R-specific lenses that get very good reviews in combination with the R-bodies, and as the EF lenses are fully compatible through a (rather cheap) adapter, I see myself in the market for an R-body with existing lenses, and will move to R-lenses maybe some day in the future.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
I feel the Canon glass is already very ok, no?
They are bringing out R-specific lenses that get very good reviews in combination with the R-bodies, and as the EF lenses are fully compatible through a (rather cheap) adapter, I see myself in the market for an R-body with existing lenses, and will move to R-lenses maybe some day in the future.
Yes, Excellent ! High quality, and mostly light weight.

If the Canon Mirrorless focusing algorithms and communications protocols work similarly to Nikon's then there is a small speed and accuracy benefit to using native mirrorless glass. Basically, as explained by Nikon engineers/managers, this is because the final position that the lens is to be moved to for most accurate focus can be adjusted right up to the instant of capture. Compare this to a DSLR whose lens position must be fixed when the mirror flips out of the way to expose the sensor (or perhaps it continues for some small time of mirror movement according to a focusing algorithm or something. Either way a prediction rather than a sensed movement for that last very small fraction of a second).

Until Canon designs the professional level III/IV (depending on model) L series glass for Mirrorless, the existing DSLR designed glass will be more than fine. (I do remember reading that certain models had the 'mirrorless' improvements in capability built-in with their latest iterations anyway). Nikon for the most part offers no better alternative at the longer focal lengths, and it's pro DSLR telephotos are a generation behind Canon in the weight stakes. Sony is the only viable FF Mirrorless alternative at that level.

One of the biggest issues seems to be the slowing down (apertures) of the proposed native Mirrorless telephoto stuff - certainly at the consumer product range level. This seems to be an industry trend, relying on improved sensors to handle higher ISO while keeping lens weights down. The 100-500 is rumoured to be f7.1 wide open at the long end.

Anyway, there is much to like. Sounds like a plan.





Chosun :gh:
 

temmie

Well-known member
That bothers me as well quite a bit. That 100-500 with 7.1 at the long end seems a compromise where Canon could really score by making it a fixed 500 4.5 or something, with DO. That would ofcourse be ridiculously expensive, but still, a lot better in terms of F-number / weight / bokeh.
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
That bothers me as well quite a bit. That 100-500 with 7.1 at the long end seems a compromise where Canon could really score by making it a fixed 500 4.5 or something, with DO. That would ofcourse be ridiculously expensive, but still, a lot better in terms of F-number / weight / bokeh.
I think for me unfortunately, my only hope into the near future is a DO (PF) lens under 1.5kg and a small crop? type body. The last time I took even my light weight 2.7kg (6lb) rig out was not good - I suffered for days afterwards. That means the 500 f5.6 PF is the prime contender even though I know it will be too short.

I'd also expect the 100-500 f7.1 to be very light, though more consumer level in IQ, and yeah .... f7.1. I don't think that will be so much of an issue on something like the R5.

It looks like Canon will have a dual range of sorts.
1 more pro level, with faster, heavier glass like the f1.2 lenses etc released so far. There is even a chance that when they get around to designing and releasing the III/IV series L lenses that they might also include DO and BR elements thereby taking even more weight out of their already leading lenses.
The other range (incorporating the 100-500 f7.1) looks to be more of a light weight consumer orientated one. This would see a range of shorter f1.8, and slower lenses (to match Nikon's current excellent offerings - maybe even in IQ too ?).

This R5 is shaping up to look like a very good camera (provided the sensor, and tracking and functionality doing that stack up). Just what the Doctor ordered during these tough times. :t:

I will have to hope for a Z8 to trump it ?? Or maybe, in these crazy times, Canon might even swallow Nikon up ??? That would somewhat instantaneously flesh the ranges out if they could be rejigged to a common Mirrorless mount ?? I must admit, that's something the environmentalist in me would like to see :)





Chosun :gh:
 

Bafty

Well-known member
That bothers me as well quite a bit. That 100-500 with 7.1 at the long end seems a compromise where Canon could really score by making it a fixed 500 4.5 or something, with DO. That would ofcourse be ridiculously expensive, but still, a lot better in terms of F-number / weight / bokeh.

What's wrong with using the 100-400 with 1.4 extender ? this gives 140-560 @ 6.3, assuming the R5 give's more the one focal point there's little point in the 100-500
 

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
What's wrong with using the 100-400 with 1.4 extender ? this gives 140-560 @ 6.3, assuming the R5 give's more the one focal point there's little point in the 100-500
The 100-400 with a1.4 x tc gives f8 at the long end (not f6.3) - just saying.
 

temmie

Well-known member
+ a zoom should have the 'right' range without a converter. It feels a bit stupid to have to put a converter between a zoom lens, when the lens manufacturer could have just made the zoom in the right dimensions. For example, the Sony 200-600 6.3 is about the right number of millimeters for a bird lens. The Canon 100-500 7.1 is OK in length but in terms of F-number it is simply too high. I don't expect a 100-500 F4 (that would be expensive), but a 100-500 6.3 is the minimum (or maximum) and a 100-500 5.6 would be ofcourse even better (optimal balance of price / weight / bokeh).

The main benefit of a 100-500 7.1 could be very low weight and price, but both have to be seen, and it is imho a bit of an undesired compromise (too much given up on F-number for the potential price and weight savings).
 
Last edited:

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
+ a zoom should have the 'right' range without a converter. It feels a bit stupid to have to put a converter between a zoom lens, when the lens manufacturer could have just made the zoom in the right dimensions. For example, the Sony 200-600 6.3 is about the right number of millimeters for a bird lens. The Canon 100-500 7.1 is OK in length but in terms of F-number it is simply too high. I don't expect a 100-500 F4 (that would be expensive), but a 100-500 6.3 is the minimum (or maximum) and a 100-500 5.6 would be ofcourse even better (optimal balance of price / weight / bokeh).

The main benefit of a 100-500 7.1 could be very low weight and price, but both have to be seen, and it is imho a bit of an undesired compromise (too much given up on F-number for the potential price and weight savings).
I am not sure that 'stupid' is the right word. There are times when the native focal length of any lens is not enough for birds so I would not say its stupid to use a converter to give you the focal length you need even if it is a zoom lens.
Yes converters work better with a fast prime lenses (I have used both a 500/4 and 300/2.8) but a lens like the Canon 100-400 MkII takes a 1.4 x converter very well IMHO albeit the AF is a bit slow.
 

Bafty

Well-known member
You'r quite right at the long end it's f8 but only at 520mm for most of its "long range" it's 7.1 and at the short end its 6.3. I must admit thou a RF/EF mount and then a extender might be a step too far.

With regard to extenders, in general my 1.4 remains on the camera setup 95% of the time with no loss of image quality at all, remember Canon do a 200-400 zoom with inbuilt 1.4...but I think this is going a little off topic !
 
Last edited:

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
You'r quite right at the long end it's f8 but only at 520mm for most of its "long range" it's 7.1 and at the short end its 6.3. I must admit thou a RF/EF mount and then a extender might be a step too far.

With regard to extenders, in general my 1.4 remains on the camera setup 95% of the time with no loss of image quality at all, remember Canon do a 200-400 zoom with inbuilt 1.4...but I think this is going a little off topic !
It switches over to f8 at about 340mm on the zoom scale. I also have a Canon 100-400 mkII (and Canon 1.4x tc) and although it takes a 1.4x tc very well (for a zoom lens) there is definitely some lose in IQ and the AF speed certainly takes a hit.
The best lens I ever had for taking tc's was the Canon 300/2.8 IS lens, not only was the IQ and focus speed with a 1.4x tc brilliant (as you would expect as still 420/f4) but it was also very usable with a 2x tc (600/5.6). I also had a 500/4 prime which took a 1.4x tc very well.
I have no thoughts on getting a mirrorless at the moment but will watch the reviews on the R5 very carefully when a lot of folk have had the chance to try it.
 

Gronk08

Well-known member
Have considered going mirrorless the Sony system looks very tempting especially with their 200-600 lens which looks like a great wildlife lens and having an internal zoom its less likely to suck dust in. The Canon 100-500 I think has missed a trick a 600 reach would have been better and the f7.1 is too high would have better at f5.6 like the Nikon 200-500.
Having got use to and enjoying my Tammy 150-600 on my 750D body I think I would miss the extra 100mm if I went down the pure Canon road although I have seen some good shots with the Canon EOSR mirrorless with the Sigma 60-600 using a converter/adapter to take the lens.

Tim.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top