EOS R TECH THREAD- Its time for others who will jump into canon Mirrorless bodies

Wilt wrote in post #19013697
So as to eliminate the opportunity for ambigouity leading to misinterpretation...
"My EOS R photographs, shot RAW and converted, are cleaner than my 5D(which model?) photographs, shot RAW and converted", ??...meaning sensor circuit improvement, rather than only improvements in 'JPG engine, with lower noise'

"5D" is "5D." That's what Canon has always called it. Other models are 5d Mark something.

As I said, none of us studies RAW data. We're all making judgments from processed RAW data.

All proprietary and non-proprietary processing engines have shown that all digital cameras have reduced noise along with increasing pixel count over the course of the last 20 years.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19013757
Yes please, which 5D? as every article on the EOS R had it's own sensor being slightly behind that of the 5D4 due to more noise,. hypothesis being that 'always on" meant more heat in the electronics.

two points,

I'll admit that I have never compared directly.
The same articles seemed to imply one would be hard pressed to see this difference.

Compare the 5D with its own marked successors. Does the 5D Mark IV display more noise than the 5D?

RDKirk wrote in post #19013785
.
Does the 5D Mark IV display more noise than the 5D?
.

.
I don't know. . I have many files from both cameras on my computer, but I don't feel like putting any time or effort into examining the images and making a determination. . I'd much rather just go by what the general consensus says about it. . If the majority of people say the 5D4 produces less native noise than the 5D Classic, then it will have less noise. . In such matters, the masses are always right.


.

umphotography wrote in post #19013529
Im also concerned about the 40-45MB sensor......There is no way that this will be able to compete with a 1Dx or 5D4 for clean ISO.....

Well, the 20MP 1" ("2.7x crop") Sony sensor Canon uses in the G7X-II has less high-ISO noise per unit of sensor area than any FF sensor, so the problem is not pixel density, per se. Current obstacles seem to be either the total pixel count, and or the size of the sensor and the associated heat and electronic noise. Anyway, the A7R3 is one of the best FF sensors at high ISOs, and it is 42MP.

umphotography wrote in post #19013532
They said exactly this

I Still remember getting flamed for posting all future Mirrorless bodies will have IBIS

People read this an interpret what they think v/s what Canon said ( Teamspeed )

I have read that with IBIS ( that all future canon mirrorless bodies will have ) and use of IS lens are going to be equilivent to 7 stops

Im sure I will get flamed for that statement....but Canon said this Not me.......7 stops is a lot

You can't add two sources of the same type of realtime stabilization (stabilization during a single exposure).

These stabilizers do not literally stabilize, as if they dampened movement, where double damping would make for even less motion blur. Lens IS and IBIS recreate the motion in reverse, which cancels out in the sensor capture. If you correct twice, you recreate the original blur, but in the opposite direction, because 1 minus 2 is -1; not 0. On top of that, even though a single correction makes the capture less motion-blurred, the correction is not complete. The two imperfections add and give more blur than if no stabilization were used at all.

The R bodies with IBIS are going to have to disable the power for lens IS if IBIS is enabled, or reduce the type of corrections to only those that the lens does not have, but we don't even know if the bodies can know that the IS switch is on with EF lenses, so the camera might not even be able to be sure that IS is enabled on the lens.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19013800
The R bodies with IBIS are going to have to disable the power for lens IS if IBIS is enabled, or reduce the type of corrections to only those that the lens does not have, but we don't even know if the bodies can know that the IS switch is on with EF lenses, so the camera might not even be able to be sure that IS is enabled on the lens.

.
No, no, no.

The manufacturers have told us that the two stabilization systems will work together and combine to give us much better stabilization than either one can provide on its own.

Instead of trying to think through the way stabiliation works, and making sense of it yourself, just take what the manufacturers tell you and believe it.

They are the ones who know how it works, not you. . You may think that you know these things, but your understanding is based on a shallow, cursory bit of what you think is knowledge, when really you don't know how it works because you are not the engineer who designed it. . Just because something seems to make sense to you does not mean that is the way it really is.

You are in way over your head. . It is not for "little people" like you or I to theorize about how we think things work. . Only the engineers know how it works, so theirs is the only understanding that is viable.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19013802
.
No, no, no.

The manufacturers have told us that the two stabilization systems will work together and combine to give us much better stabilization than either one can provide on its own.

Instead of trying to think through the way stabiliation works, and making sense of it yourself, just take what the manufacturers tell you and believe it.

They are the ones who know how it works, not you. . You may think that you know these things, but your understanding is based on a shallow, cursory bit of what you think is knowledge, when really you don't know how it works because you are not the engineer who designed it. . Just because something seems to make sense to you does not mean that is the way it really is.

You are in way over your head. . It is not for "little people" like you or I to theorize about how we think things work. . Only the engineers know how it works, so theirs is the only understanding that is viable.

.

I can't tell if this was tongue in cheek or if it was serious. I will offer a piece of advice though. If it was serious, I'd duck if I were you. I went down this road and they chopped my head off.

Sounds like the "science" behind dark matter

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19013803
I can't tell if this was tongue in cheek or if it was serious. I will offer a piece of advice though. If it was serious, I'd duck if I were you. I went down this road and they chopped my head off.

.
I am totally serious. . Unless one is a Canon or Sony engineer, they should not try to understand these things, because at some point one ends up having a thought that is incorrect, or makes an incorrect assumption about how something works.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19013814
.
I am totally serious. . Unless one is a Canon or Sony engineer, they should not try to understand these things, because at some point one ends up having a thought that is incorrect, or makes an incorrect assumption about how something works.

.

So far Canon has been careful to say that their IBIS works with RF lenses.

RDKirk wrote in post #19013783
"5D" is "5D." That's what Canon has always called it. Other models are 5d Mark something.

As I said, none of us studies RAW data. We're all making judgments from processed RAW data.

All proprietary and non-proprietary processing engines have shown that all digital cameras have reduced noise along with increasing pixel count over the course of the last 20 years.

I just wanted to make sure none of us ASSumed which model 5D was the object of comparison, since all POTN members do not necessary follow convention in talking about different product versions.

I know none of us look at RAW data. My point was that

1. noise processing improvements within the camera's in-built JPEG processor do NOT apply those same noise reduction benefits to the recorded RAW data; those do not improve externalRAW conversion to JPG output by programs like Photoshop or LR or Capture One.
   
2. Some noise reduction can be within the D/A conversion to create the RAW, and this benefits both RAW and JPG final output regardless of the RAW convertor used.
   

Today we have substantially more resolution, pixel density, and yet better low ISO DR and better high ISO noise characteristics than 10yr ago, so the argument that higher resolution has worse noise is illogical.

There are so many tech touch points between the point of light entering the camera to the final raw, we have to stop creating artificial limits and myths, there are many areas that can be improved each generation.

There will be 100Mpx sensors in the future that will have yet more DR and better high ISO than the best Canon sensor or Sony sensor currently, and that will continue to prove our assumptions wrong.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19013802
.
No, no, no.

The manufacturers have told us that the two stabilization systems will work together and combine to give us much better stabilization than either one can provide on its own.

Instead of trying to think through the way stabiliation works, and making sense of it yourself, just take what the manufacturers tell you and believe it.

They are the ones who know how it works, not you. . You may think that you know these things, but your understanding is based on a shallow, cursory bit of what you think is knowledge, when really you don't know how it works because you are not the engineer who designed it. . Just because something seems to make sense to you does not mean that is the way it really is.

You are in way over your head. . It is not for "little people" like you or I to theorize about how we think things work. . Only the engineers know how it works, so theirs is the only understanding that is viable.

.

What did the manufacturer actually say?

Much of what I hear about what the manufacturer is saying is a game of "telephone" that started with some non-engineer that works for Canon going out on a limb or repeating loose marketing talking points. I remember all too well Chuck Westfall announcing that the Canon 5DmarkII would bring a new standard of dynamic range, when in fact, the camera had one of the worst DRs of 2009-vintage cameras.

RDKirk wrote in post #19013820
So far Canon has been careful to say that their IBIS works with RF lenses.

I'd suggest that we should probably believe that, unless testers find that it doesn't, there is no reason to disbelieve Canon.

Will they work with EF lenses with IS? Well, they might. But without Canon telling us that they will, we can't be sure about that. It could be that the EF lenses will work fine, but Canon don't want to push the message that "you don't need to buy our new lenses" almost like they are in the business of selling those lenses or something. It could also be that without some new hardware/firmware/comm​unications the camera and lens can't co-ordinate their image stabilisation with one another and you can only use one or the other. If you have a Canon EF lens that you love and it doesn't have IS, you may find that you love that lens more on a new RF camera with IBIS. With an EF lens with IS - you still have IS or IBIS so you lose nothing, I see no real downside to the new camera.

My current situation is interesting. I recently purchased a 2nd hand 7D MkII with battery grip, a very nice camera for fast action like motorsports. I do need to buy some expensive lenses at some point before the start of September (World Rally Championship round in New Zealand) where I would like to be using a 70-200 f2.8 IS lens and a 24-70 f2.8 lens. But before I purchase these lenses I want to carefully evaluate the situation, I may instead buy an R5 and put my money into RF lenses as the investment in glass is a bigger and more important thing than the spending on a camera body. What we currently know suggests that the R5 would be a better sports shooter than the 7D2. I want to read about real world AF performance before I decide, but I'm definitely watching this space very closely!