Good Bye to 5D- EOS R5 on the way

Spencerphoto wrote in post #19000750
Does this mean the 5D4 is now instantly transformed into a POS?

If so, it will be time for me to buy one

I did notice mine was starting give off that piquant aroma, yes..

StarJack wrote in post #19000928
Assuming they address the EVF lag with this model it will be interesting to see where the price point is in relation to the Sony A9 II. It will also make it interesting to see the stats and pricepoint on the 5D MK V.

I would assume 5D4 launch price plus 15% (ie: any time Canon "innovates" they charge more!)
In the case of the 1Dx vs. 1DMkIV, it was MUCH more than 15%. Almost 50%.

Please no movable screen like R and RP!!!! Sony, Panny, and Nikon can excel in that department.

If you don't like the tilt screen, just leave it locked. It is a highly utilized feature and Canon has had this tech since the 90s, and is very much in demand.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19000564
OMG in the comments;

"The pixel density is too low to replace a 7D Mark II for long-reach applications (17MP in APS-c mode) "

lol, Really!? I'd take 17mp of 5D4 IQ pixels over 20mp of the 7D2s pixels any day of the week!

I mean, I can understand this specific (yet long worn out) argument when comparing 10 or 12 MP to 20, but no one is going to be able to worry about 17 vs. 20.

Jake,
In another thread, I listed some 'it depends' answers on the general topic of 'crop vs FF' (not realizing the reply was to a tongue-in-cheek post).

It the analysis, I computed that it takes a 50Mpixel 5DS to virtually EQUAL the pixel resolution (of its frame cropped to APS-C size) of a 7DII.
8868x5792 pixel 5DS full sensor reduced to 5430x3620 pixels within 15x22.5mm cropped frame, virtually equalling 7DII 5472x3648 pixels.

So with any lesser FF camera, one is suffering the handicap that there are fewer pixels on target, if the same lens is mounted on both bodies. So care to elaborate a bit more about the rationale of your logic?

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19000546
.
I could see Canon making this incredible camera, but only having a single card slot. . People would say they are idiots if they did that, but it would actually be an excellent, although devilish, business decision.

Why would they only give it one slot?

Well, if they did, a lot - and I mean A LOT - of people who really want or need dual slots would buy it anyway, because it would be so great in so many other aspects. year and a half, Canon could release an almost identical camera, with almost identical specs, that has dual slots. . Then many people who already bought the single slot version would be "forced" to also buy the dual slot version. . Hence, peopel who only needed one body would buy two, and Canon could suck even more money out of its loyal customers than if they just released a dual slot body in the first place.


We all need to remember that Canon's job is not to make great cameras that their customers are really happy with. . Canon's job is to suck as much money out of us as possible. . They have proven that even when they refuse to meet our needs, many of us still buy their products. . They lose thousands of people to Sony, but still make profits by exploiting the thousands of customers who remain.

.

I'm no where near as cynical as you. If they go a year and half before introducing a camera with 2 card slots, it will be 3 years since the introduction of the first full frame camera before they come out with the 2 card slot camera. They know people want it, they've said as much. Keep in mind that there are always more people coming into the market, starting from scratch, and if it's someone who needs two cards and looks the market over, they aren't going to have any attachment to Canon, they'll just skip right on past Canon for Sony or Nikon (if they have a 2 slot camera, not sure), that's 3 years of lost camera sales. And some Canon users will finally switch if the next model is still a single card slot. I think they make money by giving customers what they want, not antagonizing them.

(we'll see when they introduce it which one of us is correct. I'll revisit this if I'm correct. If you are correct, this post never happened. )

Trey T wrote in post #19001401
Please no movable screen like R and RP!!!! Sony, Panny, and Nikon can excel in that department.

Uhm...YES movable screen! Doing extreme low perspective landscapes makes that an extremely beneficial feature.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19000546
.
I could see Canon making this incredible camera, but only having a single card slot. . People would say they are idi0ts if they did that, but it would actually be an excellent, although devilish, business decision.

Why would they only give it one slot?

Well, if they did, a lot - and I mean A LOT - of people who really want or need dual slots would buy it anyway, because it would be so great in so many other aspects.

And then in a year and a half, Canon could release an almost identical camera, with almost identical specs, that has dual slots. . Then many people who already bought the single slot version would be "forced" to also buy the dual slot version. . Hence, peopel who only needed one body would buy two, and Canon could suck even more money out of its loyal customers than if they just released a dual slot body in the first place.

If I was a Canon stockholder, I would definitely be pushing for this type of customer manipulation. . Even though it pisses a lot of people off, Canon still gets more money out of us when they do these shameful business practices, and if you're a major corporation like Canon, it has to always be all about the money.

We all need to remember that Canon's job is not to make great cameras that their customers are really happy with. . Canon's job is to suck as much money out of us as possible. . They have proven that even when they refuse to meet our needs, many of us still buy their products. . They lose thousands of people to Sony, but still make profits by exploiting the thousands of customers who remain.

.

^^^
The precendent is there and has been in plain view for over 15 years (in the digital SLR world)

• They kept meter-at-AF-location only on the 1dn
  
• They kept joystick control only on the 7DII/5Dn/1dn
  
• The kept PC flash port only on the 7DII/5Dn/1Dn
  
• ...so that later nnD camera owners and 6Dn camera owners would be inspired to buy up to get more features.
  
• They kept the UI somewhat clunky on xxxD and later xxD to help motivate them to buy up.
  

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19000555
I always said there would be no 5D5... I still believe that, and this may be the nail in the coffin if the specs are right, AND the AF system is on par with the PDAF on the 5D4. That is a big IF though.

Why not?...a 5D5 that gives the reflex camera user the same capabilities as found in the camera offered to the mirrorless camera user...the best to BOTH groups, regardless of their preference or need to have specific characteristics. No retirement of reflex cameras (yet). Some examples:

• no-blackout-viewing (yet with viewfinder lag) vs. realtime viewing but black-out at shutter press
  
• no AF continuous track during 10fps shooting vs. AF continous track at 6fps shooting
  

Wilt wrote in post #19001450
Jake,
In another thread, I listed some 'it depends' answers on the general topic of 'crop vs FF' (not realizing the reply was to a tongue-in-cheek post).

It the analysis, I computed that it takes a 50Mpixel 5DS to virtually EQUAL the pixel resolution (of its frame cropped to APS-C size) of a 7DII.
8868x5792 pixel 5DS full sensor reduced to 5430x3620 pixels within 15x22.5mm cropped frame, virtually equalling 7DII 5472x3648 pixels.

So with any lesser FF camera, one is suffering the handicap that there are fewer pixels on target, if the same lens is mounted on both bodies. So care to elaborate a bit more about the rationale of your logic?

Yes, your math is spot on the 5Ds and 7D2 actually share the same pixel density. The 7D2 is a 1.6x "crop" from the 5Ds sensor.

My rationale was that this rumored R5 has a 45MP sensor, just 5 MP less than the 5Ds,. which would mean a 17MP APS-C crop from the middle vs. the 5Ds' 20.. ;

- Usually when the "that FF sensor is too short compared to my APS-C" complaint is rolled out, it's because the crop would be half as much destiny, not a mere 3MP. So the complaint is about 3MP out of 20. Negligible. I can;t see worrying about 3MP with all the things that will have been improved in the 6 years since the 7D2 was released.

- Apples to Oranges in sensor DR, etc. Assuming that Canon is going to release a 2020 camera with a sensor at least as good as the 5D4s, that has more DR and other advantages vs. the 6 year old 7D2 sensor, one will gain all that 5D4/EOS R5 sensor goodness over the 7D2 while losing only 3MP in the crop.

-Heck the 30MP 5D4 crop is already better than the 7D2 in some ways.

- Plus you only need to worry about "only 17mp vs. 20" on the occasions that you can't get close enough. For most of us, for most of the time, we are ACTUALLY USING the entire sensor. In this case that's 45MP vs. 20,. so now the tables have turned considerably to the point that the 7D2s sensor is completely and utterly outclassed.

ie: I'd give up a mathematical 3mp of "reach" for a fully modern sensor with higher DR, better noise handling, that likely will actually result in better overall IQ for that small percentage of time that I am reach challenged. (and that's just the sensor, not the entire 6 years of camera evolution, AF,. etc..)

OK, Jake. Understand the rationale. Yes 3MP is too miniscule to matter in the real world, rather doubtful that someone could see a difference especially given the small fraction of times someone makes a print larger than 20" x 30".

Sometimes I wonder if, in a double blind comparison, people could visually (not instrument evuation) appreciate the 'better IQ' in the newer version lens vs. the earlier version lens, if it quantified to 5% difference.

Wilt wrote in post #19001751
OK, Jake. Understand the rationale. Yes 3MP is too miniscule to matter in the real world, rather doubtful that someone could see a difference especially given the small fraction of times someone makes a print larger than 20" x 30".

Sometimes I wonder if..... people could visually ..... appreciate the 'better IQ' in the newer version lens vs. the earlier version lens, if it quantified to 5% difference.

.
Good points about the real world and visual appreciation.

In photography, doing math to arrive at quantitative comparisons is usually not helpful at all. . It usually doesn't help people understand the comparison better ..... instead, it makes it worse, because now the noobie may think that numbers and calculations - absolutes - are the way to make comparisons, when they aren't a good way at all.

I see all the time on here when we start to compare things or when a noobie has a question about something, people will jump into math and numbers and calculations, and I think that makes it worse for the person with the question and causes them to be misled. . Photography is a visual medium. . It has to do with what things look like. . It is subjective. . When attempts are made to quantify things in absolute, sterile, factual terms, it gets people to focus on the wrong aspects of photography, and causes them to put less focus onto what things actually look like and how appealing the aesthetic is.

I'm not saying that math has no place in photography at all, but it should be one of the last things that we mention when these discussions come up, not one of the first.

.

AS_Photo wrote in post #19000608
That would be disappointing.

1dx iii is only 16fps @ 20mp (viewfinder), which is stupid-hyper fast, and 20fps @ 20mp (live view).
If the R5 do 20fps @ 45mp, then someone can make a good categorical argument that the 1dx iii will be obsolete on 2/13/20, the rumored announcement date.

I like more R6 rumour. where are some awesome small fd primes....

I have the 1Dmk4 &5dmk4 and just I tried the eos-r and hated it returned it to bnh the controls were to tough to get used to and it has 1-card slot