Canon Announces Development of the EOS R5

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19090386
.
It seems that you missed that the AF system will be the same in both cameras.

.

That can't be exactly true, with different pixel densities. The sensors themselves are different.

Even if they are exactly the same, somehow, a big part of my statement was that an extra level of teleconversion disadvantages AF.

sploo wrote in post #19090376
With the potential of multi-second handheld exposures there's a market there for an accessory with a set of rotating gyroscopes to "lock" the camera in position; while the IS takes care of the small high-frequency vibrations caused by the gyros. I'm joking... I think...

They already do.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19090389
That can't be exactly true, with different pixel densities. The sensors themselves are different.

Even if they are exactly the same, somehow, a big part of my statement was that an extra level of teleconversion disadvantages AF.

everyone I talked t with the EOS R says zero problems or effect on AF with TC's

I think you are comparing old school tech v/s the new tech which is not the same

Plus they now have 1.4 RF TC's

B&H guy showed using them....he said zero effect and pics were great

800mm with a 1.4 TC got him to a 1120mm FOV...hand held, with 7 stops IS at F/13. The egret he shot from across the lake on a 45MP sensor was framed....he had a ton of room to crop

I see nothing but advantages

Did they say when the R5 will ship?

umphotography wrote in post #19090394
.
everyone I talked t with the EOS R says zero problems or effect on AF with TC's
.

.
.
This makes sense to me.

If focusing is done on the sensor itself, then I don't see how the optics would have any negative effect on the focusing.

We all need to change our mindset and realize that almost all of the things that worked a certain way on DSLRs work entirely differently on mirrorless - especially true with focusing systems. . The things that were big factors with traditional DSLR AF systems have nothing to do with on-sensor mirrorless focusing systems.


.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19090389
That can't be exactly true, with different pixel densities. The sensors themselves are different.

Even if they are exactly the same, somehow, a big part of my statement was that an extra level of teleconversion disadvantages AF.

You may want to explain that to the Canon rep in the livecast today who used the exact words "exactly the same" because he is unaware of the difference you speak of.

gjl711 wrote in post #19090393
They already do.

Who's "they"?

sploo wrote in post #19090433
Who's "they"?

Lots of manufacturers. Take a peek at B&H and Adorama and Amazon. Some are simple gravity gimbals and cost as little at $10 or if you are looking for something fancy, they have gyro stabilized gimbals for over a thousand. Looks to be well over 100 manufacturers at least. Lots of choices.

STILL has that stupid 30 minute recording limit. #TOTALFail

gjl711 wrote in post #19090446
Lots of manufacturers. Take a peek at B&H and Adorama and Amazon. Some are simple gravity gimbals and cost as little at $10 or if you are looking for something fancy, they have gyro stabilized gimbals for over a thousand. Looks to be well over 100 manufacturers at least. Lots of choices.

I was thinking (joking) of something much more agricultural, but there are some seriously impressive products there. I'm not a video guy so haven't paid attention to what's available!

gjl711 wrote in post #19090446
Lots of manufacturers. Take a peek at B&H and Adorama and Amazon. Some are simple gravity gimbals and cost as little at $10 or if you are looking for something fancy, they have gyro stabilized gimbals for over a thousand. Looks to be well over 100 manufacturers at least. Lots of choices.

gimbals are a PITA to work with and manual ones are generally heavy, good luck travelling with it. Hand holding stable footage is a gamechanger and one of the reasons I have a few M43 cameras, simplicity goes a long way.

WilsonFlyer wrote in post #19090427
You may want to explain that to the Canon rep in the livecast today who used the exact words "exactly the same" because he is unaware of the difference you speak of.

Exactly the same in *WHAT* way? Apply some critical thinking; the sensors are different. One has 2.25x the pixel density of the other. The microlenses have very different sizes, too. Noise may be different, as well.

Same AF patterns, perhaps? Same DIGIC running the AF? That is not "the same" in every sense of the word.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19090463
Exactly the same in *WHAT* way? Apply some critical thinking; the sensors are different. One has 2.25x the pixel density of the other. The microlenses have very different sizes, too. Noise may be different, as well.

Same AF patterns, perhaps? Same DIGIC running the AF? That is not "the same" in every sense of the word.

Probably same algorithms used and the same code base.

John Sheehy wrote in post #19090463
Exactly the same in *WHAT* way? Apply some critical thinking; the sensors are different. One has 2.25x the pixel density of the other. The microlenses have very different sizes, too. Noise may be different, as well.

Same AF patterns, perhaps? Same DIGIC running the AF? That is not "the same" in every sense of the word.

Don't shoot me. I'm just telling you what he said. You're arguing semantics. Functionally they are the same AF system and processor.

All the original post referenced was AF. That's what the rest of us were talking about.

I preordered the R5, 100- 500 and 1.4 TC.