The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

EOS R5 Announcement

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Well, as a used-to-be a photographer (not a pro as I never earned money on it and I don't plan to) and now mostly a video guy I really think I'm in. And the main reason to get R5 is not their "new features" and not 8K (who really needs it!?). But the lenses! RF 85/1.2 and 50/1.2 is the main reason to get back to photography for me. The pics are just stunning! Yes, they're expensive but then this is exactly kind of lenses I want and need.

Also, being a landscape and portrait photographer I really appreciate 45 MP and seems-to-be very good autofocus. ...and other nice features :)

I was thinking about S1R originally but ... no such lenses really for L-mount. So here I go - R5 it is.

Hi Alex. Good luck with your upcoming new Canon system.
It seems the perfect match for your needs.
I am also looking forward to some of your stills wh the R5. :thumbs:

:worthless:
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I switched to Canon from the Nikon Z, specifically for the lenses, but now Canon might have closed the gap with cameras too. My intention was to get the R5 as a back up to my EOS R. However, I sold the EOS R in favor of the RP. There's something about that sensor that renders cinematic like images when properly exposed. The R5 is a bit pricy, so maybe when the hype has cooled and demand wains, that's maybe a good time to re consider, but so far my RP is the primary workhorse.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I switched to Canon from the Nikon Z, specifically for the lenses, but now Canon might have closed the gap with cameras too. My intention was to get the R5 as a back up to my EOS R. However, I sold the EOS R in favor of the RP. There's something about that sensor that renders cinematic like images when properly exposed. The R5 is a bit pricy, so maybe when the hype has cooled and demand wains, that's maybe a good time to re consider, but so far my RP is the primary workhorse.
I know the R5 is getting most of the headlines but I kinda feel the R6 is the silent winner of the two announcements the more I think about it. It offers a modified (and in many ways improved) version of the 1DxMkIII sensor with most of the same features (save for the higher res EVF and higher end video specs) as the R5. It’s probably the best option for most people with the fewest actual compromises IMO though I expect the R5 to fly off the shelves as well. You still get supersampled 4K(UHD) up to 60fps with a minimal 1.07x crop (at most) and Great 1080p up to 120fps.

I think the R6 will actually sell really well at $2500 and I think they can realistically keep it there for some time before needing to do price cuts and discounts... depending on what the other brands come out with over the next 6 months to a year.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
ProAV Deep Dive on the EOS R5 and R6.

Probably the most in-depth talk I heard of the features and specs so far. It’s pretty long but it explains many of the differences between the bodies and comparisons with the older models... in short the R6 is a much bigger deal than the headlines are making it out to be.

https://youtu.be/FA6LkDkCdNg
 

SrMphoto

Active member
Unfortunately, R5 includes an AA filter. While it may be helpful for sport shooters and video, an AA filter on the +40Mpixel sensors is typically not expected.
 
While the R5 may be catching up some to the competition and perhaps some of the features being touted as revolutionary have existed in other cameras, whats interesting is that by leveling those aspects of the playing field, its other aspects where the (hopefully) the Canon shines that then makes it quite appealing. I say this as someone who today shoots with A7r4 bodies for wildlife. I've always merely tolerated the ergonomics of the Sony bodies and even with the slow and steady improvements, its never been one that I've loved. I feel the opposite with Canon bodies, the ergonomics (hand feel, button size and placement, having the 'right' amount of buttons) and the menus have always felt better. Now if with the R5 one has good AF, good image quality in a package that I would actually love holding and shooting, it would be interesting to me. Totally understand that it won't be the case for others, or even if it was would warrant a switch at this point.
 

jduncan

Active member
To be honest, most of the photographic features they highlight in most of the video have been in Sony (and other mirrorless) cameras for years. The A9 can autofocus down to f/16. The R5 can autofocus down to f/22. It’s a nice to have feature for me but quite honestly f/2.8 and f/4 are the slowest lenses that I own.

I can understand the excitement because these are new features to Canon (and would be to Nikon as well) but I don’t need to buy into a new system to experience these types of features. For video, I feel like the S1H is still far ahead as there aren’t any recording limit restrictions due to the active cooling solution Panasonic chose to go with. I can understand not liking Sony... there are aspects of it that are compromised for me but I still feel like it’s the beat all-around system for most people today. I may not feel that way next year or even three years from now... time will tell.
I disagree,
I was not impressed by the Z system (I shoot Nikon) but it seems to me that the AF is more advanced than the A7R IV, both in low light and in a good light.
We need to wait for the camera to be properly tested of course. Then, we have the video-making capabilities. And then the lenses that are part of the package: unique. Talking about video, it seems thermal issues are significant.

Let see how if goes in the next few weeks.

Best regards,
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I disagree,
I was not impressed by the Z system (I shoot Nikon) but it seems to me that the AF is more advanced than the A7R IV, both in low light and in a good light.
We need to wait for the camera to be properly tested of course. Then, we have the video-making capabilities. And then the lenses that are part of the package: unique. Talking about video, it seems thermal issues are significant.

Let see how if goes in the next few weeks.

Best regards,
Personally I was never impressed by the Z system. It felt to be on par with the generation 2 Sony FE systems as it applies to AF performance. This of course is my opinion in my limited trials of the Nikon Z. That being said it’s a good camera system but didn’t move the bar IMO. I almost exclusively shoot lowlight for paid work staying between ISO 1600-12800 regularly with faster lenses when I can’t use off camera lighting.

With the Canon RF the AF goal shouldn't be the A7RIV if best AF is the goal (which simply isn’t on A9/A9II level). The A9 is hands down the best AF camera (in terms of ability) on the market though I’m honesty I haven’t tried the D6 or 1DxIII since they’re relatively recent releases. The A7RIV is still a significant step behind the A9 cameras in performance. I’m not saying that the R5/R6 may not have surpassed these cameras but I am saying at this level you’re objectively are talking marginal differences in ability no matter how much the Canon may or may not have improved. The A9 simply doesn’t miss focus much. The A7RIV doesn’t either but it only covers about 75% of the frame with Hybrid AF coverage. Outside that range it’s CDAF only.

I want to be clear, I’m not dismissing the opinions of those that have tested the R5/R6 but they admittedly are largely DSLR shooters with little to no mirrorless experience which is where the problem comes in. Most of them freely admit to this and it’s clear most weren’t working with Canon’s EF-M system either because Canon provided some of these features on those cameras. Being able to focus accurately to the edges of the frame isn’t a new phenomenon. Being able to retain full AF performance below f/8 isn’t anything new to mirrorless shooters. Having IBIS with all lenses inherently isn’t new no matter how great the Canon system may very well be. Having video that isn’t highly compromised isn’t new. So that’s where I say, most of these things have been available in mirrorless systems for the greater part of the last 5-8 years depending on your system of choice.

I’m not trying to be argumentative and I believe the R5/R6 are great additions to a great lens ecosystem that have moved the mirrorless/hybrid needle. This is just my opinion based on my own experiences but I don’t have graphs, test charts, or anything to support all of my claims. Just trying cameras back to back and I admit there may have been some human error involved due to less experience with digital camera systems that are not Sony, Leica, Panasonic, or Canon.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
...and to just bring up the A7RIV video eye AF tracking ability... this is why I say Canon adding head tracking isn’t a totally new concept to mirrorless. I’m having they added it and that it works great though. It’s a great feature but not ground breaking tech in reality. The Canon R6 should be able to AF maybe down to f/22 so that’s a bonus though. The A7RIV only goes down to f/11. The A9 series goes down to f/16.

https://youtu.be/aU8hz3tmaZg
 

biglouis

Well-known member
I thought of your troubles with Micro 4/3 when I watched videos. I haven’t really had any AF issues with the S1R but I don’t really do wildlife either. I’m happy that someone is taking mirrorless seriously other than Sony and L-Mount (though in a niche way) to push others to continue to innovate. It seems like a great camera that will have it’s quirks like every other camera once it gets into the hands of people over the next couple of months.
Just saw this. I was very sorry to say goodbye to my m43rds kit because the image quality for architecture, landscape and animal portraits was very good. The Leica formula lenses are lovely. I imagine the FF cameras are excellent as are the lenses. My issue was DFD for moving subjects. If only Panasonic would adopt a more conventional AF system then I'd be happy to consider FF for wildlife.

I like the features of the R5 for still photography. Not at all interested in video. Not sure about the 200-700 which is the only realistic birding lens. I want to handle an R5 because it looks as well made as their pro bodies.

LouisB
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Personally I was never impressed by the Z system. It felt to be on par with the generation 2 Sony FE systems as it applies to AF performance. This of course is my opinion in my limited trials of the Nikon Z. That being said it’s a good camera system but didn’t move the bar IMO. I almost exclusively shoot lowlight for paid work staying between ISO 1600-12800 regularly with faster lenses when I can’t use off camera lighting.

With the Canon RF the AF goal shouldn't be the A7RIV if best AF is the goal (which simply isn’t on A9/A9II level). The A9 is hands down the best AF camera (in terms of ability) on the market though I’m honesty I haven’t tried the D6 or 1DxIII since they’re relatively recent releases. The A7RIV is still a significant step behind the A9 cameras in performance. I’m not saying that the R5/R6 may not have surpassed these cameras but I am saying at this level you’re objectively are talking marginal differences in ability no matter how much the Canon may or may not have improved. The A9 simply doesn’t miss focus much. The A7RIV doesn’t either but it only covers about 75% of the frame with Hybrid AF coverage. Outside that range it’s CDAF only.

I want to be clear, I’m not dismissing the opinions of those that have tested the R5/R6 but they admittedly are largely DSLR shooters with little to no mirrorless experience which is where the problem comes in. Most of them freely admit to this and it’s clear most weren’t working with Canon’s EF-M system either because Canon provided some of these features on those cameras. Being able to focus accurately to the edges of the frame isn’t a new phenomenon. Being able to retain full AF performance below f/8 isn’t anything new to mirrorless shooters. Having IBIS with all lenses inherently isn’t new no matter how great the Canon system may very well be. Having video that isn’t highly compromised isn’t new. So that’s where I say, most of these things have been available in mirrorless systems for the greater part of the last 5-8 years depending on your system of choice.

I’m not trying to be argumentative and I believe the R5/R6 are great additions to a great lens ecosystem that have moved the mirrorless/hybrid needle. This is just my opinion based on my own experiences but I don’t have graphs, test charts, or anything to support all of my claims. Just trying cameras back to back and I admit there may have been some human error involved due to less experience with digital camera systems that are not Sony, Leica, Panasonic, or Canon.
Personally I was so impressed by the Z system that I bought into it - after many years happily staying just m43 Olympus but finally I felt it was time to a future proof FF mirrorless system.

For comparison ....

1) Sony - they still might have the most impressive AF today and also lead in sensor design I never could get friends with their camera bodies and ergonomics. And especially basing a FF system on their FE mount that is in best case suited for APSC was always turning me down.

2) Panasonic - in theory the L mount is something really great but in practical life the cameras - while being stellar quality (Leica and Panasonic) are for too heavy for what I think a FF mirrorless system should be. And also the often discussed DFD AF is unfortunately not up to the game as I would like.

3) Canon - with their RF mount they came pretty close to perfection and now with the R5 and the R6 thy proved they can really do it in FF mirrorless - even video and sensor design. What kept me off from going that route was their lens lineup - while mostly create lenses they are too expensive and bulky for my taste and needs.

4) Nikon - well the Z mount finally rang all the bells and whistles, especially with the lenses they develop so far and also the ones that are coming. Not only is this technically the best FF mirrorless mount, the lenses are all superb quality and the lineup is perfect for my needs. And their cameras (Z6/Z7) are just perfect even with only one card slot - and the Z6s and Z7s will have 2 card slots and dual processors that will also significantly increase the speed of the cameras again. Having said that - both the Z6 and Z7 are already balzing fast and also the often underrated AF (eye AF) is light years above from what I was used to by Olympus and more than enough for me. And if it improves again with their dual processor variants it will be nothing left to complain about.

So for me the Z mount wins and I am sure if the whole camera industry survives these general downturns then in 10 years from now we all will see the big merits of the Z mount - maybe closely followed by the RF mount.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
1) Sony - they still might have the most impressive AF today and also lead in sensor design I never could get friends with their camera bodies and ergonomics. And especially basing a FF system on their FE mount that is in best case suited for APSC was always turning me down.
I'm glad you like the Z series ergonomics but that's indeed very personal. I've never held a Nikon in my hands that feels good, DSLR or Z-series just "don't fit" me but that's also personal. I'm glad there are enough choices that everybody can choose something that works for them. Due to COVID I haven't held a R5 yet but I'm looking forward trying it out when the time comes.

Why are you raising FUD on the size of the E-mount and just parrot what the Sony haters keep spreading on the internet? I've seen no proof of that being a problem and there's several 3rd party ~f1.0 lenses that work very well with the system. So as far as I can see the E-mount is plenty large enough for Full Frame.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Personally I was so impressed by the Z system that I bought into it - after many years happily staying just m43 Olympus but finally I felt it was time to a future proof FF mirrorless system.

For comparison ....

1) Sony - they still might have the most impressive AF today and also lead in sensor design I never could get friends with their camera bodies and ergonomics. And especially basing a FF system on their FE mount that is in best case suited for APSC was always turning me down.

2) Panasonic - in theory the L mount is something really great but in practical life the cameras - while being stellar quality (Leica and Panasonic) are for too heavy for what I think a FF mirrorless system should be. And also the often discussed DFD AF is unfortunately not up to the game as I would like.

3) Canon - with their RF mount they came pretty close to perfection and now with the R5 and the R6 thy proved they can really do it in FF mirrorless - even video and sensor design. What kept me off from going that route was their lens lineup - while mostly create lenses they are too expensive and bulky for my taste and needs.

4) Nikon - well the Z mount finally rang all the bells and whistles, especially with the lenses they develop so far and also the ones that are coming. Not only is this technically the best FF mirrorless mount, the lenses are all superb quality and the lineup is perfect for my needs. And their cameras (Z6/Z7) are just perfect even with only one card slot - and the Z6s and Z7s will have 2 card slots and dual processors that will also significantly increase the speed of the cameras again. Having said that - both the Z6 and Z7 are already balzing fast and also the often underrated AF (eye AF) is light years above from what I was used to by Olympus and more than enough for me. And if it improves again with their dual processor variants it will be nothing left to complain about.

So for me the Z mount wins and I am sure if the whole camera industry survives these general downturns then in 10 years from now we all will see the big merits of the Z mount - maybe closely followed by the RF mount.
I’m glad the Z is working for you. I truly am. I know you bounced thoughts of what system to adopt in your head for what seemed like years and deep down I believe you always wanted to make the Z system work for you no matter what. Nothing wrong with that but it’s just an observation. Ultimately I’ve accepted every system has flaws and it’s why I currently own two different ones. The one that works for nearly everything and the one that I want to use (that ironically also works for nearly everything). A few comments though.

The Sony lens mount isn’t too small. It’s in fact larger than both the Leica M and Nikon F mount. The theoretical optical limits of the mount is more or less on par or exceeds both the L and RF mount due to the size and distance of the mount. Now whether it’s harder to create great wide angle lenses... one could argue but I don’t know of anyone that’s complained about the 24/1.4 GM in performance. I don’t know many clients that have been unhappy with results that are the fault of any camera. Not getting along with the Sony menu system is overblown IMO. If you use any camera and own if for some time it becomes second nature. I generally don’t bring up things like that because eventually they become moot with usage. The same way that the Canon system isn’t second nature to me any longer since I haven’t owned one of their cameras in 12 years. The Nikon menus might as well be Greek because I never owned one... Olympus was all over the place for me the brief time I had one but I will say any system that I owned I could figure it out in time just like I did with the Lumix S menu.

L-Mount DFD performance isn’t anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be and I’d argue that for photography it’s the second best performing AF system after Sony (though I reserve the right to alter that comment after I get my hands on an R5/R6). The place it can falter is in continuous AF on a gimbal with fast lenses being used to shoot wide open. That’s one of the few actual “flaws” of the camera systems IMO. I think this is compounded by a few reasons. First is how many people have unrealistic expectations for adapting their old lenses instead of buying native lenses. Simply put a lot of people buy into systems that they can’t truly afford to own... and I’m not saying that from an elitist viewpoint but rather a place where people believe if they have enough for a body and one memory card then they’re good to go. Said person then goes on the internet and bad mouths a camera without ever assuming their setup and expectation management is the largest problem. Performance just isn’t going to be an issue now for most types of shooters. You’re even seeing people doing wildlife on a more consistent basis now that the Sigma 100-400 is out. I can understand the size not being to everyone’s liking and there are some smaller bodies being rumored to come soon. As the technology improves I could honestly see a time in the future where I become just an L-Mount shooter in all honesty. I really like the lenses and the bodies for me. I think if they continue to add lucrative members (I hear Tamron and Voigtlander are rumored future partners) then that could help to serve the customers on the lower end of the price spectrum with cheaper bodies coming.

The Nikon Z is fine. I think my personal reaction to the system is and was based on my personal viewpoints surrounded by the absolute poor marketing of the system, Nikon’s comments against mirrorless for years, and the actual objective performance of the camera. When the camera was released it was a much better body that the EOS R. Canon improved the EOS R through firmware to surpass the Nikon... and they had more interesting lenses. Sony didn’t have to do much of anything and everything is still being measured against the A7III years later. I think the S lenses are capable but not groundbreaking IMO... but I personally don’t think anyone is doing groundbreaking in lens designs beside Canon and Leica honestly. There are some excellent optical options that are stellar from most everyone from Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Leica, Panasonic, etc. but groundbreaking costs. Now the other issue is that people have (and this applies to any camera system) are personal preferences and if a camera doesn’t perform in a manner that one is used to (and this can be a variety of things from AF speed, to pushing the capability, to poor marketing of capabilities, to over promising features, to not having the menus they already know, etc.) then its human nature to withdraw from a camera that does things differently.I think we all fall into this category. I think a lot of people “poo poo-ed” on innovations like Eye AF when it was released about 6 years ago. Now every new mirrorless user of Nikon or Canon is singing the praises of how “revolutionary” it is... and it is... but people have been saying that for many years now.

Canon RF system is the one that I believed form the get go would most challenge Sony. They have mindshare. They have lenses. They now have a body that’s suited for photography and pushed the boundaries for video... but I think Canon is playing 4D chess with all of us in order to move more Cinema EOS cameras when all these video people figure out that the R5 isn’t a suitable substitute for high end video work... and it doesn’t have to be but it goes back to marketing and expectation management. They grabbed the headlines with the video specs and out out a presser on the limitations and in the real world it seems to be worse than what people expected. It’s even overheating when being output to an Atomos recorder albeit it takes much longer to do that way. I think it’s a great photography camera that is fine for limited video clips. I think people are likely still better off going the Cinema EOS route if they’re serious about their video... or get a RED Komodo if the idea is to stay in RF mount... also it’s apparently easier to edit 12K BRAW from the new Blackmagic Design camera than it is Canon 4K HQ or 8K All-I... so the codec need a lot of transcoding on a powerful computer even.

I think this is where some just throw their hands up because for year people have spoken about camera systems like sports teams and I get how brand pride can be a thing. I think I’ve mostly come from a place where I celebrate the companies moving the bar forward because I do want a healthier industry... but I have mixed feelings on companies that don’t innovate. On the human side, I don’t want the people that work at these places to suffer but on the business side if a company is resistant to innovation, changing markets, and ways ahead I think it’s inevitable that they’ll fold as a company. Personally I’m also hesitant to root against disruptor companies. I think if there was no Sony, we would still be getting the next iterations of whatever DSLR was out there from Canon and Nikon. I don’t think there would be a Z or a RF anything without Sony because Fuji wouldn’t be cutting deep enough into their sales and L-Mount is a pretty high end system in costs to where the average user can’t afford to invest in it really without compromises.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I’m glad the Z is working for you. I truly am. I know you bounced thoughts of what system to adopt in your head for what seemed like years and deep down I believe you always wanted to make the Z system work for you no matter what. Nothing wrong with that but it’s just an observation. Ultimately I’ve accepted every system has flaws and it’s why I currently own two different ones. The one that works for nearly everything and the one that I want to use (that ironically also works for nearly everything). A few comments though.

The Sony lens mount isn’t too small. It’s in fact larger than both the Leica M and Nikon F mount. The theoretical optical limits of the mount is more or less on par or exceeds both the L and RF mount due to the size and distance of the mount. Now whether it’s harder to create great wide angle lenses... one could argue but I don’t know of anyone that’s complained about the 24/1.4 GM in performance. I don’t know many clients that have been unhappy with results that are the fault of any camera. Not getting along with the Sony menu system is overblown IMO. If you use any camera and own if for some time it becomes second nature. I generally don’t bring up things like that because eventually they become moot with usage. The same way that the Canon system isn’t second nature to me any longer since I haven’t owned one of their cameras in 12 years. The Nikon menus might as well be Greek because I never owned one... Olympus was all over the place for me the brief time I had one but I will say any system that I owned I could figure it out in time just like I did with the Lumix S menu.

L-Mount DFD performance isn’t anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be and I’d argue that for photography it’s the second best performing AF system after Sony (though I reserve the right to alter that comment after I get my hands on an R5/R6). The place it can falter is in continuous AF on a gimbal with fast lenses being used to shoot wide open. That’s one of the few actual “flaws” of the camera systems IMO. I think this is compounded by a few reasons. First is how many people have unrealistic expectations for adapting their old lenses instead of buying native lenses. Simply put a lot of people buy into systems that they can’t truly afford to own... and I’m not saying that from an elitist viewpoint but rather a place where people believe if they have enough for a body and one memory card then they’re good to go. Said person then goes on the internet and bad mouths a camera without ever assuming their setup and expectation management is the largest problem. Performance just isn’t going to be an issue now for most types of shooters. You’re even seeing people doing wildlife on a more consistent basis now that the Sigma 100-400 is out. I can understand the size not being to everyone’s liking and there are some smaller bodies being rumored to come soon. As the technology improves I could honestly see a time in the future where I become just an L-Mount shooter in all honesty. I really like the lenses and the bodies for me. I think if they continue to add lucrative members (I hear Tamron and Voigtlander are rumored future partners) then that could help to serve the customers on the lower end of the price spectrum with cheaper bodies coming.

The Nikon Z is fine. I think my personal reaction to the system is and was based on my personal viewpoints surrounded by the absolute poor marketing of the system, Nikon’s comments against mirrorless for years, and the actual objective performance of the camera. When the camera was released it was a much better body that the EOS R. Canon improved the EOS R through firmware to surpass the Nikon... and they had more interesting lenses. Sony didn’t have to do much of anything and everything is still being measured against the A7III years later. I think the S lenses are capable but not groundbreaking IMO... but I personally don’t think anyone is doing groundbreaking in lens designs beside Canon and Leica honestly. There are some excellent optical options that are stellar from most everyone from Sony, Canon, Nikon, Sigma, Tamron, Leica, Panasonic, etc. but groundbreaking costs. Now the other issue is that people have (and this applies to any camera system) are personal preferences and if a camera doesn’t perform in a manner that one is used to (and this can be a variety of things from AF speed, to pushing the capability, to poor marketing of capabilities, to over promising features, to not having the menus they already know, etc.) then its human nature to withdraw from a camera that does things differently.I think we all fall into this category. I think a lot of people “poo poo-ed” on innovations like Eye AF when it was released about 6 years ago. Now every new mirrorless user of Nikon or Canon is singing the praises of how “revolutionary” it is... and it is... but people have been saying that for many years now.

Canon RF system is the one that I believed form the get go would most challenge Sony. They have mindshare. They have lenses. They now have a body that’s suited for photography and pushed the boundaries for video... but I think Canon is playing 4D chess with all of us in order to move more Cinema EOS cameras when all these video people figure out that the R5 isn’t a suitable substitute for high end video work... and it doesn’t have to be but it goes back to marketing and expectation management. They grabbed the headlines with the video specs and out out a presser on the limitations and in the real world it seems to be worse than what people expected. It’s even overheating when being output to an Atomos recorder albeit it takes much longer to do that way. I think it’s a great photography camera that is fine for limited video clips. I think people are likely still better off going the Cinema EOS route if they’re serious about their video... or get a RED Komodo if the idea is to stay in RF mount... also it’s apparently easier to edit 12K BRAW from the new Blackmagic Design camera than it is Canon 4K HQ or 8K All-I... so the codec need a lot of transcoding on a powerful computer even.

I think this is where some just throw their hands up because for year people have spoken about camera systems like sports teams and I get how brand pride can be a thing. I think I’ve mostly come from a place where I celebrate the companies moving the bar forward because I do want a healthier industry... but I have mixed feelings on companies that don’t innovate. On the human side, I don’t want the people that work at these places to suffer but on the business side if a company is resistant to innovation, changing markets, and ways ahead I think it’s inevitable that they’ll fold as a company. Personally I’m also hesitant to root against disruptor companies. I think if there was no Sony, we would still be getting the next iterations of whatever DSLR was out there from Canon and Nikon. I don’t think there would be a Z or a RF anything without Sony because Fuji wouldn’t be cutting deep enough into their sales and L-Mount is a pretty high end system in costs to where the average user can’t afford to invest in it really without compromises.
WOW, this was a really long and actually very profound answer. And in short I have to say that I agree 98 or so percent with you!

Having said that - I applaud Sony for having forced Nikon and Canon to move their *** and come out with Z and RF and especially greatly improver their AF systems. I was of course also on the fence for the RF system and I finally decided for Nikon Z because they had a great discount on the Z7 and the 2.8/24-70 Z finally - buying a similar (R5 with 2.8/24-70 RF) would have cost me around 40% more and that was not worth it for me. I also considered that I had owned Canon several times in the past (including the 5D2 - which BTW I did not like too much) and always came back to Nikon. So my way of thinking (decision) was that in the end - at least for me - always Nikon had nailed it better and thus I finally decided to go the Nikon path.

I am very confident this was the right decision FOR ME and will stay the right decision ..... I am already SO HAPPY with what the Z7 with the 2.8/24-70 delivers IQ wise, DR wise, speed wise, AF wise etc. that if there are better systems out I do not mind - because I do not need this and prefer to stay in the Nikon Z ecosystem with all its potential and with all the user interface things I grew to love throughout the past 30 years.

This is maybe also the main reason I did not give a sh... on Sony FE mount and say the A7R4 OR THE A9II because the ergonomics of that system did not appeal to me. I tried to love it many times over the past years and had several trials - the last and most important one with the A7R4 and several native FE lenses from a close friend of mine and it did not ring the bells with me I needed. That all should say - SONY IS A GREAT SYSTEM BUT NOT FOR ME!

WRT Panasonic I am hoping that they either will improve their DFD technology or finally combine it with PDAF and then a lot of issue might really get out of the way. But so far this did not happen, so that system simply was ruled out for me.

Anyway many thanks for this great and open discussions :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
I'm glad you like the Z series ergonomics but that's indeed very personal. I've never held a Nikon in my hands that feels good, DSLR or Z-series just "don't fit" me but that's also personal. I'm glad there are enough choices that everybody can choose something that works for them. Due to COVID I haven't held a R5 yet but I'm looking forward trying it out when the time comes.

Why are you raising FUD on the size of the E-mount and just parrot what the Sony haters keep spreading on the internet? I've seen no proof of that being a problem and there's several 3rd party ~f1.0 lenses that work very well with the system. So as far as I can see the E-mount is plenty large enough for Full Frame.
I am not raising FUD on the size of the E-mount but it is a fact that the FE mount was originally the E mount and then migrated by Sony into the FE mount as they based on whatever decisions and marketing background decided to go the easy way and not introduce a new FF mount for their FF mirrorless.

That FE works meanwhile nicely for FF as well (with obviously some more optical tricks or not so straightforward optical design) is great and the results show that it works. And if the size of the FE mount would have been the only concern I had about Sony FF mirrorless I would definitely have chosen the Sony path. But there were so many other issues I found for me with the FE mirrorless system ( which I do not want to list again and again here) that I finally choose between RF and Z. And Z won for me and this is what I am really happy about.

PLEASE DO UNDERSTAND that I am the last one who wants to make the very successful FE mount from SONY bad or something like that - overall it did not work out for me and even if today Sony may be leading in things like AF we all know this can change within a very short time down the road. And BTW - the Z7 AF is overall so satisfying to me already that I do not even look for the differences.

So please enjoy your Sony etc. and rest assured I find that you made the right decision for you!
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
WOW, this was a really long and actually very profound answer. And in short I have to say that I agree 98 or so percent with you!

Having said that - I applaud Sony for having forced Nikon and Canon to move their *** and come out with Z and RF and especially greatly improver their AF systems. I was of course also on the fence for the RF system and I finally decided for Nikon Z because they had a great discount on the Z7 and the 2.8/24-70 Z finally - buying a similar (R5 with 2.8/24-70 RF) would have cost me around 40% more and that was not worth it for me. I also considered that I had owned Canon several times in the past (including the 5D2 - which BTW I did not like too much) and always came back to Nikon. So my way of thinking (decision) was that in the end - at least for me - always Nikon had nailed it better and thus I finally decided to go the Nikon path.

I am very confident this was the right decision FOR ME and will stay the right decision ..... I am already SO HAPPY with what the Z7 with the 2.8/24-70 delivers IQ wise, DR wise, speed wise, AF wise etc. that if there are better systems out I do not mind - because I do not need this and prefer to stay in the Nikon Z ecosystem with all its potential and with all the user interface things I grew to love throughout the past 30 years.

This is maybe also the main reason I did not give a sh... on Sony FE mount and say the A7R4 OR THE A9II because the ergonomics of that system did not appeal to me. I tried to love it many times over the past years and had several trials - the last and most important one with the A7R4 and several native FE lenses from a close friend of mine and it did not ring the bells with me I needed. That all should say - SONY IS A GREAT SYSTEM BUT NOT FOR ME!

WRT Panasonic I am hoping that they either will improve their DFD technology or finally combine it with PDAF and then a lot of issue might really get out of the way. But so far this did not happen, so that system simply was ruled out for me.

Anyway many thanks for this great and open discussions :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
Yes, it was a long post but I wanted to be clear about my thoughts and my overall perspective. I agree with what you said and that’s how I felt you were always wanting to lean once the native lens ecosystem further fleshed its way out in Nikon Z... nothing wrong with any of that IMO. I think the most important thing to note in choosing any system camera is if it works for your current workflow OR if a change in how you work in to your existing workflow will actually make you more efficient. This is where something like Eye AF was a huge deal when deal with an old workflow of focus/recompose and micro adjust if needed. With Eye AF... it just worked and if the focus accuracy was there you can just actually get to a place where you can trust the camera. This was the mental block for me with Sony at first because I didn’t trust any camera’s AF short of going to a CaNikon top of the line sports body. Also with the FE/E mount it’s important to note that Sony has a unified mount for photo and video... I think that’s a huge part of their AP news they announced last week to be the official camera company of AP.

I kinda bought into the L-Mount system the same way you feel into the Z system. I found a deal on a still sealed “NIB demo unit” on a deal too good to pass up on a camera i was eyeballing in Black Friday. I was bummed because I missed another deal about a month prior that was in store only but my deal actually turned out to be a even better one where I got the S1R+24-105/4 kit for ~$2400 shipped. It takes a lot for me to upgrade and they usually aren’t done passively. I got the Sony FE kit to augment my M kit at the time but found that I used it more and in some ways I liked it better... but I still miss having a M sometimes to be honest. Just couldn’t justify keeping both at the time.

I will say again... I don’t know that DFD is inherently the problem and I don’t know that PDAF is inherently the answer. There’s so much other work that can happen to improve the process. I still believe we will get to a point where it won’t matter what AF system a camera uses. The data will be processed quickly enough, the image sensor will readout out quickly enough, and the “secret sauce” numbers behind the process will be refined far enough that no one will actually be able to tell the difference between a hybrid CDAF/PDAF based system like Sony or Canon uses and the DFD that L-Mount uses in time. I truly do believe that... and I also feel that there will be real differences beneficial to people like me that value color fidelity retention at high ISO and minimal image degradation from the lack of OSPDAF sensors when those benefits occur IMO. We aren’t completely there yet (and this mostly affects the video side in my testing) but I don’t think we are far away at all. There is enough improvement in the Lumix S cameras over the Micro 4/3 ones that many independent reviewers have noticed it. More importantly the AF accuracy can actually provide performance that the spec sheet advertises... and there’s something to be said for that. They advertise 6fps in continuous AF and that’s about what they’re accurately providing. I really hate feeling like I have to defend the DFD system because so many have bad mouthed it and it’s taken as “proof” even when there’s video evidence of it outperforming most PDAF systems in both speed and accuracy. It’s not perfect by any means but it’s far from unusable and I’d argue that it’s perhaps the most usable camera system for photography IMO after Sony from what I’ve tested. I agree the size is comparable to a pro DSLR and thus isn’t the smallest but it’s built extremely well.

Now I will say with most modern mirrorless systems, they’ve democratized excellent optics, very good to nearly perfect AF, reasonable affordability (even moreso if you’re open to cropped sensors), and expanding feature sets for photo and video. Really the biggest shortcoming is the human behind the camera and their ability to be creative and adapt to unforeseen opportunity. In a way it’s a great thing because it removes the question of if the gear is good enough. In a bad way it doesn’t make one want to jump on every body... for instance my newest Sony body is about 5 years old now and I’m not in a rush to replace it. It works just fine and doesn’t have any serious flaws other than not utilizing dual card slots or the updated battery if that were a huge concern. I don’t feel like the Panasonic S1R is missing anything at all for photography and I’ve really considered adding an S1H depending on what all Sony releases over the next 12 months. I’ve recorded multiple videos with the S1R as well... the AF using the 24-105/4 is perfectly acceptable for being stuck on a tripod to do talking head or to sit on a table mount to do a vlog... and this gets to a point where users get beat out of shape more than the clients over technical details. If we got to most any art museum I’m sure there are photographers that would rake some of those photos over the coals if we posted online some of the photos that hang there.

...but I don’t wanna keep talking about non-Canon cameras here. There’s other areas to discuss these great systems. They’re all great and far more than what most of us need to create. That’s important to note. Medium Format users can always hold IQ over the 35mm sized systems. 35mm users can always hold speed and balance over medium format users. Cropped sensors will always be the value to performance leaders plus they have an even larger size advantage for those that need compact size with excellent IQ. Phone cameras are always with us... point is everything has a counter and I think we can all just enjoy the options we have while we have them. I’d hate to see more companies need to consolidate but I wouldn’t be surprise to see even more companies have to do that if they aren’t the larger companies like Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Fujifilm, or the self sustaining companies like Leica, Sigma, Tamron, Cosina, etc. O don’t think digital medium format will go away but I can see a world where one of the major players buys a Hasselblad or Phase One and introduces them as a mirrorless system with some special edition legacy backs from time to time.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
PLEASE DO UNDERSTAND that I am the last one who wants to make the very successful FE mount from SONY bad or something like that
Then that's quite contradictory to this:

And especially basing a FF system on their FE mount that is in best case suited for APSC was always turning me down.
PLEASE DO UNDERSTAND that I have no problem that Sony didn't work for you since I know how personal these things are (I have had Nikons and Canons that didn't work out for me), but PLEASE DO UNDERSTAND that the E mount is perfectly suitable for Full Frame and people claiming the contrary have so far failed to come up with evidence supporting these claims and are therefore either repeating wrong claims from others and/or spreading FUD. I've never heard the same thing about the Leica M-mount that is even smaller.

So even though this thread is about the Canon R5 (that I haven't had in my hands yet) I don't like the off-hand wrong representation of facts which is why I jumped in.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Then that's quite contradictory to this:



PLEASE DO UNDERSTAND that I have no problem that Sony didn't work for you since I know how personal these things are (I have had Nikons and Canons that didn't work out for me), but PLEASE DO UNDERSTAND that the E mount is perfectly suitable for Full Frame and people claiming the contrary have so far failed to come up with evidence supporting these claims and are therefore either repeating wrong claims from others and/or spreading FUD. I've never heard the same thing about the Leica M-mount that is even smaller.

So even though this thread is about the Canon R5 (that I haven't had in my hands yet) I don't like the off-hand wrong representation of facts which is why I jumped in.
Absolutely your right to argue about these facts - but it does not change anything about the physics of the mount and how much freedom you get to design great glass with great IQ and maybe less effort if you have mounts like Z or RF compared to FE.

I think everybody is aware about the issues of the Leica M mount which was designed for film around 60 years ago and only since 10 years Leica found a way to use digital sensors inside a digital M and make the M mount finally digital. It has all to do with the need/lack of tele centric lens design for achieving superior quality and/or the need to use special micro lens design at the corners of the M sensors in combination with pretty thin glass layers in front of the sensor.

BTW my M lenses (even WA) work almost perfect on my Z7 with a standard M to Z adapter, while this cannot be said for using M lenses on the FE mount - another criteria for me to not go Sony FE.

But I do not want to get further into boring comparisons and argumentations - from a technical point of view Nikon Z and Canon RF deliver a far superior platform for the design of exceptional lenses compared to smaller mount diameters and larger flange distances. This is simply a given and not debatable. If it really finally matters WRT IQ etc. remains to be determined by the end users who decides to buy into one of these mounts.

For me at least these differences (and upcoming possibilities) mattered and hence there remained 2 systems/mounts - Z and RF - and I finally happened to chose Z because of ability to get a good price for the overall package - it is/was as easy :cool::D:cool:
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Absolutely your right to argue about these facts - but it does not change anything about the physics of the mount and how much freedom you get to design great glass with great IQ and maybe less effort if you have mounts like Z or RF compared to FE.

I think everybody is aware about the issues of the Leica M mount which was designed for film around 60 years ago and only since 10 years Leica found a way to use digital sensors inside a digital M and make the M mount finally digital. It has all to do with the need/lack of tele centric lens design for achieving superior quality and/or the need to use special micro lens design at the corners of the M sensors in combination with pretty thin glass layers in front of the sensor.

BTW my M lenses (even WA) work almost perfect on my Z7 with a standard M to Z adapter, while this cannot be said for using M lenses on the FE mount - another criteria for me to not go Sony FE.
If you look at the performance (and size) of a several short/bright/WA lenses I don't think Sony has any problems designing great lenses for the E-mount without too many compromises in IQ or size/weight, so while I agree theoretically that a larger mount provides more flexibility apparently it isn't needed for great lens designs. So then in my opinion the only thing left for the larger mounts is bragging rights.

The issues with the M-lenses on the digital M sensor has imho very little (or nothing) to do with the mount size, but the steep angle at which the light rays hit the corners of the sensor. I think creating different lenses that have less of an angle at the short registration distances doesn't necessarily need a bigger mount.
The fact your M lenses work well on a Z7 proves that point, a modern sensor with a thin cover stack is all that is needed, the larger Z-mount mount doesn't help because the M-mount on the lens side of the adapter is still the same size.

It's indeed a pity Sony has such a thick sensor stack and that older rangefinder WA's don't work too well, but now that Voigtländer corrected the lens design for this thicker stack the manual WA options in native E-mount are pretty good. And as soon as the focal length increases (50, 90, 135) there is no problem with my M-lenses. Only my 35 mm (the shortest M lens I have) is not very good in the corners. So I think for adapting M-lenses the Z advantage is not mount size but sensor design.

I'm looking forward to the time when the R5 is taken through its paces and it can be tested with M-lenses, at the end of the day this thread is about the R5
 
Top