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

iiiNelson

Active 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.

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:
Regarding M-mount lenses on FE... It’s really a case by case basis. It comes back to expectation management and a lot of people have spent countless hours on modifications and workarounds if they intend to use the FE cameras exclusively with M-mount lenses. Focal length alone isn’t the lone determination and there are native alternatives now that offer in built correction and the ability to focus at a closer distance if you choose to get the Zeiss Loxia or Voigtlander variants of the lenses. Again this is a old argument that yes, non-native lenses can possibly come with undesirable side effects but the people that chose the SLR variants from say the Leica R didn’t deal with any of these issues. It was exclusive to SOME rangefinder lenses and mostly with the Leica branded aspherical lenses from my personal experience. Most of my Voigtlander and Zeiss M mount lenses worked flawlessly without issue but I eventually bought native alternatives that added functionality like AF and closer focusing once the system was built out. The Sony FE lenses were ahead of their time in many ways and sort of set the tone for modern mirrorless AF lenses that are great at BOTH photo and video usage. No one other than really Panasonic was developing native lenses that had both in mind and it showed. Adapting (IMO) is mostly a stop gap for me or a thing to do for a specific look to the imagery.

Now I will agree that the Nikon Z is a better platform for M lenses than the FE bodies in general but that has nothing to do with mount size alone. It’s likely a combination of the sensor stack, distance to sensor, mount size, etc. The SL/SL2 are far better cameras for adapting M lenses and it has a smaller mount than the Z or RF. It also includes software corrections. The M is the best platform to use M lenses and it has a mount smaller than all of the cameras mentioned.

I think everyone is talking in circles at this point though. I really only responded to clear much of the air. Everyone has different desires/needs and that pretty much sums it all up.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Folks,

stay calm, the R5 is a great camera and also are the RF lenses - this from meanwhile a Nikon Z shooter :thumbup:

Also the FE mount is a great mount and currently all the Sony cameras are still best when it comes to AF performance - at least for action and sports.

I still think that the Z mount offers the best potential for lens design and everything around that.

Best regards

Peter

PS: and YES any M camera is the best for M lenses and actually while they work reasonably great on the Z7 I still am missing the M RF experience. So one day I might get a M11 :cool:
 

iiiNelson

Active member
...and back to more RF related topics.

Cinema 5D R6 Impressions for Video:

https://www.cinema5d.com/canon-eos-r6-review-first-look-with-footage-serious-limitation-doubtful-video-tool/


Kinda unfortunate for prospective users but it Looks like Tilta is making a device in an attempt to mitigate some of the overheating issues with the R5... Hopefully it can work on the R6 as well.

https://www.cinema5d.com/tilta-eos-r5-cooling-kit-fan-accessory-combat-canon-r5-overheating/

...and sort of related to RF but in a RED Camera.

https://www.cinema5d.com/red-komodo-rf-mount-lenses-supported/
 

iiiNelson

Active member
Is the R6 effected by this?
Yes, they both are apparently. The Cinema5D test was with a R6. I can’t say that I’m surprised and it doesn’t take away from the fact that they are both excellent photography options. My belief has always been that if you’re a video heavy user - a video/cinema camera is almost always going to be a better option and there are great ones in these price ranges from the Cinema EOS line, Blackmagic Design, ZCam, and even some older XDCams... IF one insists on a photographic camera form factor the Panasonic GH or S1H cameras are great options as well when paired with an Atomos recorder to get all of the performance from them... but I’d seriously give the ZCam E2 S6 a look specifically if video is the focus and having autofocus doesn’t matter too much. It goes for $2500 for the body, it’s a Super 35 sensor (they have a FF sensor in the F6) but some of the video footage that I’ve seen from it is some of the best this side of $10K IMO. It has a comparable image quality to (dare I say it) an ARRI IMO.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
Too bad - the overheating issue. :banghead:
It is but honestly I expected it. I was talking to an acquaintance about it a few months ago and I flat told him that if they don’t go to a S1H style body they’re going to have a 5-10 recording limit on the 8K video. Now I didn’t expect the 4K HQ to have the 25 min limit or the normal 4K to have a 35 minute limit but I wonder if they can alleviate the issues with some power management magic and some lighter codecs that are less processing intensive to output... otherwise I’d worry a bit about the prolonged lifespan for the cameras personally. Heat is probable the second biggest enemy to electronics after water but slightly before electrical surges... generally speaking.

It’s still a technical accomplishment even if the implementation isn’t perfected. I think Canon is likely going to experience a bit of pushback initially and there will likely be a lot of great deals to be had on cameras for both the buyers and the sellers. There’s a good reason that I live with cameras for awhile and am slow to jump on any new ship without a lot of consternation.
 
Last edited:

SrMphoto

Member
To me, R5 looks like a very interesting camera.
Bill Claff published measurements on his site. The graph looks good, but apparently Canon applies noise reduction to its raw files. Quote from Bill:
"Based on my experience with quite a few cameras I estimate the NR gives ISO 100 and ISO 400 about 2/3 stop improvement in Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR)."

It is unclear if Canon's NR deteriorates the image.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
Last edited:

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I maintain that people are better off with Cinema cameras if video is the priority.
But people want to make that choice themselves, not being forced in that direction because Canon, intentionally or unintentionally limits the capabilities of their hybrid cameras. The competition is hard, and Sony and Panasonic in particular have shown what is possible to achieve, partly by choosing a more conservative route and partly by doing their homework. The A7s I/II/II, the GH5s and the S1H are great examples of how to make great tools for professionals and enthusiasts alike, while at the same time establishing a solid statement that can be used as a valuable marketing tool.

With the size and weight of the hi-end RF lenses, it's difficult to understand why it was important to make the R5 particularly small, given the well known heat challenges. Whatever way one sees this, the R5 is a hi-end camera targeted towards users with a high level of technical knowledge. This is going to hurt Canon, which is very unfortunate.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
But people want to make that choice themselves, not being forced in that direction because Canon, intentionally or unintentionally limits the capabilities of their hybrid cameras. The competition is hard, and Sony and Panasonic in particular have shown what is possible to achieve, partly by choosing a more conservative route and partly by doing their homework. The A7s I/II/II, the GH5s and the S1H are great examples of how to make great tools for professionals and enthusiasts alike, while at the same time establishing a solid statement that can be used as a valuable marketing tool.

With the size and weight of the hi-end RF lenses, it's difficult to understand why it was important to make the R5 particularly small, given the well known heat challenges. Whatever way one sees this, the R5 is a hi-end camera targeted towards users with a high level of technical knowledge. This is going to hurt Canon, which is very unfortunate.
I guess I wasn't clear.

I'm not saying this JUST in reference to Canon. I'm saying for ALL hybrid cameras, if video is the priority then a Cinema/ENG camera is the right tool for the job. I think hybrids are fine and maybe all most of us need. The reality is that they're all compromises in one way or another when it comes to video due to the reality that they're all photographic cameras.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
The reality is that they're all compromises in one way or another when it comes to video due to the reality that they're all photographic cameras.
I guess the point is that there's no solid reason to further compromise the compromise by intentional bad heat management and artificial firmware limits.
 
Top