Canon 9th July "Reimagine" event for EOS R5 and R6 unveiling

[icarrere]

12 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Which "valid" people have I ever banned. Name one.

"His" information isn't his. That's the thing you numpty.

Trying to fool us into thinking he's some sort of oracle when actually he is all cut & paste.... Not cool is it.

The last one I know

https://www.eoshd.com/comments/profile/42487-julien416/

[Video Hummus]

3 hours ago, Trek of Joy said:

But a hand holdable 800mm lens, amazing.

Olympus has had it for years. No body cared.

48MP is for sure nice, but so is 20MP on the 1DXIII and 24MP on the A9. Good enough for sports illustrated covers and National Geographic front page magazine prints.

[Andrew Reid]

Crop sensors take some beating for telephoto shooting.

Much smaller optics, and yet still easily enough good resolution.

I recently compared my Nikon P1000 (with very much a crop sensor!) to a 300mm F4 on a 60MP full frame camera (A7R IV) and it still outresolves this beast in terms of zoom reach (a shot of the moon).

Full frame is wrong tool for the job for extreme telephoto work.

200, 300mm... fine. Even 400mm!

But 800mm you may as well use M43 or APS-C and sharper, smaller lenses.

[Video Hummus]

22 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Full frame is wrong tool for the job for extreme telephoto work.

Which begs the question why is canon now releasing small maximum aperture super telephotos? Doesn’t the market demand that new RF 800mm be a f4 or f5.6 to get that bokeh and FF lowlight ability? Suddenly f11 is “fine”, lowlight performance will be “good enough”.

I’m Just tired of this format double standard double speak bullshit. Including the fabulous “ability to hand hold a 600mm+ lens (OMG!) and get the shot without a tripod 🤯...shit MFT has been doing for years and was maligned almost maliciously for it? Because of a “smallish crop sensor”. Yet, the format seemingly had the right features to make it an excellent tool for the job...sounds like tunnel vision thinking to me.

Glad to see R6 has the R5 chunky body. Better chance for video performance features. Might be the camera to watch for   Canon video shooters.

My biggest problem with Canon is the expensive RF glass.

$2500 for R6 and $2300 to put a 15-35 f/2.8 on it...

Panasonic has the same problem with L-Mount.

[icarrere]

@Andrew Reid. about androidlad perhaps you're right 😞 , I did not read everything.

Anyway I hope this forum to be what it has to be, a place of knowledgement and pleasure

[kye]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

Sony A7H (A7S III successor) is rumoured to have 10K,

Do you mean 10K as in a sensor 10,000 pixels wide?  I'm not surprised by 8K video but that's crazy!  That would make it, what, 75MP??

48 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

But 800mm you may as well use M43 or APS-C and sharper, smaller lenses.

Or go cheap and use FF lenses..  I use an FD 70-210/4 with 2xTC on MFT to shoot my kids sports games.  Even the GH5 IBIS struggles with that - 840mm equivalent.  

Or here's the same optics on the Micro:

I haven't used this setup yet, but when the sun starts to come around where I can see it hit the horizon again, I might return to my sunset project and record some RAW video.  1209mm equivalent!!

At that focal length even the solid limestone wall I use as a tripod can't protect the image from people walking nearby.  The GH5 in action.

[mechanicalEYE]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

So yeah, another example of cutting and pasting, pretending it's his own 'inside info'.

Could be complete bullshit for all we know.

PS - on a lighter note, the GFX 100 with f/w 2.0 and 50mm F3.5 is reducing my will to buy the EOS R5 by a factor of a lot. Perfect AF, enormous epic look, and Fuji's colour science in 10bit is just... Cinema on a stick.

I search youtube, and vimeo routinely looking for GFX 100 footage, especially after 2.0. There's a few recent uploads posted by Fuji but I'm looking for non affiliate examples. 

[BTM_Pix]

On the face of it, that 800mm f11 lens is a weird move as its more akin to one of those £50 ebay jobs but it is weird enough to make me curious.

I still think f11 is going to be a drawback from a subject separation point of view though, even with it being 800mm.

I shot a lot of sport with the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 before it attempted to kill me at Le Mans and even at f5.6 the extra reach was often offset by the lack of separation.

Shutterdial lets you search Flickr based on exif so if you look at examples of 800mm shots at f11 on this link 

https://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=Any&f=800&a=15

And then compare them to shots at 800mm at f5.6 on this link

https://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=Any&f=800&a=11

You can see how, whilst its not impossible to get decent separation, you need to be a lot more careful with your backgrounds, which may not always be possible.

[ntblowz]

 

1 hour ago, Video Hummus said:

My biggest problem with Canon is the expensive RF glass.

$2500 for R6 and $2300 to put a 15-35 f/2.8 on it...

Panasonic has the same problem with L-Mount.

I use EF glass with the VND mount adapter, that is the way to go for video shooter, and much cheaper cost.

 

18 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

On the face of it, that 800mm f11 lens is a weird move as its more akin to one of those £50 ebay jobs but it is weird enough to make me curious.

You can see how, whilst its not impossible to get decent separation, you need to be a lot more careful with your backgrounds, which may not always be possible.

For telephoto the nikon 1 with 70-300mm is gonna be way lighter, so as MFT with those 100-400mm lens,  F11 lens is definitely make a lot of people get confused.

[Trek of Joy]

3 hours ago, Video Hummus said:

Which begs the question why is canon now releasing small maximum aperture super telephotos? Doesn’t the market demand that new RF 800mm be a f4 or f5.6 to get that bokeh and FF lowlight ability? Suddenly f11 is “fine”, lowlight performance will be “good enough”.

I’m Just tired of this format double standard double speak bullshit. Including the fabulous “ability to hand hold a 600mm+ lens (OMG!) and get the shot without a tripod 🤯...shit MFT has been doing for years and was maligned almost maliciously for it? Because of a “smallish crop sensor”. Yet, the format seemingly had the right features to make it an excellent tool for the job...sounds like tunnel vision thinking to me.

Glad to see R6 has the R5 chunky body. Better chance for video performance features. Might be the camera to watch for   Canon video shooters.

My biggest problem with Canon is the expensive RF glass.

$2500 for R6 and $2300 to put a 15-35 f/2.8 on it...

Panasonic has the same problem with L-Mount.

The shortcomings of m43 are the reason it gets less praise. You’re stuck with a couple mediocre sensors and shitty AF if you go Panasonic or mediocre video if you go Olympus, if that’s fine with you great, but they don’t work for me. Photos look no better than a RX100, too much noise and lacking in DR. Every time I see the 43rumors weekly roundup half the images look like phone shots. Those don’t work for what I get paid to do. I shoot FF for stills, to get the reach with with m43 I’d have to carry two kits. So yes this is a big deal. You get the best of both worlds, superior IQ and the reach, the difference between 40+mp and 20 is significant. And now it comes with crushing video specs that makes cine cams well over $10k look like a joke. If m43 works for you enjoy, It just doesn’t work for me. Cheers. 
 

chris

[mechanicalEYE]

R6 images. - Canonrumors.

 

 

[Vrzalík]

What kind of RAW files? I would like to see some nice small 12:1 compressed RAW files (something like BRAW or REDCODE RAW)! Canon, please make your own compressed RAW video files! I don´t want uncompressed 8K RAW video files! It´s going to be huge and impractical. The same for Sony A7s III!

[ntblowz]

11 minutes ago, Vrzalík said:

What kind of RAW files? I would like to see some nice small 12:1 compressed RAW files (something like BRAW or REDCODE RAW)! Canon, please make your own compressed RAW video files! I don´t want uncompressed 8K RAW video files! It´s going to be huge and impractical. The same for Sony A7s III!

most likely 1:5 as they used on c200/1dx3

 

Sony will never have internal compressed RAW as they lost the case against RED ages ago.

[Andrew Reid]

10 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

On the face of it, that 800mm f11 lens is a weird move as its more akin to one of those £50 ebay jobs but it is weird enough to make me curious.

I still think f11 is going to be a drawback from a subject separation point of view though, even with it being 800mm.

I shot a lot of sport with the Sigma 300-800mm f5.6 before it attempted to kill me at Le Mans and even at f5.6 the extra reach was often offset by the lack of separation.

Shutterdial lets you search Flickr based on exif so if you look at examples of 800mm shots at f11 on this link 

https://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=Any&f=800&a=15

And then compare them to shots at 800mm at f5.6 on this link

https://www.shutterdial.com/#/search?s=Any&f=800&a=11

You can see how, whilst its not impossible to get decent separation, you need to be a lot more careful with your backgrounds, which may not always be possible.

I am wondering if sticking a teleconverter on a Sigma 100-400mm C or 150-600mm would be less weird than the Canon 800mm F11.

That 600mm F6.3 end would turn into a 900mm F9.45 (with 1.5x tele).

44 minutes ago, Vrzalík said:

What kind of RAW files? I would like to see some nice small 12:1 compressed RAW files (something like BRAW or REDCODE RAW)! Canon, please make your own compressed RAW video files! I don´t want uncompressed 8K RAW video files! It´s going to be huge and impractical. The same for Sony A7s III!

Canon RAW is compressed but not by very much.

I hear the bitrate in 8K is 3500Mbit/s!

[Video Hummus]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I hear the bitrate in 8K is 3500Mbit/s!

Based on that FB post it had 22 minutes remaining. If we take it at face value that the card was blank we get a 3250Mbit/s number. So sounds about right. That’s over 400MB/s. That’s minimum RAID 0 with fast hard drivers or a fast SSD. You are also looking at 20+ GB/minute of footage. The 8K image quality better be worth it. I suspect the All-I and IPB to have high bitrates as well. Probably 1,500Mbps and 800Mbps roughly.

[Andrew Reid]

20GB per minute.

1.2TB per hour!

Multiplied by how many hours you shoot a year.

You are going to have to delete all the 8K RAW files after a week.

This is why I am probably going to get R6 instead.

But nobody should buy either until they have seen what Sony is coming out with.

I do like the idea of 4K/120p on the R5, but 8K RAW will likely have almost an unusable rolling shutter as well.

So, I don't need 8K.... but 4K/120p - yes please.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, Andrew Reid said:

I am wondering if sticking a teleconverter on a Sigma 100-400mm C or 150-600mm would be less weird than the Canon 800mm F11.

That 600mm F6.3 end would turn into a 900mm F9.45 (with 1.5x tele).

What these have on their side is that they look really compact, or at least can travel compact due to the push/pull design.

If they are really cheap then they might be worth a look but I think they'd have to be sub £400 cheap, which I doubt they will be.

Intriguing though as I can't imagine Canon putting these out unless it could perform so they could be surprisingly good.

Or more likely surprisingly adequate.

[David Bowgett]

I can certainly see the appeal of using these smaller lenses over their ungodly huge (albeit much faster) EF counterparts; still, it does make me wonder whether Canon intend on bringing out faster RF 600mm and 800mm lenses in the near future, or if they figure people who really need faster lenses will just adapt the EF versions.

[kye]

2 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Or more likely surprisingly adequate.

How big is the market for "I want a long zoom for my wildlife holidays but if it doesn't fit in my carry-on with my laptop then it's an absolute deal-breaker" market?

I'd imagine it's probably greater than zero, but I'm not really sure by how much.

I got into MFT before I really had a use-case for a really long zoom, but that's definitely a weak-point of FF, as I am very interested in optimising equipment but have hard limits on what I can afford/pack/carry.  Having said that though, a 100-300 with a 2xTC would certainly cover you for most situations, and if you needed longer than that I'd be inclined to crop into the image, or at least turn on a crop mode.

There's a limit to how long a lens you can use if the subject is moving because they move out of frame and you can't find them again.  Assuming they move, leopards sitting in trees or big animals resting are a different story though.

[Anaconda_]

12 minutes ago, kye said:

How big is the market for "I want a long zoom for my wildlife holidays but if it doesn't fit in my carry-on with my laptop then it's an absolute deal-breaker" market?

If you fit into this market, chances are you're better off buying something like the Nikon P950, which has a built in  24–2000 mm F2.8–6.5 (35mm equiv). Just don't look into things like the 1/2inch sensor...