Canon R5 released

[BernardLanguillier]

What are the constraints of the mount?

As far as I know the only accepted limitation is that the Sony mount is limited to something like f0.6 which isn't going to happen on any of these systems anyway. (I have two f1.2 lenses which is the widest aperture I'm going to want and they both work fine on my Sony A7.) There may also be a limitation on the amount of sensor movement for IS purposes but other than these two things (and IMO the maximum aperture limitation is completely irrelevant) what are the suspected constraints of the Sony mount?

Those that have prevented Sony from releasing a competitive zoom lens so far?

Those causing Sony from not releasing f1.2 primes?

But how about keeping this thread focused on the Canon R5?

As far as I am concerned I love a lot of things about my a9II. I am not interested in another passionate brand discussion.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

Those that have prevented Sony from releasing a competitive zoom lens so far?

These are all manufacturer constraints, not mount constraints. Regardless:

100-400 - best in class at the moment (better than Canon's in the corners, although it's a newer lens and hard to compare, while Nikon's 80-400 is way behind). I hope Canon has beaten this lens with their newest 100-500, though - it depends if the 100-500 can make f/5.6 at 400mm (with 500/7.1 being a bonus), as well as how sharp it is. There's a rumoured Canon 100-400 coming up later, but it doesn't appear to be an L lens.

200-600 - again, no-one else has anything competitive within the same class. They're either budget options with limited performance, or super-expensive. Sigma's 150-600 Sport is probably the closest comparison. The 200-600 actually holds up very well even to the Canon 200-400, except it's a stop and a third slower - weaker in the corners, but the centre holds up well, and the corners of almost any shot taken with this kind of lens will be out of focus anyway.

12-24/2.8 - just announced, samples out, seems to kick the crap out of every other <16mm UWA (zoom or prime) out there, from the limited samples available so far.

12-24/4 - matches the Canon 11-24 at half the weight and 60% of the price. Beats the other 12-24 options out there. The Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN is great, but doesn't reach 12mm. Nikon's 14-24 design is getting really old and is overdue for replacement.

It's just the 70-200 (second GM zoom released) , as well as the 24-70 (first GM lens ever released) that give them a bad name. To be fair, those early GM lenses (including the 85/1.4) were designed with smooth bokeh as the selling point, not sharpness - when the emphasis was changed to resolution, the lens lineup improved in a big way. And the terrible copy-to-copy variation that can lead to one lens seeming prime-sharp and the next looking like something out of 2005 - my 24-70 is very sharp, but took 4 bad copies to get to.

Those causing Sony from not releasing f1.2 primes?

Completely a manufacturer decision, not a mount limitation.

Sigma and other f/1.2 lenses adapt and work perfectly, with no more vignetting or edge clipping than on their native mounts. Even f/0.95 primes do. The designed-for-E-mount Sigma 35/1.2 is also one of the best 35mm lenses out there.

That Sony has restricted themselves to f/1.4 so far (rumoured to be changing later this year) is entirely a design and manufacturer capability decision, not one dictated by the mount.

The mount size 'constraint' theory has been pushed by Nikon ever since the size of the Z mount was announced. Oddly, it didn't seem to be a problem when F-mount SLRs were top-tier.

Any lens fast enough that it would be possible on a Z mount and not possible on E mount would be so big it would be impractical anyway.

In any case, I'm still waiting for a performance review on the R5. In terms of positioning, it seems to be a mirrorless 5D - an amalgamation of the 5D and 5Ds lines. But, capability-wise, is it an A7r3, A7r4 or A9r?

[BernardLanguillier]

The mount size 'constraint' theory has been pushed by Nikon ever since the size of the Z mount was announced. Oddly, it didn't seem to be a problem when F-mount SLRs were top-tier.

Not factual.

There were many comments from Nikon stakeholders throughout the years blaming the size of the mount for their inability to release AF lenses faster than f1.4.

Such constraints do exist and they impact how easy it is to design lenses. Yes, it’s possible to design around constraints but there is always a cost. Be it financial, size, some image quality characteristics,...

I have integrated this fact in my assessment of what I can expect from Sony and I use the system with that in my mind.

When comparing Z lenses to FE ones the quality of Z glass is overall quite clearly superior. Yes there are exceptions such as the 20mm f1.8 where it’s a draw optically with the Sony being more compact so the Sony is overall the better lens. This shows that it’s of course possible not to come up with a great design on the Z mount also for lenses that are not near the edge of the design envelope of the mount.

You are right that there are some very good zooms for FE mount, my statement should have been more balanced but I didn’t have time to write more. I had in mind the 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8 mostly.

You have demonstrated time and again your inability to cast an objective look at Sony. Everything they do is great, there is nothing better.

I don’t care, you are the one closing doors for yourself by ruling out the possibility that there may be better options in whole or in part.

My objective assessment as a user of both Sony and Nikon is that Sony is clearly ahead today only with the a9II thanks to its better eye AF and faster read out sensor. For the rest Nikon and Canon are IMHO at the same level or better, in particular regarding lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hogloff]

Those that have prevented Sony from releasing a competitive zoom lens so far?

Those causing Sony from not releasing f1.2 primes?

But how about keeping this thread focused on the Canon R5?

As far as I am concerned I love a lot of things about my a9II. I am not interested in another passionate brand discussion.

Cheers,
Bernard

Zooms: the Sony 12-24 f2.8 is class leading.

1.2 primes: The Sigma 35 1.2 is an amazing lens.

Don't understand why you would think the Sony mount limits developing class leading lenses.

[shadowblade]

You have demonstrated time and again your inability to cast an objective look at Sony. Everything they do is great, there is nothing better.

I don’t care, you are the one closing doors for yourself by ruling out the possibility that there may be better options in whole or in part.

My objective assessment as a user of both Sony and Nikon is that Sony is clearly ahead today only with the a9II thanks to its better eye AF and faster read out sensor. For the rest Nikon and Canon are IMHO at the same level or better, in particular regarding lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

Oddly enough, I prefer the Canon setup. Been shooting Canon for 20 years. But there's nothing to comment on when a company doesn't innovate and continues to bring out slightly-improved versions of the same thing year-on-year.

It was only their stagnation sensor-wise, and, later, their delay (relative to Sony/Olympus/Fuji/Panasonic) in getting into mirrorless that caused me to move to Sony. Even in 2013, you could see that the writing was on the wall for SLR and that the future would be mirrorless - it made more sense to invest in a system which was better for non-action photography there and then, with lenses in a mount that would still have value ten years down the track if I wanted to switch systems again, rather than continuing to invest in a system whose sensors weren't going anywhere and whose EF-mount lenses would likely have little resale value ten years down the line when technological changes forced you to switch systems anyway (whether to a future Canon mirrorless system or to Sony/Nikon). Now their sensors are catching up, and they're making a big push into mirrorless, so they're starting to look interesting again. And, whether Canon or Sony are in front at any particular stage, the very fact that it's turning into a two-horse race is good in the sense that it forces Sony to continue to innovate (we need an A9r) rather than resting on its laurels, like what Canon did after the 5D2 and 7D.

Buying into E-mount at the time gives me the freedom to either stay with Sony or switch to Canon with minimal loss on lenses if, in a few years, it turns out to be a better system - something you can't do if you were invested in EF-mount or F-mount, whose lenses are facing obsolescence in the mirrorless age and will have limited resale value, a bit like FD-mount lenses now.

Out of the big three, it's really Nikon that's fallen behind. Not because their SLRs aren't competitive, but because they've made no meaningful inroads into mirrorless, nor demonstrated the capacity to do so on anything other than an entry-level basis (and the Z7 is really an entry-level model with a high-end sensor, like a 2018 version of the 5D2 or original A7r).

[shadowblade]

The corner of a full-frame sensor is 21.63mm from the centre.

EF mount
Throat diameter: 54mm (edge 27mm from centre)
Flange distance: 44mm
Angle from edge of throat to corner of sensor: 6.96 degrees

F mount
Throat diameter: 44mm (edge 22mm from centre)
Flange distance: 46.5mm
Angle from edge of throat to corner of sensor: 0.46 degrees

E mount
Throat diameter: 46.1mm (edge 23.05mm from centre)
Flange distance: 18mm
Angle from edge of throat to corner of sensor: 4.51 degrees

Leica M mount
Throat diameter: 44mm (edge 22mm from centre)
Flange distance: 27.8mm
Angle from edge of throat to corner of sensor: 0.763 degrees

Pentax K mount
Throat diameter: 44mm (edge 22mm from centre)
Flange distance: 45.46mm
Angle from edge of throat to corner of sensor: 0.47 degrees

So, the E mount is the second most 'permissive' mount here (after the EF mount), barring the new RF and Z mounts. And Leica doesn't seem to have any issue putting Noctiluxes on its M mount, nor Sigma f/1.2 lenses onto E mount. Even Nikon put a 50/1.2 lens onto F-mount, which is the most restrictive mount on that list.

Could a wider throat diameter make design of more 'extreme' fast lenses simpler? Possibly. On the other hand, it would just make 'normal' lenses bigger and heavier. And both problems can be alleviated through technologies such as diffractive optics, to either lighten components or to squeeze more light through a smaller hole.

[BernardLanguillier]

Zooms: the Sony 12-24 f2.8 is class leading.

1.2 primes: The Sigma 35 1.2 is an amazing lens.

I happen to own that lens that I use on my a9II. It’s a very good lens, I would personally not call it amazing. Not even close.

The lenses I would call amazing are the Zeiss Otus 100mm f1.4, Nikon S 58mm f0.95, Nikon S 85mm f1.8, Canon R 85mm f1.2. I hesitate to include in the list the Sony 135mm f1.8. And in the end I keep leaving it out. All lenses I have first hand experience with (very limited with the Canon).

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

. (and the Z7 is really an entry-level model with a high-end sensor, like a 2018 version of the 5D2 or original A7r).

You tried hard but couldn’t write a full post without falling in Nikon trash talking, could you?

For still photography, the Z7 is very close to the 2 years younger R5 and a7rIV.

I have made my choice against the Sony, I clearly prefer the Z7.

I have not shot the Canon and it does look very good on paper. I really doubt it would make a meaningful difference in real world photography but it may.

I think that it would be more fair to compare it to the upcoming Z7s though. Overall, the only thing Nikon is missing is a 85mm f1.2, but then again the S 85mm f1.8 is out of this world brilliant. I am not sure I would use the f1.2 much nor that it’s possible to design one as good as the f1.8.

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

You tried hard but couldn’t write a full post without falling in Nikon trash talking, could you?

For still photography, the Z7 is very close to the 2 years younger R5 and a7rIV.

Sensor-wise, certainly. But not in terms of other functionality.

Single card slot. AF not up to the A7r4. I can track wildlife with some confidence using the A7r4. I wouldn't do it with the Z7.

It remains to be seen what the R5's AF is like. This will be a much bigger distinguishing factor than what the sensor output is like. Hoping for something more like an A9r than an A7r3/A7r4 - Sony needs some competition to force them to release their own A9r.

I have not shot the Canon and it does look very good on paper. I really doubt it would make a meaningful difference in real world photography but it may.

I think that it would be more fair to compare it to the upcoming Z7s though. Overall, the only thing Nikon is missing is a 85mm f1.2, but then again the S 85mm f1.8 is out of this world brilliant. I am not sure I would use the f1.2 much nor that it’s possible to design one as good as the f1.8.

Cheers,
Bernard

If you're shooting full-length portraits, you'd certainly appreciate an 85/1.2 over the 85/1.8. Sharpness isn't the most critical thing for every genre of photography - portraits are one such genre. 85/1.2 gets you subject isolation you just can't get at 85/1.8.

[shadowblade]

I happen to own that lens that I use on my a9II. It’s a very good lens, I would personally not call it amazing. Not even close.

The lenses I would call amazing are the Zeiss Otus 100mm f1.4, Nikon S 58mm f0.95, Nikon S 85mm f1.8, Canon R 85mm f1.2. I hesitate to include in the list the Sony 135mm f1.8. And in the end I keep leaving it out. All lenses I have first hand experience with (very limited with the Canon).

Cheers,
Bernard

I'd include the Sony 135/1.8 and also add the Nikon 70-200/2.8 E, Canon 200/2, Sigma 105/1.4, Voigtlander 65/2 Macro, Voigtlander 110/2.5 Macro. Sigma's 35/1.2 and 35/1.4 would be up there, too. And those are just the ones from memory.

Too early to say, but the Sony 12-24/2.8 may fall into that category as well, if it turns out to be sharper than every other prime or zoom wider than 16mm, as early reviews suggest.

Wildlife/sports-focused superteles, also, are almost universally good, but really belong in their own category.

[hogloff]

I happen to own that lens that I use on my a9II. It’s a very good lens, I would personally not call it amazing. Not even close.

The lenses I would call amazing are the Zeiss Otus 100mm f1.4, Nikon S 58mm f0.95, Nikon S 85mm f1.8, Canon R 85mm f1.2. I hesitate to include in the list the Sony 135mm f1.8. And in the end I keep leaving it out. All lenses I have first hand experience with (very limited with the Canon).

Cheers,
Bernard

Tell me what ultra wide 2.8 zoom is better. If none...then it's class leading period.

[KLaban]

Here we go, here we go, here we go...

[kers]

Tell me what ultra wide 2.8 zoom is better. If none...then it's class leading period.

probably a stitch - so you can be class leading and zooming without buying a 'classleading' Lens.
It also frees you from a fixed rectangular space.

[hogloff]

probably a stitch - so you can be class leading and zooming without buying a 'classleading' Lens.
It also frees you from a fixed rectangular space.

Stitch works when everything is stable...unfortunately the world moves about you in many situations.

[phila]

Picked up this afternoon!    RF85f2 not yet in stock. I also had a brief play with the new RF600 & 800 lenses. They are certainly light & compact for the focal length (the 600 is about the same size as an EF70-200f2.8 when collapsed, but lighter), and at about 10% of the cost of the EF 600 & 800 could be a very interesting choice (one assumes the fast RF equivalents will be similarly priced if/when available) - depending on image quality of course. And your requirements.

If anyone is interested the Rogeti L bracket for the 5DSr fits well on the R5 fitted with the BG-R10 grip. At least well enough to be very usable until proper R5 L brackets become available.

Did my final shoot with my trusty 5DSr yesterday and I must admit I haven't used my 1Dx for a couple of months now. Don't feel quite as sad to retire them as I did with my nF-1 & T-90 many years ago...

[phila]

And for us in Oz at least each body comes with an additional substantial leather strap (perhaps not to everyone's taste or needs) and an extra LP-6NH battery. For a "limited" time.

[DP]

For still photography, the Z7 is very close to the 2 years younger R5 and a7rIV.

Z7 = Announced Aug 23, 2018

A7RIV = Announced Jul 16, 2019

 

[DP]

BClaff posted a day or so ago PDR tests of R5

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4508716

1) Canon gets a dual gain sensor (base ISOs: 100 and 400)

2) Canon still can't get it right (S/N) at low ISO and applies NR to gain extra ~2/3 EV of DR @ low ISOs (until ISO 800) for marketing purposes 

[kers]

Would like to see the actual images at Low Iso.. Will come soon i Guess.
Anyway 2/3 of a stop behind Sony sensors would not be too bad for Canon.
The good thing is Canon wants to compensate with other features that the other camera makers lack so the competition stays on in favour of the costumer.

[Ray]

The Canon R5 is very expensive. However, the very light, 800mm, fixed aperture, F11, is a bargain. I wish Nikon would produce such a lens for my Z50.