Way Too Soon: A Canon EOS R5 Mark III Wishlist

[tron]

I think a higher mpixel R1 or R3 is a simpler description of all these. I would be tempted.

 

[nexusraven14]

Le R5 MARK III ???? , déjà se serait bien que Canon nous sorte la mise a jour du firmware du R5 MARK II avant de parler du 3.....

 

[Del Paso]

Presuming that the R5 is still the descendant of the 5D, it is way past time for Canon to move past the 45MP sensor limit. The old 5DsR had more resolution years ago, and the competitors have been at 60MP for some time and will soon go higher.

At a minimum, let’s at least see a 80MP “R5sR” variant.

Such a rumor (high MP) came, if I'm not mistaken, right after the launch of the EOS R...

 

[Del Paso]

Le R5 MARK III ???? , déjà se serait bien que Canon nous sorte la mise a jour du firmware du R5 MARK II avant de parler du 3.....

It's not a rumor, only a question about forum member's wishes.
Pour le reste, un peu de patience...

 

[DrahtPhotography]

The first three words say it: "Way too soon". IMO the R5 Mk2 is quite perfect in terms of specifications. I could see some improvements, but I believe that a faster readout might cause a loss in low ISO dynamic range. Might be a case were there is no free lunch. We shall see, but I am in no rush to upgrade; really like the R5 Mk2 as a travel camera.

Yeah, this. I can shoot a wedding on two batteries on my mk2 - that can be 5,000 images, easy. And the active cooling in it is pretty good.
I know for video shooters, they want more, but for photos it's a masterpiece.
It does crash and the focus needs an update, but we're one firmware update from perfection.

 

[DhlcadR6]

2. The DR is reduced when using the electronic shutter. The only way to get the 'full" DR is to use electronic first curtain, which defeats the entire purpose of having the electronic shutter in the first place.

All E.Shutter have lower DR that E-1st/ mechanical shutter, it applies to all cameras. The only way to increase DR is maybe reduce the readout speed, which that defeats the purpose furthermore.

And tbh if you have problems with the DR of R5ii, get Medium Format. None of the FF will have the DR you desired.

 

[AlanF]

1. Fix the sensor noise. The R5M2 sensor is FAR too noisy for a modern camera, it's barely on par with cameras from 4-5 years ago or even older.
2. The DR is reduced when using the electronic shutter. The only way to get the 'full" DR is to use electronic first curtain, which defeats the entire purpose of having the electronic shutter in the first place.
3. The rear LCD is nothing to brag about. Needs updated to a higher resolution brighter one.
4. The metering could be improved. The way it is now certain colors tend to overexpose. Some wildlife subjects need a lot of finessing to get the exposure correct.
5. The Auto ISO needs to have the range limiter improved to add ALL ISO values.
6. The AF isn't bad but could probably stand some tweaking.

Those first two comments are plain nonsense. They don't stand up to reviews from people who do proper analysis and present evidence. For example,
“The low noise performance from this imaging sensor is excellent, as expected from a modern, high-resolution, full-frame, BSI imaging sensor.”
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-R5-Mark-II.aspx where you can compare noise charts.
The DR of the R5ii at iso 100 is 11.5 with EFCS, and 11 in ES, compared with 11 for the 5Div and 9 for the 5Diii. As if the loss of 0.5 "defeats the entire purpose", and as shown by photonstophotos there's little difference between it in ES mode and the Sony A1 and the Nikon Z9,.

 

[Del Paso]

1. Fix the sensor noise. The R5M2 sensor is FAR too noisy for a modern camera, it's barely on par with cameras from 4-5 years ago or even older.
2. The DR is reduced when using the electronic shutter. The only way to get the 'full" DR is to use electronic first curtain, which defeats the entire purpose of having the electronic shutter in the first place.
3. The rear LCD is nothing to brag about. Needs updated to a higher resolution brighter one.
4. The metering could be improved. The way it is now certain colors tend to overexpose. Some wildlife subjects need a lot of finessing to get the exposure correct.
5. The Auto ISO needs to have the range limiter improved to add ALL ISO values.
6. The AF isn't bad but could probably stand some tweaking.

I got it!
The R5 II is the crappiest camera around (unless you don't know what you're talking about...)

 

[neuroanatomist]

Those first two comments are plain nonsense.
As if the loss of 0.5 "defeats the entire purpose"…

The DRone Wars live on. Remember the correct name of this site:

 

[Del Paso]

Can I throw in...
- If they're not going to release a high-megapixel body, double the resolution to let me go crop-crazy
- CFexpress v4 support to double throughput
- Quadrupled buffer to go along with above
- A hotshoe cover that can be taken off without pliers
- Internal GPS option we can turn on/off
- Diopter less prone to unintentional movement
- Multi-exposure averaging (for sharpness)
- Option to change relevant settings when you get those dialog boxes indicating why you can't change a particular setting when a different setting is conflicting with it. Right now, you need to go on a menu treasure hunt to find it.
- Feedback for which reason a pupil-control AF point calibration fails so it can be fixed
- Explicit cases where you can register calibrations for landscape/vertical/dark/bright sun/etc..., allowing system to choose from most relevant data set

My hotshoe cover doesn't need pliers. I've already lost number 2.
It simply quits without warning, unless held in place with 3M's strongest duct-tape. Not very practical when spontaneously using a flash.
As to the diopter: Strong, yet removable glue helps! This should be indeed improved by Canon. (cf. Leica R3)
Feedback for eye-control AF calibration fail, very good idea!

 

[SMARTphotography]

Improved eye control, improved battery, integrated gps tracking, dual cf-express type b memory card slots, and a tilting evf would be on my wishlist.

 

[neuroanatomist]

As to the diopter: Strong, yet removable glue helps! This should be indeed improved by Canon. (cf. Leica R3)

I missed the point about the diopter, but on the R1 it must be pulled out before it can be adjusted.

 

[David - Sydney]

Many of the above SW features could be added as a firmware upgrade on the R5ii over time. The R5 was particularly good especially for video updates after the initial overheating kerfuffle. The pixel shift was useless though.

Quad pixel AF (cross type)
Might Canon allow AF and metering to be linked at the same point rather than only for 1 series??
Pixel shift done properly in-camera to DNG (or HEIF) file not jpg
Did Canon allow the Rate button in the R5ii to be remapped to something useful eg switch rear screen/EVF?
Either more efficient CPU/AF processor or better battery life. A new battery should be USB chargeable! Those chargers are ancient designs now.
Single grip option having the works in it.
Fancy AF "controller" replacing the joystick
Full size HDMI port supporting the 8 year old 2.1 standard (8k/60 and 4k/120)
Second USB port so external recording and external power can occur at the same time.
Dual CFe-B cards although I would miss the ease of SD card transfer to my MBPro
Side/flippy screen
A number of users for the R5 reported that the hotshoe was not strongly mounted vs 5Dx resulting in breakages/repairs. Not sure if the R5ii also suffers from the same problem or not but I have been very careful with my R5.
Internal NDs are okay but I tend to use 5/10 stop for seascapes or daylight very long exposures for cloud movement in architecture. I expect the OP was referring to using fast lenses during daylight. What level NDs are in the cinema cameras?

IMO, the read out speed can be reduced but not the most critical issue vs better low light/shadow performance.

 

[David - Sydney]

For star trail shots…. If I set my shutter exposure to 30 seconds and the intervalometer to 30 seconds, you will find there are times that you might have some / many of the 30 second increments were skipped because of processing time (I tried turning off noise reduction, etc. but it didn’t work. My conclusion is that the shutter time isn’t 100% exact. I tried 31 second interval, it helped, but didn’t fix it.). I use an external shutter release that I can lock down, this eliminates the gaps. I prefer raw over heif

I also only shoot raw. That was a reference to another comment.
I found that using either manual shutter release locked down or the unlimited intervalometer both had the gap. I don't set my intervalometer to 30 seconds though... basically using it as a locked down shutter release.

 

[David - Sydney]

If we’re talking about CFExpress then they should move up to the new CFExpress 4 standard. Twice as fast as CFExpress 2, which is in the R5 / R5 II, for the same card type. Ie CFExpress 4 Type B is twice the speed of CFExpress 2 Type B.

Canon haven't been prompt to move to "new" standards. They could have avoided a lot of the "overheating" issues in the R5 if they used v2.1 standard and have external recording avoiding the need to use the CFe card slot heaters.

CFe v4 is also not needed for speed - unless the standard provides some level of lower heat generation which I think is unlikely.

Page 1187 of the advanced user guide shows that 8k30raw (8k60 light raw) "only" needs 400MB/sec and higher. Even if the R5iii had 8k60 raw then it still wouldn't exceed the 1400MB/s sustained write speed of the current fast CFe v2 cards. Mind you, the capacity of the cards would need to be huge and expensive. Cheaper to have external recording eg USB-C thunderbolt 4 drives in that case.

 

[Chig]

How would that work? Would a half press actually take pictures just like a full press? How could you pre-focus? Would back-button AF then be a requirement? Seems like an impractical solution.

OTOH, Canon has already implemented a reasonable approach with the R1. The Smart Controller (AF-ON) has half- and full-press. I have mine configured so a half-press focuses and uses whatever frame rate my current mode is set to, and full press focuses and shoots at 40 fps.

This would be an optional feature but for those who use back button focus being able to take a single shot using the half press and then full press to fire a burst would be very helpful and yes if I could afford it I'd buy an R1 for similar functionality but this is just something that could be implemented with a firmware change on any camera

 

[Fbimages]

I don't know about anybody else, but I would like to have the option to set one of the back buttons to manual focus momentarily. I do wildlife photography and sometimes the autofocus likes to lock on a nearby branch, leaf, or whatever, but not the critter I want to capture. Time is of the essences when shooting wildlife. Using the switch on the lens, movement of the camera lens costs valuable time. With the recent update to the R5mkII, it has only made focusing worse. A quick access to manual focus would help me make an adjustment to the focus needed to get the sharp picture.

You should have full time manual focus override already? Just disable continuous AF if that's what's happening

 

[koenkooi]

You should have full time manual focus override already? Just disable continuous AF if that's what's happening

FTM override working or not depends on the lens, not all of them support it. It works on my 100-500L, but not on the RF100L macro

 

[Nemorino]

You should have full time manual focus override already?

Just look at page 567 of the manual of the R5mkII !

 

[Rumours not rumors]

ISO is only marginally worse when you're above 6400, 12800 seems to be where the detail last holds up. How often are you up past 6400 to begin with? This is really a feeble argument. Invest in faster glass maybe? All of a sudden everyone is afraid of noise. I have no problem with noise on these cameras, they are far better than anything from the DSLR era. People just complain about everything today.

You must have the luxury of only shooting in well lit stadiums at night. Where I live, out of the dozens of sporting fields around, only one (a full blown stadium with television grade lighting) lets you shoot at ISO6,400. By far almost every night game I shoot is at ISO25,600 and that's to get 1/800 or 1/1,000s shutter from a f2.8 lens. I'm thankful that my EOS R6 Mark II has very good low light performance. All this hype about stacked sensors has no bearing on lowlight noise performance. For me, low light high ISO performance is the most critical benchmark if I'm buying a new camera body. Even games that start late afternoon and run though until dusk usually hit ISO20,000. You ask "How often are you up past 6400 to begin with?", for me the answer is "all the freakin' time".