canon r5 lcd screen free sample

My feelings are Canon has done a wonderful job at creating these cameras, All this talk about overheating is over rated this camera is a still camera 99.5 percent and for .5 video. This is where all the new cameras are going unfortunately for lots of the folks that want to stay with the old trusty DSLR, I too am a Canon DSLR shooter ill Probably stay with my DSLR until it dies the cost of this new stuff is out of reach being a retiree I have to watch what i spend these days.

Anyway I have noticed something when reading tons of comments here : many poeple tend to really destroy the things they can’t afford. Even with illogical statements. It is crazy. Was the case for the 50RF, the 85RF and now with the R5.

You said to forget these samples because conditions were perfect. So the gallery here is not showing the capabilites of the R5, but perfect conditions dont show it either. Conclusion : we should stop looking at any R5 shots, all are useless.

ahem... no? I was saying that you cannot give a conclusion about image quality by watching your link. What"s wrong with that? Am I wrong? These images could have been taken with any modern FF, no matter if it is labeled Canon, Sony, Nikon or whatsoever.

Regarding the IQ, I see nothing here that Sony-made high MP chips haven"t done years ago. I guess that"s good, as it means that Canon are catching up, but there"s nothing new, and the colors look almost indistinguishable from an A7M3. The JPEG engine is as mediocre as always, the AA-filter robs files of critical resolution, and the banding in the nightscapes is a huge black mark. Meh.

My point is simply that I"ve seen much better galleries from the same people. Carey, in particular, strikes me as a man with a great eye for composition, but his work in this one is very mediocre. I understand that every site is rushing like mad to post samples of the R5 and ride the hype train, but still, if I were in charge I"d publish fewer but more inspired samples. There"s quite a few good ones in the gallery already.

Looking at the samples and in particular the shot with red foliage, it reminds me very much of the Canon Powershot S5IS that I used for some time and still have somewhere. The color rendition is a bit more saturated and lively with the S5 though. Maybe the ccd sensor was partially responsible for that. For shooters of mostly stationary subjects an old Canon camera will do at least as well as a new $4000 camera.

You would have to expose the sensor for a shorter amount of time or need less amplification to the signal to gain the same information because you don"t loose the photons. Both situations create less opportunity for noise to be introduced. Time introduces more noise and gain amplifies noise. If the noisefloor drops you can do with less photons to register a meaningful value above black. I must admit my English is a bit too limited at this point to explain it better. We are so close to the theoretical optimum in sensors that these improvements aren"t worlds apart. Canon and Arri are both using split pixels in a dual gain output setup to enlarge dynamic range in their cinema camera"s. I"m somewhat surprised they haven"t mentioned something like that for the R5 actually ... I would be interested if it"s just part of their standard sensor architecture now...

I assume the Gallery Collection are presented to give visitors to your site a glimpse of what the hardware can delivery. After being impressed with Canon EOS R6 sample gallery, I was looking forward to the R5 samples. Over the last 7 days DPR displayed 4 Sample Galleries of the Leica M10-R, Canon R6, Nikon Z 24-200mm zoom, and today the Canon EOS 5.

As first I want to point out that I am not a fan boy of any brand and I think Canon did a great job with the R system till now, R5 and R6 look to be awesome cameras nonetheless.

But it seems to me those images from R5 (including those taken with the 28-70 and 70-200), lack the bite I get from A7R4 and Sigma 24-70 2.8 when seen at 100%. Could it be the AA filter?

I think it"s more the JPG engine. Canon never had an extremely refined sharpening for their JPGs, regardless of the camera, because they seem to adjust it more to the overall image.

Sigma82, I find that the AF in these photos is pretty much spot on in most of the images (not all). The Sigma 85mm 1.4 Art is a razor sharp lens, and the 6D has a lot less pixels... If you downsize the images of the R5 to 20MP, they will look sharper, too. But it"s probably more the AA-filter and JPG engine that blurs some of the finest detail in these images.

I always have better sharpness starting from the raw. We can see some pictures with very good details here, like the number 50, small text on the right. Anyway, I think we expct too much from a simple galery like this one. I have seen R5 shots pretty amazing (well, I cant even find them again, it was some models , one with red feathers)

Did the jpegs have canon"s Digital Lens Optimizer turned on (not sure if that"s something that has to be on while shooting, or can be enabled after the fact, or what. Just know it"s supposed to boost sharpness)?

If you want to showcase the capabilities of a new camera, try to compose, with a clear subject and tell us where the focus point is. Because this gallery is ruining the R5"s reputation as mentioned by many in the comments below.

Sometimes I wonder if it may be due to a bias against Canon. I still find it bizarre that the EOS R test scene was done using incorrect WB. The sample gallery looks like the one using the camera didn’t really care.

Chelsea why ANYONE would want to have to deal with MicroAF adjust is beyond me. And what images could you capture with a 5DV that you couldn’t capture with an R5?

Just curious why you prefer the optical viewfinder? I have an OVF on my camera. I had the chance to see a friend"s A7rIII, and I really preferred the Digital viewfinder. It was very clear and detailed, could zoom in for finding focus, and showed exposure level like the screen.

I must be the only person who has never had to do AF micro adjustments. And there are many scenarios where the AF of my D850 smokes that of my A7RIV. There are ALSO some scenarios where the A7RIV will capture shots that I am not sure I could capture with my D850. The way the AF works in a mirrorless is very different from an DSLR. Then there is the resolving power and no-delay display of an OVF. They are simply different tools. And I wish Canon would make a 5DV. With the kind of photos you take, you will probably never need a DSLR, but your personal experience doesn"t mean it is true for everyone. PS you should also clean your sensor!

quatpat. Image quality. Nothing particularly wrong with it but no step forward. Nothing that justifies the investment in RF lenses. It"s not a 45MP sensor. It"s a 45MP under ISO 500 sensor in the same way that a 90D has a 32.5 MP at ISO 100 sensor and the R6 has a 20MP at maybe ISO 1600 sensor. Here in NZ an R5 costs $NZ7500. To enjoy benefits of the R mount add trinity of R lenses. That takes it to $23K. To edit 8K, new PC, call it $30K (NZ). With no long telephoto. (DO NOT MENTION F11 LENSES).

I got really excited and downloaded all the CR3 files to test them out.. then was promptly reminded about where ACR is at with R5 file support right now..