Canon R5 II Canon R5 Mark II EV

[ECH]

The specs on the Canon USA page list the EV for the Canon R5 Mark II at -7.5. Looking through the HTML instruction manual reveals the EV to be -6.5 in the specs page. Anyone have any insight into which number is correct? I have been trying to see if a firmware update might be the answer. I am preparing to purchase some Canon gear and noticed the discrepancy.

 

[Bryan Conner]

The specs on the Canon USA page list the EV for the Canon R5 Mark II at -7.5. Looking through the HTML instruction manual reveals the EV to be -6.5 in the specs page. Anyone have any insight into which number is correct? I have been trying to see if a firmware update might be the answer. I am preparing to purchase some Canon gear and noticed the discrepancy. View attachment 37708View attachment 37707

Welcome to the forum. I don't own this camera, but I looked at our Canon Europe page and found the following specs:

and the translated version of the Canon Japan website:

 

[TwoWheeler]

I looked at our Canon Europe page and found the following specs:

View attachment 37713

But that’s fathoms or furlongs or whatever it is you use over there…

 

[ECH]

Thanks. I am still curious why the US and Canadian web specs lists the EV at -7.5. I will err on the low side and go with -6.5. I do appreciate the input.

 

[Dave Williams]

But that’s fathoms or furlongs or whatever it is you use over there…

Here in the UK we still use quills and ink for important documents but generally speaking the use of metric for length, weight, temperature is so much simpler than the old fashion measurements we used to have which were further complicated when some countries adapted the name but not the actual same volume (think US gallons). When Russia and the US were working on the space station they failed to realise the other side was using a different measure for length which proved very embarrassing when the docking station was only fit for purpose for one country's space shuttle.

 

[TwoWheeler]

Here in the UK we still use quills and ink for important documents but generally speaking the use of metric for length, weight, temperature is so much simpler than the old fashion measurements we used to have

….but which system put a man on the moon?

I work in inch and metric every day and agree that a base ten system makes way more sense, but I don’t “think” in metric - I don’t look at something and think “That’s 6mm” I think “That’s a quarter inch…” but that’s what 45 years of working in inches will get you.

 

[Dave Williams]

….but which system put a man on the moon?

Universal Studios wasn't it!

Make a nice change to have a bit of banter!!