Here are the full Canon EOS R specifications

[Kit Lens Jockey]

But with DPAF it's a different story. What Canon is saying is that the sensitivity of this DPAF implementation keeps improving with faster lenses all the way down to f/1.2. This is pretty cool.

As someone who was really looking forward to getting the most out of the 50mm f1.0 on the new EOS R, I feel left out. This is bullshit.

 

[Ozarker]

The Canon wheel has gone from the back, now looks like a Nikon copy except no Joystick as you said, and an old fashioned SD card slot instead of a sturdy xqd card slot, very disappointed with Canon, keeping my hard earned cash, no value added features from the 5D series.?????

I have seen the word crippled being used to describe the EOS R many times in this thread.


CanonFanBoy is correct. Although a f/2 lens is an f/2 lens, a M43 sensor is smaller than a FF sensor and hence M43 f/2 lens is slower than a FF f/2 lens. You have to apply the multiplication factor to get the 35mm equivalent.

Except I did not say that. He did. I'm saying crop factor does not affect lens speed. It affects DOF. It affects framing the subject of the scene. I don't think it affects shutter speed. I don't think crop factor affects that so I don't think the f/2 M43 lens is "slower" than the f/2 FF lens. However, I am open minded to learn what "slower" means here. To me, that means shutter speed. Is and f/5.6 M43 lens essentially an f/11.2 lens when it comes to exposure? I don't believe that. Why are you multiplying the f stop by the crop factor? That does not make sense to me at all, but I really want to know how that could be if somebody could explain that. I did not notice a change in exposure when I ran APS-C and FF at the same time. I think the same would be true for M43. In fact, I am sure of it myself. Crop does not change lens speed or exposure. So I want to know what "slower" means here. If it is about DOF and Bokeh, I think "slower" doesn't apply. DOF is twice as shallow at the same diastance and the same at double the distance compared to FF. So what the hell does "slower" mean?

 

[nchoh]

The brightness of the projected scene has absolutely nothing to do with the size of the sensor. If you use a sensor smaller than the projected image circle, you'll just cut off (crop) the image. However, it would be accurate to say that using a smaller sensor behind the same optics will capture fewer photons (of course).

If you are using a EF lens on a EF-S body, that would be true, however if you get an EF-S lens on and EF-S camera, the lens being designed to focus as much of the gathered light onto the EF-S sized sensor, that would be different.

As I replied to Talys...

Suppose we take two lenses one M43 and one FF, both are 85 f/2. The focal lengths are the same, so the entrance pupil are the same size. The amount of light gathered is therefore the same. But that same amount of light is focused onto different sized sensors. The M43 sensor being smaller having the same amount of light focused onto it means that the intensity of light on the M43 sensor is greater. Does that mean that a 85mm f/2 lens for M43 is faster than the FF 85mm f/2 lens?

 

[nchoh]

What makes you think the ‘light is channeled/concentrated onto a smaller sensor’?? Actually, where you got that idea doesn’t really matter, that’s not what’s happening. Crop factor is called that for a reason. Crop. Think about it.

The situation you’re describing can happen, but only when using a lens with a larger image circle than needed for the sensor, and only with additional optics. Imagine a 0.7x TC. Or just Google speedbooster.

Isn't that what lenses do? Focus and concentrate the light?

Yes, I understand what crop factor means. Just to get aligned on the discussion, crop factor is the ratio of the 2 sensors being compared.

To add more to the discussion... isn't that what a speed booster does? Instead of letting the light go to waste, it concentrates the light into a small circle, thus boosting the speed? I am not a lens expert by any means, but I am sure that lens by very nature concentrates light. To elaborate, I you take a picture of a building, say 20 square meters... and the light is concentrated onto a sensor 864 mm^2. Isn't the light concentrated?

 

[scyrene]

What is the deal? Do they just not think IBIS would be reliable? Are they that stubborn that they're sticking to their guns and claiming lens image stability is better even as everyone else goes to IBIS?

I'm sorry, but if you raise your hopes unrealistically, then you will be disappointed. IBIS was only considered by the forum crowd as a likelihood for about twelve hours when the first info came out. Previously, there has been no indication that Canon can or would add it to their cameras. As for why, it seems to be a combination of seemingly lacking the patents, and believing in lens-based IS. While I can personally see the benefit of IBIS for non-IS lenses (especially legacy glass) and doubling up with lens IS, given we've never had it before on the Canon side and there was no indication it would come, I can't feel disappointed. Many lenses have IS (including wider aperture and wider angle ones, like the recent 85 1.4 - which indicate more IS lenses in future), so it's not like there's no stabilisation available.

 

[scyrene]

Not all nighttime landscapes are astro. Cityscapes come to mind as well. I remember Chris Gampat at Phoblographer rave about shooting an Olympus and with an UWA lens held the shutter open for something absurd -- up to 15 seconds -- and net sharp shots with the IBIS of that system. That's bonkers.

I find absurd 5+ second hand held shots a bit of a parlour trick. But lets admit that it's a neat parlour trick, and I'm stuck in dark cave-like interiors or nighttime city walkabouts sans flash all the time. I have lens IS on all four of my wider lenses I might use in those siutations (16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS), but if IBIS + Lens IS can add to greater effect (esp. on wider FLs), color me interested with IBIS.

- A

It's definitely enticing, and I'd love to give it a go. I doubt you get a true doubling up by combining the two kinds of stabilisation - does anyone have any data on this? So a 4-stop in-lens IS plus IBIS isn't gonna give 7-8 stops, I just don't see that being possible (and 15 second exposures seem pretty unrealistic for most people however good the technology!). Every little helps, especially with non-IS lenses. But all the same, I'm left shaking my head at the number of forum newbies for whom this is apparently a make-or-break feature

 

[Kit.]

You said the M43 lenses were 2 stops slower than FF.

No, I said that you should not compare M43 lenses for "speed" and "obtainability" with FF lenses, because those M43 lenses that you present as "fast", for all practical purposes, will correspond to different FF lenses, 2 times longer and 2 stops slower.

In other words, that an M43 lenses would need a faster shutter speed than an f/2 lens on FF with the same light, "for every practical purpose". Do you mean when using flash and getting the same framing? Or is that also true with natural light? That is what I want you to explain to me.

"For all practical purposes" means (if we assume a practically good enough lens and a practically good enough sensor) the same scene with the same objects at the same distances from the camera and each other, the same angle of view, the same lighting (the same ambient light, the same flashes), the same shutter speed, the same bokeh, DoF and shot noise on the final image magnified to the same final size.

At this conditions, M43 50/2 is equivalent to FF 100/4, and FF 50/2 is equivalent to M43 25/1.

Yes, you can take the same picture (ignoring the sensor pixel pitch difference) with FF 50/2 as you can do with FF 100/4 if you cut off 3/4 of the resulting image but no, it won't make FF 50/2 and FF 100/4 equivalent lenses for practical purposes, because you cannot use FF 100/4 to take the same pictures FF 50/2 takes uncropped.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

I'm sorry, but if you raise your hopes unrealistically, then you will be disappointed. IBIS was only considered by the forum crowd as a likelihood for about twelve hours when the first info came out. Previously, there has been no indication that Canon can or would add it to their cameras. As for why, it seems to be a combination of seemingly lacking the patents, and believing in lens-based IS. While I can personally see the benefit of IBIS for non-IS lenses (especially legacy glass) and doubling up with lens IS, given we've never had it before on the Canon side and there was no indication it would come, I can't feel disappointed. Many lenses have IS (including wider aperture and wider angle ones, like the recent 85 1.4 - which indicate more IS lenses in future), so it's not like there's no stabilisation available.

Honestly I don't believe in most of the wild speculation coming out of this forum. It's nice to get the early info when real specifications leak out. But if you remember, as of a week ago people were talking about the possibility of a crazy telescoping mount to allow both EF and RF lenses to mount, backed up by patents and everything. So, I recognize that no one really knows anything until actual specs come out.

Once Nikon came out with it, I figured it was only logical that Canon would since both of Canon's biggest competitors have it. I didn't try to read some crazy patent tea leaves, I just figured that from a competitive standpoint, it would be logical that Canon would come out with IBIS once Nikon announced that they were going to include it. Otherwise, Canon would appear to be very behind the curve with respect to a major feature on their new camera. And, sadly, that appears that it's the case. I still love the way their cameras function and perform. They do what they were made to do very well. It's just that sadly they aren't made to do as much as the competition seems to be lately.

 

[Sharlin]

If you are using a EF lens on a EF-S body, that would be true, however if you get an EF-S lens on and EF-S camera, the lens being designed to focus as much of the gathered light onto the EF-S sized sensor, that would be different.

Suppose we take two lenses one M43 and one FF, both are 85 f/2. The focal lengths are the same, so the entrance pupil are the same size. The amount of light gathered is therefore the same. But that same amount of light is focused onto different sized sensors. The M43 sensor being smaller having the same amount of light focused onto it means that the intensity of light on the M43 sensor is greater. Does that mean that a 85mm f/2 lens for M43 is faster than the FF 85mm f/2 lens?

No, what you're forgetting here is that those lenses have different angles of view and image circles of different sizes. As the angle of view decreases the amount of light gathered also decreases, entrance pupil size staying constant. This is why a longer lens needs a larger entrance pupil to have the same f value, and indeed why f values are relative to the focal length instead of absolute values.

A FF 85mm/2 lens and a m43 85mm/2 lens, attached to a m43 camera, produce identical images with identical exposure, ceteris paribus. The former gathers more light from a larger angle of view, but the extra light is then wasted as the sensor is much smaller than the image circle. The latter gathers less light with a smaller angle of view, but the image circle snugly fits the sensor. These differences cancel out exactly.

The reason the same shutter speed and f value produce the same exposure between sensors of greatly varying sizes is the third component we can vary – the ISO! Unlike the first two, ISO doesn't measure anything physical, and is simply chosen by each manufacturer such that standard exposure is achieved. The actual physical number of photons gathered at ISO 100 is very different in a cell phone versus a FF camera.

 

[BeenThere]

I'm so deeply disappointed by the lack of IBIS. IBIS opens up so many possibilities for taking night time landscapes without having to haul around a cumbersome tripod. With Sony having it, and Nikon jumping on the bandwagon, I thought for sure Canon would get with it. But no.

It's so frustrating the way they make cameras that are solid, reliable, great to use, which keeps me sticking with them, but consistently lack the features and technological advancement of the competitors. It's like we're always forced to choose between having a robust, easy to use camera, and one with the latest features.

I was all ready to put my A7III up for sale, excited to have a Camera that works like a Canon with the features of a Sony. But no, it looks like it's barely more than a 5D4 without a mirror.

What is the deal? Do they just not think IBIS would be reliable? Are they that stubborn that they're sticking to their guns and claiming lens image stability is better even as everyone else goes to IBIS?

I guess it's nice I can still use all my 5D4 batteries.

No one outside Canon really knows, but there would be some delta cost, some increased use of processor power, and some crow dining due to years of touting in-lens IS as the only way to go.

 

[Kit Lens Jockey]

But all the same, I'm left shaking my head at the number of forum newbies for whom this is apparently a make-or-break feature

At least as far as I'm concerned, I don't consider it "make-or-break" as in I'm not going to buy this camera now that it doesn't have IBIS. I'm sure it's still going to be a good camera and I'll get a lot of use out of it. It's just that I was really looking forward to ditching my Sony that I had bought into partially for the fact that it had IBIS. And now, I'm not sure if I want to do that since it'll leave me without any camera that has IBIS, whereas if Canon had it, I'd have no qualms about getting rid of the Sony and it's horrible ergonomics and usability.

 

[amorse]

Anyone know what time (and timezone) this announcement is happening?

 

[nchoh]

No, what you're forgetting here is that those lenses have different angles of view and image circles of different sizes. As the angle of view decreases the amount of light gathered also decreases, entrance pupil size staying constant. This is why a longer lens needs a larger entrance pupil to have the same f value, and indeed why f values are relative to the focal length instead of absolute values.

A FF 85mm/2 lens and a m43 85mm/2 lens, attached to a m43 camera, produce identical images with identical exposure, ceteris paribus. The former gathers more light from a larger angle of view, but the extra light is then wasted as the sensor is much smaller than the image circle. The latter gathers less light with a smaller angle of view, but the image circle snugly fits the sensor. These differences cancel out exactly.

The reason the same shutter speed and f value produce the same exposure between sensors of greatly varying sizes is the third component we can vary – the ISO! Unlike the first two, ISO doesn't measure anything physical, and is simply chosen by each manufacturer such that standard exposure is achieved. The actual physical number of photons gathered at ISO 100 is very different in a cell phone versus a FF camera.

Hi Sharlin, thanks for your reply... I forgot that the view of angle for different sensors size is different!

I stand corrected. If the amount of light collected is proportionally less from FF to M43 with the sensor size, then the F/stops (speed) should be equivalent.

 

[Ozarker]

No, I said that you should not compare M43 lenses for "speed" and "obtainability" with FF lenses, because those M43 lenses that you present as "fast", for all practical purposes, will correspond to different FF lenses, 2 times longer and 2 stops slower.


"For all practical purposes" means (if we assume a practically good enough lens and a practically good enough sensor) the same scene with the same objects at the same distances from the camera and each other, the same angle of view, the same lighting (the same ambient light, the same flashes), the same shutter speed, the same bokeh, DoF and shot noise on the final image magnified to the same final size.

At this conditions, M43 50/2 is equivalent to FF 100/4, and FF 50/2 is equivalent to M43 25/1.

Yes, you can take the same picture (ignoring the sensor pixel pitch difference) with FF 50/2 as you can do with FF 100/4 if you cut off 3/4 of the resulting image but no, it won't make FF 50/2 and FF 100/4 equivalent lenses for practical purposes, because you cannot use FF 100/4 to take the same pictures FF 50/2 takes uncropped.

So are you talking signal to noise ratio? Because crop does not affect sensor speed. I still don't get it. In decent light there is no noise to speak of either way.

So an M43 f/5.6 behaves like an F/11.2 FF lens? In what way?

Speed or what? Obtain-ability of what?

I guess I am going to have to go outside and see for myself. I'll set my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and my Olympus M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro to the same focal lengths (marked 35mm on each not 12/24 because we are talking same focal length, not equivalent focal length, but I will also do a test at quivalent focal length. 70mm equivalent sound okay?), f/stop. I'll set the cameras to the same shutter speed, and ISO. I suspect that shutter speed will be the same with the same framing. I cannot see how the M43 lens can be considered "slower". And I don't think you have explained what "slower" means in this case. Again, not trying to be a smart ass or troll. I am just not getting it. Maybe Neuro, or Don, or somebody can make it simpler for me.

At the same framing, DOF is the same. It is actually shallower on M43 at same distance to subject so blur should be more pronounced.
In the same light? I expect exposure to be the same. I think you are saying I would have to expose longer (f/4 exposes longer than f/2.8, all else being equal.).
At the same framing the angle would be the same, right?
There will be no noise in decent light in my opinion. But noise has to do with sensor size and design, not lens speed.

So I still don't know what you mean by "slower".

I'm saying both lenses are fast because they can both shoot in the same light with the camera set to the same exact shutter speed, ISO, and the lens at the same f/stop. So I would think an f/.095 lens on either camera is very fast in that case and fast and light. You seem to be talking about same bokeh and noise ratio and angle of view.

I'll go check it out right now. I'll measure distance with a tape measure.

 

[Sharlin]

Hi Sharlin, please read my post again... [1] I am comparing both 85mm f/2 for M43 and FF, I understand that 85mm lenses should have the same angles of view. Am I wrong?

A 85mm lens for FF has an angle of view of about 24 degrees. A 85mm lens for m43 has an an angle of view of about 12 degrees. This is exactly what the talk of "crop factors" or "equivalent focal lengths" is about. That 85mm m43 lens gives an angle of view roughly equivalent to 2*85mm=170mm FF lens because the "crop factor" of an m43 sensor is 2. But it is still definitely a 85mm lens.

 

[nchoh]

A 85mm lens for FF has an angle of view of about 24 degrees. A 85mm lens for m43 has an an angle of view of about 12 degrees. This is exactly what the talk of "crop factors" or "equivalent focal lengths" is about. That 85mm m43 lens gives an angle of view roughly equivalent to 2*85mm=170mm FF lens because the "crop factor" of an m43 sensor is 2. But it is still definitely a 85mm lens.

Sorry, I thought about it after I posted and deleted the post. You are right!

 

[Talys]

At least as far as I'm concerned, I don't consider it "make-or-break" as in I'm not going to buy this camera now that it doesn't have IBIS. I'm sure it's still going to be a good camera and I'll get a lot of use out of it. It's just that I was really looking forward to ditching my Sony that I had bought into partially for the fact that it had IBIS. And now, I'm not sure if I want to do that since it'll leave me without any camera that has IBIS, whereas if Canon had it, I'd have no qualms about getting rid of the Sony and it's horrible ergonomics and usability.

I'd look at it a different way. Putting aside my huge personal preference for shooting with Canon bodies over Sony, looking at core technology only, none of the current FF mirrorless cameras have it all. If I had to pick/prioritize, I would put DPAF over IBIS because hybrid AF with on sensor PDAF and contrast detect drives me nuts. But if I'm honest about it, I value a fully articulating screen more than either technology.

 

[AlanF]

I'd look at it a different way. Putting aside my huge personal preference for shooting with Canon bodies over Sony, looking at core technology only, none of the current FF mirrorless cameras have it all. If I had to pick/prioritize, I would put DPAF over IBIS because hybrid AF with on sensor PDAF and contrast detect drives me nuts. But if I'm honest about it, I value a fully articulating screen more than either technology.

What is you don't like about the on-sensor PDAF and contrast? Is it the switch over to contrast only at f/8?

 

[Alino]

Does anyone know the hour for the official anouncement? Please?

 

[Durf]

Anyone know what time (and timezone) this announcement is happening?

Just occasionally check back here in this thread and a few others in this forum.
When you see a huge escalation of pages of much more extreme whining and camera bashing, well, then you'll know the announcement has been made.....