Canon EOS RP Specifications & Images

[knight427]

A crop mode on a FF is just... a crop of the centre of the frame. The pixel density doesn't change, so you don't get exta 'reach'. So its basically just a way of using less storage when you can't fill the frame.

Those of us asking for autocrop understand what it means. Benefits include:
-better view of subject in EVF
-smaller files
-if programmed to a button, would be an easy way to re-target your subject when they move erratically out of frame
-much faster first review in post when I reduce 1,000 frames to 100, then 100 to 10-20.

and could include:
-if implemented well, would in theory allow higher fps (I haven't seen this implemented by any camera yet, but I also haven't looked hard for it)
-if implemented well, improve AF performance by reducing load on processor and potential distractions from AF points outside crop area

 

[digitalride]

A crop mode on a FF is just... a crop of the centre of the frame. The pixel density doesn't change, so you don't get exta 'reach'. So its basically just a way of using less storage when you can't fill the frame.

I am aware it doesn't give extra "reach" or magically increase your focal lengths . If I am photographing birds that are too far away to fill the frame I want a crop mode, the storage and extra post processing to frame the shot later are a small reason, but also for the speed. If some cameras FPS are limited by the number of pixels it is processing then it should be able to process a crop faster. So if the 5d iv can do 7 fps, it should be able to do up to 14 FPS in ~1.5x crop mode with ~2.25x fewer pixels to process. The FPS could be limited by the focusing system or other factors, but I think a lot of FPS limits are made for business reasons.

 

[rrcphoto]

I am aware it doesn't give extra "reach" or magically increase your focal lengths . If I am photographing birds that are too far away to fill the frame I want a crop mode, the storage and extra post processing to frame the shot later are a small reason, but also for the speed. If some cameras FPS are limited by the number of pixels it is processing then it should be able to process a crop faster. So if the 5d iv can do 7 fps, it should be able to do up to 14 FPS in ~1.5x crop mode with ~2.25x fewer pixels to process. The FPS could be limited by the focusing system or other factors, but I think a lot of FPS limits are made for business reasons.

the shutter and mirrorbox assembly plays a huge part in the 5D shooting faster than 7fps.

 

[m1mm1m]

I am aware it doesn't give extra "reach" or magically increase your focal lengths . If I am photographing birds that are too far away to fill the frame I want a crop mode, the storage and extra post processing to frame the shot later are a small reason, but also for the speed. If some cameras FPS are limited by the number of pixels it is processing then it should be able to process a crop faster. So if the 5d iv can do 7 fps, it should be able to do up to 14 FPS in ~1.5x crop mode with ~2.25x fewer pixels to process. The FPS could be limited by the focusing system or other factors, but I think a lot of FPS limits are made for business reasons.

A large part of the reason that Canon's crop mode in FF cameras that have it don't yield higher FPS has to do with the way the the data bus inside the camera works. If you could simply "turn off" part of the sensor in crop mode and never capture -- and have to later deal with -- those extra pixels then a higher frame rate could easily be achieved. Canon's crop mode, OTOH, still captures the whole frame, off-loads it from the sensor into the buffer and only then throws the extra data away. The only step that is truly "saved" is writing it to the card.... which is minimal. Arguably, that saving is eaten up by the extra processing needed to decide which data to keep and which to delete and the associated delete operations.

I am a software engineer and from that perspective what they do makes no sense at all....Never ingesting data in the first place that you fully intend to throw away is a decades old tenet of software design. I can only speculate that there's a hardware limitation to explain why they simply cant "turn off" or otherwise disable part of the sensor so the software never has to deal with moving that extra data around.

Anyone with sensor hardware knowledge, feel free to expand upon this....

 

[mpb001]

I think you've hit a very interesting point, The Rp a foundation for a great travel kit. But there aren't any travel lenses available fro it yet...only large and fast pro lenses. The Rf format lends itself to a a range of super small and light pancake primes or some super small wide zooms. But Canon seem to be blowing their R lens budget on the big ticket pro orientated L lenses. I wonder if Canon have thought about a super small and light 15-35mm f4, a 35-80mm and a 80-300. All designed to be small and light. Then a range of pancake lenses in the f2 arena, 15mm, 21mm (very range finder), 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and a 70mm. Maybe even a 135mm f2.8

Agreed, Canon will need to address adding to their lower "L" range lenses for the R mount. I use the f4 L lenses, because I do not need fast glass for my style of photography (travel and landscapes), for which I rely of mainly f8-f16 apertures.

 

[transpo1]

I’ll wait for a weather and freeze resistant model with higher frame rates in both 4K and stills before taking the plunge into the Canon EOS-R system. But I’m glad Canon is beginning to catch up. One day I’ll ditch my Fuji X-T3 and come back.

By the way, anyone know why Canon is getting rid of the scroll wheel on their FF mirrorless models? This is my favorite part of the hardware UI and the one hardware element that I miss from Canon cameras.

 

[Metalex]

You made false statements, which I have proven to be wrong with reference to facts. You have back paddled all the way, and your last defence is “how old are you”...seriously??

Edit: by the way, how much is Sony paying you to troll?

Christ. So I'd guess you're about 14 years old.

What did you prove wrong? Where did I back peddle? Quotes please.

 

[YnR]

They are like 90 year olds with a 21 year old trophy wife. Looks good by their side, but they aren't "up" to the job. The "gear" knows it, but the 90 year old blames the gear. Pathetic.

Look, I’ve got a 60D and have been patiently waiting the last few years for the right entry level FF body. The 6DII didn’t it cut it for me due to the many hashed over points. Would I rather have my 60 over the 6? Of course not but for the price, I decided to wait. Along comes Canon’s mirrorless FF which brings some attention with the possibility of a new sensor, higher FPS, along with the lighter weight and smaller package. So Canon may release a camera that isn’t noticeably improved over the 6D2 as far as output and performance. I’ve been waiting for several years, hoping for a better option, but it hasn’t come. Understand why so many of us “bots” are frustrated and saying the same thing?

 

[prodorshak]

I am in baby years regarding experience in photography (happily shooting with my 77D), maybe that's why I thought "RAW development in camera" is a good addition in a consumer model. But, no one is talking about it here. What am I missing? Is that a very common feature?

 

[AlanF]

The "R" lets you do this so I don't see why the RP would not.. ..... For this, I used my 100-400 F4-5.6L II with a 2XIII.. F 6.3 on lens, so the effective f-stop was F13. As you can see, it works great. AF from all over the sensor and fast enough to shoot a little BIF.... Images like this were impossible with any dSLR without pre-focusing and praying...

View attachment 183024

I am not deprecating the quality of your photo or the camera - both very fine indeed. But, I do query your statements. First, a huge great pelican slowing down as it lands on water is not "a little BIF" - pelicans are about the easiest birds to shoot in full flight, let alone slowly landing. Secondly, "Images like this were impossible with any dSLR without pre-focusing and praying..." I take dozens of shots like that with a dslr with similar focal length, and I am a rank amateur. Here are two of pelicans from last month on a 5DSR with a 100-400mm II at 560mm (yours is at 624mm).

 

[sanj]

I think this hits the nail on the head - that is who the RP is marketed for. There is a huge segment of the market that will jump at this because it ticks off the "mirrorless" and "full frame" checkboxes even if an 80D would be a much better camera for them.

I don't think any of the people saying the 6dii sensor is pathetic are in the market to buy a rebel, yet they make it sound like they'd buy this if the sensor was better. This is definitely a rebel-level camera in terms of controls and I'm sure they will find some other ways to cripple it, do you think they will go even slower than 1/180 flash sync speed?

Of course this can be the perfect camera for some specific situations ( small back up body, low light, static subjects. ) but odds are if you're on this forum its not the camera you are looking for.

I am on this forum and looking for this camera.

 

[bokehmon22]

There's a bit of rewriting history going on here. The 6D2 improved most aspects of the 6D and was released at a lower price than the earlier model. The sensor is 'worse' in marginal ways that won't impact most images. And incidentally I've just done a quick check of three major retailers (2 US, 1UK) and it's selling for $1499/£1499 - quite a bit above what you stated.

You must have miss BlackFriday sales. It was $1300.
Here is the deal website https://slickdeals.net/f/12281707-c...amera-w-24-105mm-f-4l-ii-lens-2199-00-more-fs on Nov 11, 2018.

It was $1300 from [bhphotovideo.com] bandhphoto.com

MSRP is $1500. Adorama used price is $1149

There isn't any rewriting history. You just do a very poor job at Google search.

Canon 6D II may be better than 6D but that isn't saying much.

Here is an Fstoppers Article.
Canon 6D Mark II: The Worst Camera of 2017
https://fstoppers.com/critiques/canon-6d-mark-ii-worst-camera-2017-209420

Compared to Canon own line, it's a fine camera, but it's overvalue at its debut price of $2000.

As the original owner of Canon 6D, I was hoping 6D II will be the low light king vs my Canon 5D IV. Canon didn't want to make the same mistake with 6D vs 5D III so it won't cannibalize 5D IV sales. Canon segmented the 6D II line even more by putting a slightly worst sensor, and added more AF points that's mostly center. Compare to 6D, it's a better camera, but compare to competitions, it's a poorly value one.

It couldn't beat out an 3 year old Nikon D750 in term of values that has dual card slot and better dynamic range and $200 cheaper.

At $1500, I don't know if I would recommend it over Sony A7III for $1800 that has a better sensor, dual card slot, IBIS, better eyeAF, and 4k. I can deal with the ergonomics issue with L bracket.

Canon has a history of providing poorly value camera because they know we are tied down to glasses - 5D IV, 6D II, and EOS R. They aren't bad camera. I don't think any FF camera in the last 5 year take bad pictures. It just a poorly value one.

 

[prodorshak]

I am not deprecating the quality of your photo or the camera - both very fine indeed. But, I do query your statements. First, a huge great pelican slowing down as it lands on water is not "a little BIF" - pelicans are about the easiest birds to shoot in full flight, let alone slowly landing. Secondly, "Images like this were impossible with any dSLR without pre-focusing and praying..." I take dozens of shots like that with a dslr with similar focal length, and I am a rank amateur. Here are two of pelicans from last month on a 5DSR with a 100-400mm II at 560mm (yours is at 624mm).
View attachment 183028View attachment 183029

Beautiful pelican! Sharing one of mine! (77D, 55-250 IS STM, f5.0, ISO-100, 1/160, 200mm)

 

[jvillain]

CW has a bunch of photos comparing the RP to the Z6 and the R if any one is interested,. As well they are claiming the EVF will be 2360k dots.

 

[m1mm1m]

I am not deprecating the quality of your photo or the camera - both very fine indeed. But, I do query your statements. First, a huge great pelican slowing down as it lands on water is not "a little BIF" - pelicans are about the easiest birds to shoot in full flight, let alone slowly landing. Secondly, "Images like this were impossible with any dSLR without pre-focusing and praying..." I take dozens of shots like that with a dslr with similar focal length, and I am a rank amateur. Here are two of pelicans from last month on a 5DSR with a 100-400mm II at 560mm (yours is at 624mm).
View attachment 183028View attachment 183029

You completely missed the point. Go back and read everything I wrote and you will clearly see that I never claimed these photos were spectacular from a BIF standpoint in any way...

What I did claim is 100% true.... No Canon (or anyone's, AFAIK) sDLR will auto-focus any lens/TC combination with an aperture of anything approaching f13. That is what I used and therefore what I did and how I did it was indeed impossible with any dSLR..

Your example uses a 1.4 TC on a 5DSR (I own both) which will indeed AF with the center few spots down to F8. I used a 2X TC on the 100-400 with which the "R" was still able to capably AF even using the very corner of the sensor even. Apples and oranges to you, my friend...

 

[crazyrunner33]

thanks ..I see that now...
is the electronic I.S. worth a stop or two?...

that's ok.. a little help..
and the lenses I use are usually fast..

good news it works for both.
...I wonder if it ..'plays well' with third party I.S.?..

I have no complaints ..just curiosity

I see it mostly as a video feature(might only work in video), it works similar to warp stabilizer in Adobe After Effects. If it does work, it's probably cropping the sensor. I've used the OIS and IBIS, and tried one and not the other on the GH5 and GX85, the physical sensor stabilizer works very well when combined with OIS. I haven't had personal experience with EIS in the Canon M50, but below is a link with some reviews of it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4330895

 

[max_sr]

A large part of the reason that Canon's crop mode in FF cameras that have it don't yield higher FPS has to do with the way the the data bus inside the camera works. If you could simply "turn off" part of the sensor in crop mode and never capture -- and have to later deal with -- those extra pixels then a higher frame rate could easily be achieved. Canon's crop mode, OTOH, still captures the whole frame, off-loads it from the sensor into the buffer and only then throws the extra data away. The only step that is truly "saved" is writing it to the card.... which is minimal. Arguably, that saving is eaten up by the extra processing needed to decide which data to keep and which to delete and the associated delete operations.

I am a software engineer and from that perspective what they do makes no sense at all....Never ingesting data in the first place that you fully intend to throw away is a decades old tenet of software design. I can only speculate that there's a hardware limitation to explain why they simply cant "turn off" or otherwise disable part of the sensor so the software never has to deal with moving that extra data around.

Anyone with sensor hardware knowledge, feel free to expand upon this....

There is another reason. Why sell one camera, that can do both: high res full frame images and high fps crop images, when you can sell two cameras, that can only do one of these things.

 

[Don Haines]

I think you've hit a very interesting point, The Rp a foundation for a great travel kit. But there aren't any travel lenses available fro it yet...only large and fast pro lenses. The Rf format lends itself to a a range of super small and light pancake primes or some super small wide zooms. But Canon seem to be blowing their R lens budget on the big ticket pro orientated L lenses. I wonder if Canon have thought about a super small and light 15-35mm f4, a 35-80mm and a 80-300. All designed to be small and light. Then a range of pancake lenses in the f2 arena, 15mm, 21mm (very range finder), 24mm, 35mm, 50mm and a 70mm. Maybe even a 135mm f2.8

what about the 24-240 lens, which is F6.3 at the long end? This would seem to me to be a great travel lens.....

 

[max_sr]

I am in baby years regarding experience in photography (happily shooting with my 77D), maybe that's why I thought "RAW development in camera" is a good addition in a consumer model. But, no one is talking about it here. What am I missing? Is that a very common feature?

Yes, there are many cameras out there, that can already do that.

 

[dtaylor]

As the original owner of Canon 6D, I was hoping 6D II will be the low light king vs my Canon 5D IV.

I hate to tell you this, but there are no "low light kings." All currently shipping FF sensors occupy roughly a 1ev band. If anything you're best off going high resolution (D850, A7r3, 5Ds/sr) because while there's more noise in flat areas, there's also considerably higher detail/sharpness and in post you have much more room to NR. The end result is a cleaner image that's still sharper/more detailed. But even then we're not talking about leaps and bounds.

BSI did virtually nothing for FF sensor sensitivity (probably due to microlens tech at that scale) and everyone is dealing with the same laws of physics.

At $1500, I don't know if I would recommend it over Sony A7III for $1800 that has a better sensor, dual card slot, IBIS, better eyeAF, and 4k. I can deal with the ergonomics issue with L bracket.

How about we wait and see if it's even the 6D2's sensor?