New mid-level DSLR and EOS M5 Mark II the next ILC’s from Canon? [CR1]

Jul 21, 2010
31,093
12,856
Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.
The difference between excellent lens performance and slightly more excellent lens performance pales in comparison to the difference between manual focus and autofocus. I don’t imagine owners of the 16-35/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 MkII lenses were rushing out to buy the MkIII versions. And that’s assuming the lenses are better, the 24-105 is essentially identical between EF and RF.

The 28-70/2 is nice, but the extra stop adds quite a bit of weight and those 4mm on the wide end are quite significant. A retracting 70-200 is nice, but may also be perceived as less robust. An RF 24-70/2.8 IS would be nice, but the need for IS in that focal range is debatable. On the balance, all of these little improvements may add up to an advantage for the RF-based system, but seem unlikely to be a massive driver of MILC adoption among pros.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,093
12,856
Got a link?
There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).

As for the link...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=RF+70-200
:rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
Sometimes it's hard to imagine that the camera consumer community aren't the most brazen, and feckless people in the world. It's almost as though they are always telling us how bad the engineers are doing based on their personal knowledge of what's possible in technology advancements. There is a sense that they are always more knowledgeable than the camera brand manufacturers are, because there's always shortfalls in the designs that they are producing. These wonder people are blessed with the knowledge of how much the technology is advancing, and why there is a crippling of certain cameras due to the competitive nature of these brand names.

Sometime these brands are competing with themselves, such as the video capabilities being dumbed down so that the consumer is forced to buy a product in the dedicated video camera line instead of having those capabilities in the DSLR line. Everyone knows (they would make you think), beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these manufacturers are holding back certain features to make these devices more competitive in their own line of products. It's just an amazing feat, for the commenters to know more than the engineers, and how the implementation of these devices are strategically placed in order to make the upper echelon of products sell more. I just have never seen such brazen statements, such as "The limit has been reached on the light gathering capabilities of (such and such) that line of products", without knowing a thing about the actual implementation of the products themselves.

I'm not trying to make photographers look bad here, I'm just highlighting the strange way that these comments are just plain headstrong in their perspective of the evolution of modern day camera technology. When the Canon 6D MkII came out, it was the worst camera ever made, as it wasn't any better in expanding the dynamic range of an ISO 100 capture in regards to the 6D. It turns out, that the benefits of the new camera overall was more than enough to qualify as a great upgrade overall. Sure there were some instances where it fell slightly behind, but overall, it kicked butt over the 6D in overall performance. When you read the comments when this model came out, it was all about the ISO 100 capture nitpicking that left a bad taste in these peoples mouths, so it scored poorly "overall". Comments such as "Canon dropped the ball", or "The 6D Mk II falls way short of being an upgrade over the 6D". Of course, like I was saying all along, the 6D Mk II is a much better camera than the 6D in places that matter, like the articulating screen, the Dual Pixel focus, the ability to electronically work with Canon converters and the most popular telephoto lenses, and many, many other features that MATTER THE MOST. When a group of distractors gets away with the initial bashing of a new model, they can pat themselves on the back for the bragging rights that the 6D MkII was a poor upgrade because the ISO 100 capabilities didn't spank the 6D. Just the implimentation of Dual Pixel focus technology was enough of an improvement to discount the ISO 100 measly shortcomings. A new camera model doesn't need to outdo the previous model in the specifications in every single category to be a worthy upgrade. It's the overall package that matters most.

It's things like I just described that give the camera community the unique ability to tell the other members in the camera community that they know more than the engineers that develop and manufacture these wonderful devices. Sometimes I just don't understand where someone can brazenly assume that they know much more than the engineers who are responsible for the actual development of these wonderful cameras, but it runs rampant all the time it seems. You see it so many times, and looking back on just about every single camera that Canon has upgraded, it was the initial impressions that dogged the model, only to be a much better model, every single time.

EDIT: I wasn't meaning to respond to neuroanatomist . I was just responding to these posts overall.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0

unfocused

Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
Jul 20, 2010
7,184
5,483
70
Springfield, IL
www.thecuriouseye.com
I didn't mean "cater to" - I meant compete for. You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent. There have been a lot of people that have switched brands these last few years. Ideally, for Canon, you'd want them to switch to your brand and not away from it...

Actually, few companies gain market share by being excellent. Excellent may work for high-end niche products. But, for most products and services, "good enough" is the best strategy. I know it's popular for companies to market themselves as though their products are excellent. But the reality is they succeed by offering decent products at a competitive price (not my opinion, this has been documented.)

Your second statement, by the way, is factually wrong as has been pointed out innumerable times on this forum. Don't confuse churn with switching. On any given day, there will be switching from one brand to another. Companies are content to lose a few customers so long as they are gaining more than they are losing. Canon's numbers show that they are gaining more than they are losing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).

As for the link...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=RF+70-200
:rolleyes:

And in massive amusement, Canon won't even confirm that it extends, even though anyone with a vague understanding knows it will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
CR Pro
Sep 9, 2014
481
147
56
...but the need for IS in that focal range is debatable.

Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...
 
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
Actually, I had a realization around 2000 that SLRs were probably going to be replaced by what we call mirrorless, so I'm sure Canon was thinking about it since sometime in the 20th century...
Same here.

What many need to consider is that this is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary change.

When we went from film to digital, it was a revolutionary change. We changed from analog to digital, we went from dark rooms to computer screens.

Mirrorless is evolutionary. Our workflow remains the same, the sensors are basically the same. A Mirrorless camera is a DSLR being used in liveview mode with an extra display (EVF) and no mirror.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
Yes, I read what he wrote thanks.

Will most people be using MILCs in 5-10 years? We’ll see, it’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But, “The DSLR wil be dead in 5 years,” was the prediction by pundits...about 7 years ago. We’re still waiting, and the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs.
In 5 years, the odds are quite high that I will be using the DSLR cameras I have now. I may add a FF Mirrorless by then, but what I have now meets the functionality that I need.

As to the typical camera buyer, my feel is that the three biggest factors are price, ergonomics, and name recognition. The typical buyer does not care about Mirrorless, about DR, and about fancy programmable controls. These cameras spend their lives in Auto mode. The only real decision people make is to choose between small size ( like an M) or something like a Rebel or SR2 that looks more like a “real” camera and may ( or may not) fit the hand better, and that depends more on the size of the persons hands than any technical specs
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,093
12,856
Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...
I would certainly like IS in all my lenses. But ‘typical’ uses of a 24-70mm lens involve people, and that generally means 1/60 s or preferably higher (I use a 1/125 s minimum) to eliminate the effect of subject motion, which obviates the need for IS. I’d still like it (not all uses are ‘typical’, and I certainly appreciated being able to handhold 1/3 s waterfall shots with the RF 24-105/4L IS), but I doubt IS in a 24-70 will be a major driver of purchase decisions for most people in terms of switching from a DSLR to a MILC.
 
Upvote 0
Yes we should all roll over and just take what's given to us and have no expectations from companies but still gleefully give them thousands of our dollars. We should talk about how blessed and amazing our lives are like people do on Facebook.

You should give a company thousands of dollars for their products if you feel their products are worth it. If you'd rather purchase a competitor's product, you are perfectly free to purchase that instead. If no one makes the product you want (for the price you wish to pay) you're out of luck.

Your deliberate mischaracterization of malarcky's point is telling.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,093
12,856
Yes we should all roll over and just take what's given to us and have no expectations from companies but still gleefully give them thousands of our dollars. We should talk about how blessed and amazing our lives are like people do on Facebook.
No, but nor should we expect companies to give us everything we want for free.

See, you’re not the only one who can employ hyperbole.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
Canon will never compete with Sony...

:ROFLMAO: Let me take a stab at one sided rhetoric...

Sony will never compete with Canon. Sony's only hope to stay close was to provide adapters for Canon glass, but they can't adapt Canon's new RF mount. If Canon has made more lens improvements like the 28-70 f/2, 50 f/1.2, 15-35 f/2.8 IS, and half size 70-200 f/2.8 IS then all bets are off. Canon officially won the race. Sony has nothing even close, as they are still working on f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms that aren't even as sharp nor weather sealed.

Canon does a bazillion yen in R&D around lenses that have to be built to a higher technical level than anything Sony would dream of.

What does Sony have? Maybe a few kit lens sales, but other than that everyone using Sony is using adapted glass. And let's not forget that Canon's share of weather sealed bodies is 9,001 TIMES greater than Sony's. Sony is literally TWO AND A HALF DECADES behind Canon weather sealing technology. How can you close that gap and catch up?

Canon: 1
Sony: Lost

:LOL: That was fun.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
Upvote 0

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,805
1,433
Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...

Interesting since it was his individual reviews that resulted in me getting the Canon over the Tamron. I have two Tamron lenses and really like them. But I couldn't ignore the sharpness and micro contrast in the Canon 24-70 vs. the Tamron 24-70 while looking over his samples.

To be sure the Tamron is a good lens and it's a close call, but I had to go Canon on that one.
 
Upvote 0
Sep 26, 2018
280
420
Same here.

What many need to consider is that this is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary change.

When we went from film to digital, it was a revolutionary change. We changed from analog to digital, we went from dark rooms to computer screens.

Mirrorless is evolutionary. Our workflow remains the same, the sensors are basically the same. A Mirrorless camera is a DSLR being used in liveview mode with an extra display (EVF) and no mirror.

MF to AF was also a revolutionary change. While I'm convinced RF/mirrorless will win and EF/DSLR will go away, I don't think it will be anywhere near as fast as the FD to EF transition was. I think people who are suggesting that FD to EF is a good metaphor for EF to RF are going to be surprised when EF hangs around for much longer than they expect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
Yes because you exhibit the same superiority complex that you're criticizing in your post.
I don't use projection tactics in my responses to posts. My post was directed towards people who are on these forums who want to act like the Canon engineers are manipulative in their actions towards the market. My point is to the posters who don't feel like they need to pay any heed to the engineers that spend their hard earned time and engineering expertise to deliver products that we, as consumers, are sometimes taking for granted. I'm just making an observation. That should be clear to posters who actually understand my previous post, and the message I was attempting to deliver in that post. Only those who want to take what I said personally would respond in a fashion that is acting as though I was targeting a specific poster. Nowhere did I insinuate that I am doing that, as I am just making a generic statement that is prevalent in many posts on camera forums in general. The Canon engineers (and other manufacturers engineers) are doing their best to deliver products that put a smile on our faces, and to insinuate that they are deviantly manipulating their products to structure the market in a way that hampers their ability is just not where I believe they are, in their heart of hearts. I believe that we are enjoying the best that they have to offer, without a vested interest in hampering their products to structure their product lines. Of course some people will disagree, and that's their right to do so. Of course there is concern as to these product line placements, but they are giving us some really great products that should be celebrated, across the board.

I think that Canon is doing their best to deliver a premium product, and the impression I get from a lot of posters is that the engineers are manipulative more than they are intuitive. I'm not going to go into my perspective at length, but the products we are able to enjoy from Canon and other competitive manufacturers are of the highest quality that they are putting their namesakes on. The impression I get of these combative posts that only serve to muddy the waters is just fodder for the excitable persons who are on these forums to lessen the realization that these products we are purchasing today are marvels of technology. I see no need to keep hammering the suspicion that these manufacturers are crippling some products in order to boost the sales of others. Some people may disagree with that notion, and that's their right to do so.

To act like we (you and I and everyone else), as a consumer of cameras, can critique the manufacturers without any serious regard to what these engineers actually face in real time is what my post was about. It's not fair to take for granted what the deliberative features these products are actually facing when they release a new, or updated model, and then spread a rumor as to how they are dumbing down their products in order to sell more of other product lines. I believe that we are enjoying the best of what they have to offer, yet I get the impression that other posters just want to spread conspiracy theories about why they are manipulating certain models in order to advance or retard other product sales.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.
Nikon took the complete opposite approach to AF and tried, remarkably unsuccessfully and with staggering incompetence, to maintain compatibility with the F mount. A decision that ended up being a nightmare of incompatibility across lenses and bodies, throw in their early digital attitude that there would never be a need for ff sensors and the corresponding pro F mount lenses without the image circle to cover either the film frame or the ff digital sensors that eventually arrived and it is a shock that Nikon didn't disenfranchise every single Nikon shooter over that 2000's period.

Most pros I know spend a fraction on camera gear that even comparatively modest forum posters do and I've never met one who said a lens they owned, however modest it was, wasn't good enough.

The difference between mirrored and mirrorless is simply that, one has an optical viewfinder and one has an electronic viewfinder. Personally whilst I do see some of the advantages of EVF's I have yet to use one I'd take over an OVF for hours a day day after day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0