Further clarification of what will be announced by Canon next month

I think Canon needs to release one with rangefinder styled body a.k.a EVF in the corner..It just doesn’t make sense to put the EVF in the middle on Mirrorless camera anymore.
it kind of does for the flash mount.

If you use a corner EVF, you have make the entire camera bigger, OR use a 16:9 LCD.
 
Upvote 0

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,360
1,231
Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders. For prime lenses, nothing shorter than 135mm can handle an extender. For zoom lenses, the EF 70-200 series and the EF 100-400 series allow extenders, but that is based on the assumption that users will be at the longer ends of the focal length range when extenders are attached.

The big benefit of having a shorter registration distance is for wider angle lenses. Normal lenses benefit some, but not as much as wide angle lenses do. 70mm is right on the line between normal and telephoto. Anything past 85-100mm is not going to see much benefit from shorter registration distances in terms of image quality. A lens in that focal length range might see a benefit in terms of overall size and weight.
+++ Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders.

uhm. Tilt and shift lenses inclusive?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Aussie shooter

https://brettguyphotography.picfair.com/
Dec 6, 2016
1,183
1,817
brettguyphotography.picfair.com
The 5D Mark III had the same AF hardware as the 1D X. The 5D Mark IV had the same AF hardware as the 1D X Mark III. Both didn't have as many software options and both seemed to be a TAD, but not by much, less consistent from shot to shot. I think most of us are expecting the AF performance of the R5 to be very close but not quite equal to that of the 1D X Mark III in LV. Even at that level, it will be a massive improvement over the EOS R.
And apparently the R6 will have the same AF system as the R5. THAT could well be the most amazing thing that comes out of these releases
 
Upvote 0
Mar 20, 2015
428
372
Here's something that might surprise you. Canon don't release anything until it's been through a rigorous round of field testing with their photographers worldwide.

Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.

The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk
 
Upvote 0

Joules

doom
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2017
1,801
2,247
Hamburg, Germany
Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.

The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk
"consumer junk"? Do you consider products junk because they are aimed at market segments that don't have or can't justify the budget for high end gear?

I am grateful for the diversity of products Canon is putting out there. Photography is a hobby for many and for lots of people lenses like the ones you mention get them access to the joys that come with this hobby at reasonable prices. Using derogatory expressions for those products comes off as an insult to its buyers to me.

Keep in mind that low end sales also contribute to R&D that is used for L lenses. And that somebody may move upmarket as they skill and economic situation improve over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 9 users
Upvote 0

LSXPhotog

Automotive, Commercial, & Motorsports
CR Pro
Apr 2, 2015
787
980
Tampa, FL
www.diossiphotography.com
Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.

Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor."

In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips."

I may stand corrected here. But I also find it hard to believe because it's not what I've been told by anyone from Canon and I can't find anything online to confirm it - only evidence that goes against it. When I had issues with the
Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.

Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor."

In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips."

I am very curious about this statement. The 1DX Mark II has Dual Digic 6+ processors and a single regular Digic 6 for metering and AF. The original 1DX had Dual Digic 5+ processors and a single Digic 4 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark IV uses a single Digic 6+ and a single Digic 6 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark III used a single Digic 5+ for everything. The Canon 7D Mark II has dual Digic 6 processors. This comes directly from Canon's press material.

So we know for a fact, they have different processing hardware inside - there are photos of their main boards online to support that as well. His comments made in 2012 appear to be incorrect because the original 1D had a total of 3 processors on board wearing the Digic name and the 5D Mark III only made use of a single Digic. I really have no idea why he would make these comments and contradict what Canon has stated as a company and what the physical hardware indicates.
 
Upvote 0

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
283
223
Not always. If I want to shoot at f/1.8 without an ND filter and even at base ISO and 1/8000 the highlights will blow and the entire image will be three stops overexposed, then using a three stop ND filter will allow me to use base ISO at 1/8000 and f/1.8 and get a result that is three stops darker.
But you said (my emphasis) "The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights." No it isn't. It's to allow you to use a larger aperture (as in your example above, which I had already given), or a slower shutter speed (for creative reasons) than you would otherwise be able to. That's not "protecting the highlights", which is something you achieve by ensuring you don't expose too far to the right - more often than not without using an ND filter. In the most extreme cases - my f/1.4 lenses wide open in bright sunlight - an ND filter might be the only way to do this, but this is an edge case and in no way "the whole point of" an ND filter.

Or with video, if I am determined to use a 180° shutter and f/1.8, and even at base ISO I'm three stops too bright, then using a three stop filter allows me to use the shutter angle and aperture I want while reducing exposure three stops.
Yes, video typically uses slower shutter speeds than stills so an ND filter is a useful tool - but once again this is not "to protect highlights", it's to allow a suitable exposure of all tones at the required shutter speed..
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.

The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk
wow. elitist much?

there's a ton of L glass for the RF mount, canon needs diversity - and I'll have you know ..some of those consumer STM lenses are the best bang for the buck you can buy for lenses. it's a shame you sniff and ignore it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,376
2,308
Kentucky, USA
you don't need a feature in the camera to do this you know. you can already do this with most cameras.
you simply rattle off a burst and combine in photoshop.

the LiveND though is really cool.
Yes, you can do this. But you'd end up with a hundred or so photos you'd have to worry about the names, and store on camera, and transfer, and clean up, and combine, and go back and delete the old ones, etc.

With the in-camera feature you'd get a single raw file (or raw file with all individual images if you want, or raw file with a single image if you want). That's a drastic difference to store and work with.

And yes, the LiveND feature (stopping merging photos anytime) would be really cool. As I said before, with a fast enough graphics processor and fast enough sensor read times you could do almost anything, hence my new motto:

"Smart programming ain't just for SmartPhones!" :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Jan 29, 2011
10,675
6,121
wow. elitist much?

there's a ton of L glass for the RF mount, canon needs diversity - and I'll have you know ..some of those consumer STM lenses are the best bang for the buck you can buy for lenses. it's a shame you sniff and ignore it.
I think the more valid point is that previously even Canon’s non L glass has had respect for its capabilities, lenses like the EF 85 f1.8, the EF 35 f2 IS etc mean that even those who can’t or don’t want to spend the money can get really good results, further, until recently Canon didn’t fiddle their RAW files to make their cameras and lenses look better. Well now that isn’t true because every other manufacturer does things like make lenses that have horrific uncorrected distortions and artificially suppress noise in high RAW iso images it means Canon has to to stay competitive on price, which is one of the biggest purchasing decision for people in this market.

From a technical perspective the 24-240 is a dud the old 28-300 was not, Canon could do way better than they did but they are building it down to a price and making compromises they haven’t made in fF cameras before, the f11 lenses are also duds, you can do just as well with a $100 Opteka off eBay.

You might not like the verbiage but there is a valid point to be made when you consider the change of direction Canon has taken and how that will inevitably creep up the ladder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0