What’s next from Canon?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
I wasn't suggesting you were being negative. You mentioned caring about the EVF, and I used that as a jumping off point to addres your point and the wider discussion points on the board.
CR boys are very sensitive the week after an official announcement. It must be the comedown from all the news....
Upvote
0
What is it exactly that you see in a A7R4 that you don't see in an existing Canon body? And does the price differentiator make sense when you factor in new batteries, lenses, etc? Honestly curious. Because I cannot for the life of me see any logic to what you posted.
Upvote
0
Unfortunately we live in a YouTube world and if you don't include useable video features in your cameras you drastically reduce potential user base for your camera. Therefore all mainstream manufacturers include video in their still cameras.
Wedding photographers generally have much more earning potential if they shoot both stills and video as an example.
Upvote
0
Would you be upset if your phone could not do both? If you understand the basic technology of the various features, stills and video use the same electronics for image capture, stabilization, focus, etc. so why NOT put both in? Despite the perception, we are are not paying that much (if any) extra for video at all, and besides, the market wants both. Example: I want both in one body because stabilized lenses and body will be vastly superior for both stills and video jobs than a slower and lower spec. stills camera and separate professional camcorder with weak stabilization, or truly video centric DSLR like GH5 with a tiny sensor and weak autofocus. Not to mention I don't have 10-15K for a cinema camera and its accessories anyway.
The R5 offers incredible stills AND incredible video because it can, and costs only $400 more than the 5D4 and 5D3 which were both mostly stills cameras that were barely competent in video mode. While bringing so much more than the predecessors offered, as well as being mirrorless and having a new and better lens mount, the R5 is a better value for stills alone even if you never touched video. DPAF2 and the 1DXiii focus system plus fast stills shooting are all incredible additions for any stills photographer. For stills, the 5 series has clearly gone up market a bit due to competition, but everyone wants and is putting video and stills in one body. If you wanted just the great 5D4 sensor in a mirrorless body, well you already have it in the EOS R, and the 5D4 is still a great camera itself.
As to the technology for video vs stills, it is much the same: A high resolution sensor that can shoot 20 frames a second is only 10 frames shy of 30 fps at max sensor resolution- in this case an 8K sized sensor. Adding 10 more frames a second is a matter of a bit faster readout speed of the sensor- and the Digic X and the ADC readout hardware already needs to be a beast to do all the stills processing like HDR, DPAF, fast bursts, noise, lens corrections, etc. So it really is just two applications of the same electronic hardware- if you think stills and video are that different, you are perhaps misunderstanding how modern digital cameras work. The only "extra" is how many times the sensor can be read per second, and at the highest rate, heat. As for the other video modes below 8K, down sampling and lower video resolutions with higher frame rates use the same data bandwidth as 8K30 with different binning of pixels to share the max readout bandwidth. Maybe some engineering was spent on cooling and firmware for video, but again, referring back to the previous cameras, the R5 is borrowing from the rest of the Canon lineup and hardly making us pay that much for the "extra" of video and will be a great stills camera with features we could only dream of two years ago. Also, no one is holding you hostage to buy the R5, there are plenty of great still cameras with less video from Canon and other brands at all price points.
So please, reconsider your complaint against video in this and other cameras as if it is hurting you unless you have a logical argument. It is actually making your stills camera more capable to have hardware with this much power. If you don't want video don't use it. Or you could wait for another R that is sure to come with a different balance of features or get the R6 if you don't need high resolution. Canon is simply making a camera with wide appeal that does many things well, but it is not compromising on stills by doing so, nor did they add a big pricetag for the video features- I don't see how that argument can be made when you look at the predecessors. I suppose looking at Canon price premium in general is another argument, but according to the competition I think they are being competitive on price.
Upvote
0
Out of curiosity, higher in absolute numbers, or in cameras sold per X persons?
Higher price per unit doesn't sound all that surprising to me. Price of electronics has dropped, but there's so much more of it in a modern camera.
Upvote
0
I'm interested to see what plans Canon has for any future EF/EF-S lenses and APS-C cameras. As much as we like to get excited about the R5/R6, Canon's APS-C DSLR cameras are still where most people getting into photography, enter the canon ecosystem. Wonder if that elusive 7D mk3 will ever come, or will there be a new EF-S 10-18mm or new 50mm F1.4....
Upvote
0
Other Thant he the potential lag of the EVF and battery life, what do you think the R5 is missing for motorsports? With motorsports you panning a lot, so I don't see the lag as causing a significant problem. The battery issue can be somewhat solved by using the battery grip. Canon is usually conservative on shot count and you should get 800-1200 shots with a grip. ISO, should be on par or better than the 5d IV even with a 45mp sensor. AF, has roots in the 1dx iii a nd should blow away even the 1dx II (which I just sold). FPS, Matches my current 1dx II @ 12 FPS mechanical & 20 FPS electronic. Ergonomics, everything I read says it feels like a DSLR instead of a mirrorless. Overall, based on spec and early information this camera sounds like it blows away the 5dIV and will probably do better than a 5dV with AF points since the 5dV would use a separate sensor for AF. Not trying to rain on your parade, but I don't see Canon releasing another DSLR as long as the R5/R6 are capable of delivering on the specs, especially since you can adapt all EF lenses and they work seamlessly. I ordered the R5 to replace my 5dIV and the R6 as a possible replacement for my 1dx II.
Upvote
0
Definitions are rather arbitrary. EVF can do tricks OVF can't, such as brighten the image for lenses with small max aperture, apply corrections, display B&W image, etc.
Upvote
0
What definition would that be?
The only parameter where an EVF cannot beat the OVF, even in theory, is propagation delay (aka lag). Nevertheless, the delay can very well be low enough not to be noticeable. In that case it is out of the equation.
What else? Brightness? Exposure simulation? Information overlays?
Of course, 'better' is subjective. But I don't see a single parameter where EVF doesn't have the potential to - at least - come close enough.
Oh yes, I am aware of one, that is power consumption. The smaller the camera, the worse is the relative impact of battery weight. Do you see what that means for the anticipated R1?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Sure, there will always be people who prefer an OVF. I love it myself.
But for my curiosity, do you really believe chemical film still plays a significant role in still (or motion) photography?
Upvote
0
Behold the prophecy from Mark:
We will probably see in 1-2 years the EOS R1, there are two possibilities: Canon goes back to being Canon and they just make another body with the 1DXmIII sensor but with integrated battery grip, top notch weathersealing and all that stuff. Or they have another sensor in the pipeline that could match sony a9 readout.
I don't really know if we will see the high-megapixel R camera, but knowing Canon they will develop a 83mp sensor just to one up everyone else.
There is a probability that the M5 mark II is coming with ibis, evf and articulating screen. Same specs as m6 mark ii.
The M50 is still, literally, the best selleing mirrorless in every place. I think they can still wait a bit before bringing a replacement.
EF-M needs a standard zoom, or a kit lens mark ii. Expect a 18-45 F2.8-4 or a 15-45 F3.5-6.3 mark II
No more EF cameras guys, probably another round of Rebels and entry levels.
We will probably see in 1-2 years the EOS R1, there are two possibilities: Canon goes back to being Canon and they just make another body with the 1DXmIII sensor but with integrated battery grip, top notch weathersealing and all that stuff. Or they have another sensor in the pipeline that could match sony a9 readout.
I don't really know if we will see the high-megapixel R camera, but knowing Canon they will develop a 83mp sensor just to one up everyone else.
There is a probability that the M5 mark II is coming with ibis, evf and articulating screen. Same specs as m6 mark ii.
The M50 is still, literally, the best selleing mirrorless in every place. I think they can still wait a bit before bringing a replacement.
EF-M needs a standard zoom, or a kit lens mark ii. Expect a 18-45 F2.8-4 or a 15-45 F3.5-6.3 mark II
No more EF cameras guys, probably another round of Rebels and entry levels.
Upvote
0
While I agree the R6 and 7D are in substantially different niches, you get back some of that 'reach' on the former because it can AF with much narrower apertures, so you can mount longer lenses, teleconverters, and I guess even stacked teleconverters and retain (hopefully useable) AF (and without having to buy the more expensive telephoto lenses). It'll never compete on price and I guess not on weathersealing or ruggedness, but it has the high fps 7-series users are used to. (Obviously the R5 also has these features too, but at a substantially higher cost).
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 68328
Guest
Agreed, I probably should have clarified this. It seemed obvious to me, but it isn't.
To me, the viewfinder's first goal, whether optical or electronic, is a "window on reality" to show you what you're framing, what you're looking at... for real. And in that regard, you cannot do better than optical since you're directly looking at, well the real thing. There are no intermediate electronic pieces and processing. It's a direct connection between what you're framing at and your eyes/brain.
So yes, you (and others) are totally right: EVF can do tricks that OVF cannot and I totally admit that these tricks can be considered better. But that wasn't what I was thinking about in my 1st post.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
