Is the new Canon full frame mirrorless called the EOS R?

[justaCanonuser]

What some people here aren’t giving voice to is that professionals would almost always prefer equipment designed specifically for a function, rather than some device that isn’t ideal for anything. Video will always be a clumsy add-on for a still camera, no matter how good it is.

I agree, a classic DSLR has a completely arkward form factor for longer video takes. Same with ML system cameras. That's what fueled the market for video rigs that look like a sort of LEGO Technic like solution to this problem.

That said, Stephen Soderbergh shot "Unsane" completely with an I-phone, what caused quite a stir, as you know. I can imagine that those poor victims in the team who really had to hold the smartphones for hours and hours steady enough to get the takes did have some trouble with their arms and backs in the evenings.

 

[Ozarker]

I have never seen stock in a very specific feature climb so high in value in such a short period of time as Eye AF.

I've never used it before, but can someone convey to me how it went from being a neat new feature to 'if Canon's next camera doesn't have it, I'm setting my house on fire'?

- A

My 5D Mark III has eye AF. I just point one of those little red square focus thingies in my viewfinder at the subject's eye, attain AF, and shoot. As my subject moves and composition changes (that happens?) I simply use the auto-pan feature in my neck, hips and shoulders to reacquire the target.

Seriously, though... I'm with you.

 

[transpo1]

Maybe because of the heat issue...? Do you always ignore the obvious, preferring instead theories of conspiracy and deceit?
Have you seen the cooling system on the Cxxx series? That is how it is done on proper video cameras.

I think the real success behind Sony is not the sensor but the processor that allows it all to happen and can do so more efficiently which means less heat and they can put in 4k more easily - I am not saying they have it sussed because there are still reports about overheating albeit not as commonly as before.

Perhaps you misunderstood- I am disagreeing with you

I believe they could have implemented FF 4K in the 5DIV if they had wanted and full APS-C 4K in the M50. Perhaps further testing and engineering tweaks may have been necessary but they simply did not care enough to implement them.

Or, at worse, they were crippling the video capabilities to protect their proper video camera line, as you called it.

Either way, they can do better.

 

[transpo1]

Price is the most important determining feature in what people buy. If people can't afford e.g. a $2k camera and giving up the other features baked into DSLRs and MILCs (much larger sensor, interchangeable lenses with options from fisheye to macro to supertelephoto, professional flashguns, and all the rest) and find a phone does what they want, good for them - they are sensible to choose the cheaper option. But it doesn't mean your earlier points 'a phone can do X so a camera should too' (which ignore the reality of implementing certain things with a larger sensor) and (by implication) 'adding X (e.g. 120fps video) will make them competitive against phones' stand up to scrutiny. If we're talking about people specifically choosing a high end camera (which includes all FF options), then the phone is essentially irrelevant.



That's an assertion based entirely on your opinion and dislike of Canon as a company. You're entitled to it - but let's not treat it as some sort of special insight or evidence that what you say is true.

Incidentally, you use the term 'cannibalising' which has become popular on here recently. Let's boil it down - Canon wants to sell as many cameras as possible, as profitably as possible, and they seem to have succeeded in that for many years. It upsets people that their pet features aren't always included - too bad. It doesn't mean their corporate strategy is wrong - it's clearly working! (And we don't see any seismic shift in sales despite what people keep claiming will happen).

The more someone is using a product, let’s say in this case a MILC or DSLR, the better. If I have to reach for my phone during a shoot because it takes better video than my camera, that’s just dumb. Sony has more or less kept up with the video tech of iPhones, so Canon should try to do the same. It really is quite simple.

And I am not the only one using “cannibalizing,” Canon executives used that earlier in the year when they spoke of stepping up their mirrorless entries in the market, which was a shift in strategy. With Sony’s rather good FF MILC 1H 2018 sales, we can see why Canon is interested in entering the FF MILC market.

So, I am afraid you are wrong- their corporate strategy was slightly off, and now they are attempting to correct it. The truth hurts, but you’ll get over it.

 

[scyrene]

The more someone is using a product, let’s say in this case a MILC or DSLR, the better. If I have to reach for my phone during a shoot because it takes better video than my camera, that’s just dumb. Sony has more or less kept up with the video tech of iPhones, so Canon should try to do the same. It really is quite simple.

And I am not the only one using “cannibalizing,” Canon executives used that earlier in the year when they spoke of stepping up their mirrorless entries in the market, which was a shift in strategy. With Sony’s rather good FF MILC 1H 2018 sales, we can see why Canon is interested in entering the FF MILC market.

So, I am afraid you are wrong- their corporate strategy was slightly off, and now they are attempting to correct it. The truth hurts, but you’ll get over it.

 

[Mikehit]

Perhaps you misunderstood- I am disagreeing with you

I believe they could have implemented FF 4K in the 5DIV if they had wanted and full APS-C 4K in the M50. Perhaps further testing and engineering tweaks may have been necessary but they simply did not care enough to implement them.

Or, at worse, they were crippling the video capabilities to protect their proper video camera line, as you called it.

Either way, they can do better.

So you are admit that further testing may be have been necessary but Canon should have included it anyway?? Sony does that, but we know Canon does not. Sony are happy to release a camera that they know has overheating problems but Canon does not release products that risks crapping out at any time. It is a completely different approach to product design and release.

I know Canon exec has spoken about having to risk cannibalising sales of the higher models (I read that interview as well) but to apply that to every single decision you disagree with with is borderline moronic.

 

[melgross]

I agree, a classic DSLR has a completely arkward form factor for longer video takes. Same with ML system cameras. That's what fueled the market for video rigs that look like a sort of LEGO Technic like solution to this problem.

That said, Stephen Soderbergh shot "Unsane" completely with an I-phone, what caused quite a stir, as you know. I can imagine that those poor victims in the team who really had to hold the smartphones for hours and hours steady enough to get the takes did have some trouble with their arms and backs in the evenings.

Those films, and there have been a few of them now, as well as the Tv shows, are usually filmed with what are equivalent to the SteadyCams I used when shooting Tv commercials long ago, but far smaller. Some of it is also shot on tripods. So there’s no doubt that cameras not designed specifically for something can be used. For a special look, that will be the case. Sometimes a tiny smartphone is liberating, and in certain situations, far less intimidating. But for the large majority of work, specialized equipment will always be preferred, until some time when technology enables everything to be merged

But most of us here can remember the dawn of the digital photography age, where there was much written about how not needing a film canister and a wind mechanism and all the resulting space being taken up with it, would result in new camera forms that were much more efficient, lighter, smaller, etc.

So while, for a few years, we did see some very odd shapes and functionality, after a while, the forms developed over the better part of a century came back to dominate, and even to completely eliminate all of those new experiments in form and function. The same is true for still vs video cameras. A still camera is terrible for video because it’s not designed to be used for that. The same thing in the opposite direction for video. Nobody proposes that shape for still photography, for good reason.

 

[melgross]

The more someone is using a product, let’s say in this case a MILC or DSLR, the better. If I have to reach for my phone during a shoot because it takes better video than my camera, that’s just dumb. Sony has more or less kept up with the video tech of iPhones, so Canon should try to do the same. It really is quite simple.

And I am not the only one using “cannibalizing,” Canon executives used that earlier in the year when they spoke of stepping up their mirrorless entries in the market, which was a shift in strategy. With Sony’s rather good FF MILC 1H 2018 sales, we can see why Canon is interested in entering the FF MILC market.

So, I am afraid you are wrong- their corporate strategy was slightly off, and now they are attempting to correct it. The truth hurts, but you’ll get over it.

I’m wondering just how correct Sony is in their statement. They’ve done this a year ago, or so, and we’re shown to be using such skewed examples that their statement was very misleading. I’d be surprised if that weren’t true here too.

 

[transpo1]

Haha, cute non-response

 

[transpo1]

I’m wondering just how correct Sony is in their statement. They’ve done this a year ago, or so, and we’re shown to be using such skewed examples that their statement was very misleading. I’d be surprised if that weren’t true here too.

Perhaps for FF sales for 1 month but for the whole first half of 2018? That’s tougher to fake.

 

[transpo1]

So you are admit that further testing may be have been necessary but Canon should have included it anyway?? Sony does that, but we know Canon does not. Sony are happy to release a camera that they know has overheating problems but Canon does not release products that risks crapping out at any time. It is a completely different approach to product design and release.

I know Canon exec has spoken about having to risk cannibalising sales of the higher models (I read that interview as well) but to apply that to every single decision you disagree with with is borderline moronic.

Further R&D before release.

Cannibalization applies here rather directly given the context of the executive’s comments along with the M50 release and it’s inclusion of 4K video.

Not hard to understand for thinking people.

 

[Mikehit]

Further R&D before release.

.

So you think they should have done more R&D before release then say they did not care enough to put it in the last release. They cared enough to not put it in until it was ready, and as it needed more R&D to meet Canon standards so they did not put it in. Is that so hard for thinking people to understand?

 

[neuroanatomist]

Perhaps for FF sales for 1 month but for the whole first half of 2018? That’s tougher to fake.

Their statement is likely correct. But context is important…Canon has not released a FF ILC in quite some time, and for the first half of 2018 the D850 was unavailable from all major US online retailers. Meanwhile, Sony recently released two FF MILCs, one at $2K. Given the three major manufacturers are releasing FF MILC's this year, I wouldn't expect any announcements from Sony about full year sales.

 

[justaCanonuser]

So while, for a few years, we did see some very odd shapes and functionality, after a while, the forms developed over the better part of a century came back to dominate, and even to completely eliminate all of those new experiments in form and function. The same is true for still vs video cameras. A still camera is terrible for video because it’s not designed to be used for that. The same thing in the opposite direction for video. Nobody proposes that shape for still photography, for good reason.

I think we are in a transition period. The next generation will not use cameras or smartphones in the today's meaning anymore. Digital camera like devices will be so small and light (and very capable) that you can attach them not only to glasses, but nearly everywhere, or they are integrated in clothes etc. Light field technology will be mature, so there will no focusing will be needed anymore, you just can set a focus by post processing (or use infinite DoF).

Cameras with big (interchangeable) lenses and classic form factors will survive only in the analogue market, I guess. This market be like the vinyl market, driven by a small but stable group of enthusiasts.

But - maybe the future will be completely different...

 

[transpo1]

So you think they should have done more R&D before release then say they did not care enough to put it in the last release. They cared enough to not put it in until it was ready, and as it needed more R&D to meet Canon standards so they did not put it in. Is that so hard for thinking people to understand?

They did not care enough to do the R&D to include it or did not want to include to risk cannibalizing. It’s either / or both.

Now we have a reading problem.

 

[transpo1]

Their statement is likely correct. But context is important…Canon has not released a FF ILC in quite some time, and for the first half of 2018 the D850 was unavailable from all major US online retailers. Meanwhile, Sony recently released two FF MILCs, one at $2K. Given the three major manufacturers are releasing FF MILC's this year, I wouldn't expect any announcements from Sony about full year sales.

Quite possible- we will see

Exciting times anyway- consumers will win in the end.

 

[Jack Douglas]

I think we are in a transition period. The next generation will not use cameras or smartphones in the today's meaning anymore. Digital camera like devices will be so small and light (and very capable) that you can attach them not only to glasses, but nearly everywhere, or they are integrated in clothes etc. Light field technology will be mature, so there will no focusing will be needed anymore, you just can set a focus by post processing (or use infinite DoF).

Cameras with big (interchangeable) lenses and classic form factors will survive only in the analogue market, I guess. This market be like the vinyl market, driven by a small but stable group of enthusiasts.

But - maybe the future will be completely different...

And they'll just magically notice your favourite birdie and snap it's closeup with perfect eye focus.

Or it could be different - maybe no birdies or humans left.

Jack

 

[Mikehit]

They did not care enough to do the R&D to include it or did not want to include to risk cannibalizing. It’s either / or both.

Now we have a reading problem.

Perhaps you should learn to write clear and concise English?

Or they had done as much R&D as they could and still not solved the problems.

 

[Don Haines]

Those films, and there have been a few of them now, as well as the Tv shows, are usually filmed with what are equivalent to the SteadyCams I used when shooting Tv commercials long ago, but far smaller. Some of it is also shot on tripods. So there’s no doubt that cameras not designed specifically for something can be used. For a special look, that will be the case. Sometimes a tiny smartphone is liberating, and in certain situations, far less intimidating. But for the large majority of work, specialized equipment will always be preferred, until some time when technology enables everything to be merged

But most of us here can remember the dawn of the digital photography age, where there was much written about how not needing a film canister and a wind mechanism and all the resulting space being taken up with it, would result in new camera forms that were much more efficient, lighter, smaller, etc.

So while, for a few years, we did see some very odd shapes and functionality, after a while, the forms developed over the better part of a century came back to dominate, and even to completely eliminate all of those new experiments in form and function. The same is true for still vs video cameras. A still camera is terrible for video because it’s not designed to be used for that. The same thing in the opposite direction for video. Nobody proposes that shape for still photography, for good reason.

Or,, as said many times for many products, form follows function.....

 

[justaCanonuser]

And they'll just magically notice your favourite birdie and snap it's closeup with perfect eye focus.

Or it could be different - maybe no birdies or humans left.

Jack

Well, I do hope that humans and birds (overall) are fit enough to adapt to this fast changing world. Dinosaurs like me, who still love analogue photography (me besides digital photography, I am no film snob), will be stuffed and displayed in the Vinyl- and Lomo-Museum

But I really can imagine "AI" camera technologies coming up, sort of Alexa-like ones, that pest you with dictatorial decisions what you can shoot and what not (e.g. non-smiling faces) - just like those bloody autocorrection functions turn your texts into a da da like absurd statement while you are typing. Or the AI system is so perfect like in the movie "Her", so you fall in immortal love with your camera, forget your wife, family, friends... well, sounds like this has happened already in the age of mechanical film cameras, hasn't it?