Canon always thinks that far ahead.
When the first IS lens was released in 1995, it turned out that all bodies introduced since 2003 were already compatible with the new IS lens.
Aren’t those numbers the wrong way around?
Upvote
0
Canon always thinks that far ahead.
When the first IS lens was released in 1995, it turned out that all bodies introduced since 2003 were already compatible with the new IS lens.
If you are happy with the image quality and maximum aperture you get at 600mm f/6.3 with the Sigma 150-600mm on an APS-C camera, the high end Canon long glass is not for you.
Indeed. In less challenging conditions (eg. full daylight), APS-C and lower quality lenses can certainly deliver excellent images. In those conditions, something like a Sony RX10 will do just as well, and be much smaller and lighter than a 7D/150-600 combo. In more challenging conditions (needing fast shutter speeds in lower light, like birds in flight in the early morning or late evening where light quality is great but light quantity isn’t), a faster lens and a larger sensor really make a difference – but there’s a trade off in size, weight and cost.If you are happy with the image quality and maximum aperture you get at 600mm f/6.3 with the Sigma 150-600mm on an APS-C camera, the high end Canon long glass is not for you.
Did they also intend to put out a camera that doesn't even do burst shooting in silent shutter mode without a firmware update like essentially every other good mirrorless camera can?I think this rollout was exactly what they wanted to do. Introduce a couple of halo lenses to establish their commitment to the mirrorless platform, and a moderately priced body with enough features to not fall flat. Then introduce a value priced model for the mass market and finally a “pro” model for all the hobbyists to drain their retirement savings on.
Did they also intend to put out a camera that doesn't even do burst shooting in silent shutter mode without a firmware update like essentially every other good mirrorless camera can?
I maintain that Canon got caught out by Nikon's release, and had to push the EOS R out the door before it was really ready. The R isn't a bad camera, but it is a rushed camera.
And I think that's why we're at the point we're at. Canon knows lenses. They've been making great ones for decades. The processing and software for full frame mirrorless is something they're still struggling with. So I think that's why we're at the point that we are of having one single camera released with a boat load of lenses either already released or about to be announced, many of them that out-class the only camera that's able to use them.
Yes obviously all mirrorless cameras are essentially like a DSLR in live view. But I'm talking specifically about how close the EOS R is to a 5D4, technologically. Really all they had to do to make the EOS R is take the sensor and interface that already existed for the 5D4's live view mode, and stick it in a new body with an EVF. Dual pixel autofocus has been around for years on the 5D4. It's just getting put to good use in the EOS R.
Granted there are a few improvements related to making the "live view" function of the EOS R into a fully featured way to shoot rather than the side show that it's always been in DSLRs. But really, there isn't a whole lot that the EOS R is that the 5D4 isn't when it's in live view. I'm just saying I don't think the EOS R was that huge of an engineering undertaking, aside from making the new RF mount.
Regardless of how exactly how much the lenses cost, it just seems weird to have Canon coming out with all of these top end, professional lenses when the only camera there is to use them with is... A little less than professional.
I still say that this product rollout is not exactly how Canon wanted it to go. Seems like they're struggling with mirrorless camera tech and didn't want to come out with it quite as early as they were forced to by Nikon. But meanwhile, they know how to make good lenses all day long, so those are coming out in droves.
I have to disagree with your description of the AF function on the R vs the 5DIV. I own and shot both several times a week. The dual pixel AF on the R works much better than on the 5DIV, also when using EF lenses. Just try a moving subject in poor light, and it becomes very obvious that the difference is more than significant. Put the RF 50L on the R, and the advantage increases much, much more. I am getting difficult shots in focus at f1.2 at a high keeper rate, a keeper rate that I could only dream of with my former 1DXII.
An example of difficult shots is my 1 year old daughter sitting on a kind of bike (toy) that moves back and forth (like a rocking chair). She moves either back or forth for maybe 0,5 seconds each way. The light is quite dim, but the R + the RF50L in AI servo and face tracking nails her eyes in shot after shot at f1.2, at a distance of 1-1,5 meters. I didn’t have her attention for more than a few seconds, and I can say for certain, that if I had the 1DXII I would need a good portion of luck to get away with one shot in ok focus.
Add to that, that I could leave it to the camera to focus. I could look up at her and get her to smile while shooting.
I really haven't used autofocus on the 5D4 in live view enough to comment on how well it works compared to the R. I was just saying that it's essentially the same focusing technology from the same sensor. Are all those cases you talked about with the 5D4 and 1DXii when using live view? I've just never known people to use those cameras in live view for anything high action or hard to track. Seems like it'd be kind of cumbersome compared to the viewfinder.I have to disagree with your description of the AF function on the R vs the 5DIV. I own and shot both several times a week. The dual pixel AF on the R works much better than on the 5DIV, also when using EF lenses. Just try a moving subject in poor light, and it becomes very obvious that the difference is more than significant. Put the RF 50L on the R, and the advantage increases much, much more. I am getting difficult shots in focus at f1.2 at a high keeper rate, a keeper rate that I could only dream of with my former 1DXII.
An example of difficult shots is my 1 year old daughter sitting on a kind of bike (toy) that moves back and forth (like a rocking chair). She moves either back or forth for maybe 0,5 seconds each way. The light is quite dim, but the R + the RF50L in AI servo and face tracking nails her eyes in shot after shot at f1.2, at a distance of 1-1,5 meters. I didn’t have her attention for more than a few seconds, and I can say for certain, that if I had the 1DXII I would need a good portion of luck to get away with one shot in ok focus.
Add to that, that I could leave it to the camera to focus. I could look up at her and get her to smile while shooting.
For me the comparison I agreed to was all VF focusing. The 1dx2 doesn’t have Servo in live view for stills. 1dx2 AF for swings etc can’t match the DPAF in the EOS R. Going off center with AF the gap becomes wider. Before I shot at 14 fps to try and get it anything. Now I take one .I really haven't used autofocus on the 5D4 in live view enough to comment on how well it works compared to the R. I was just saying that it's essentially the same focusing technology from the same sensor. Are all those cases you talked about with the 5D4 and 1DXii when using live view? I've just never known people to use those cameras in live view for anything high action or hard to track. Seems like it'd be kind of cumbersome compared to the viewfinder.
I really haven't used autofocus on the 5D4 in live view enough to comment on how well it works compared to the R. I was just saying that it's essentially the same focusing technology from the same sensor. Are all those cases you talked about with the 5D4 and 1DXii when using live view? I've just never known people to use those cameras in live view for anything high action or hard to track. Seems like it'd be kind of cumbersome compared to the viewfinder.
that is exactly the problem in this EF to RF transition....Here I am, thinking all I want is the 24-70 2.8 IS. But now it seems I want a few more.
But do I want to sell my EF gear to fund it? Argh!
Did they also intend to put out a camera that doesn't even do burst shooting in silent shutter mode without a firmware update like essentially every other good mirrorless camera can?
I maintain that Canon got caught out by Nikon's release, and had to push the EOS R out the door before it was really ready. The R isn't a bad camera, but it is a rushed camera.
that is exactly the problem in this EF to RF transition....
Ok, well then you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not debating the superiority of the old DSLR autofocus performance compared to the EOS R's on-sensor DPAF. I'm not debating how good or bad of a camera the R is. I'm only saying that it wasn't a very big undertaking, engineering-wise, especially hardware engineering-wise, because most of the underlying technology had already been around for years, in the form of the 5D4's sensor.No, I would never use 1DXII or 5DIV in live view in a situation like I described. The viewfinder AF works much better in the DSLRs for any type of action. And that was my point, the dual pixel AF in the R works so good, that it is much better than DSLRs in a challenging situation like the one I described. But please note, I haven’t used the R for other types of action photography, such as sports or BIF. I don’t have the experience to claim that the AF in the R is better than a DSLR in such situations. (But I recall Viggo praising the R for shooting soccer with the 85L f1.4 IS.)
That's true, but the bugs combined with the somewhat slow performance of the camera (again, no smooth feed to the EVF, no burst in silent mode for right now) says to me that overall Canon was not quite ready to enter the market when they did.I would note that the competition (including Sony) have had their share of SW shortfalls and bugs.
Ok, well then you're missing the point I'm trying to make. I'm not debating the superiority of the old DSLR autofocus performance compared to the EOS R's on-sensor DPAF. I'm not debating how good or bad of a camera the R is. I'm only saying that it wasn't a very big undertaking, engineering-wise, especially hardware engineering-wise, because most of the underlying technology had already been around for years, in the form of the 5D4's sensor.
All they really did was make a 5D4 that's stuck in live view mode, added a few software features to make it a fully functioning shooting mode instead of the secondary mode it is in the 5D4, and added an EVF. And it shows from things like the camera's inability to keep a smooth video feed going to the EVF, and the fact that there's no burst mode in silent mode, that Canon doesn't seem to have the software and processing aspects of full frame mirrorless nailed down yet. They basically just gave us a 5D4 stuck in live view minus a lot of its controls and with poorer weather sealing, and for some reason are already releasing a whole slew of lenses for it. It's just kind of strange to go right to releasing a ton of top of the line lenses when the only camera you can use them with, while again, capable in most regards, is definitely not what most people would want from a camera they would buy such expensive lenses to use with.