Breaking down the latest Canon gear to appear for certification

Oct 31, 2016
132
49
Again I have no official confirmation, but the STRONG hint at the official EOS R press release, from the mouths of Canon themselves, was that the next (imminent, even) RF system camera is going to be an "s/R" style camera, not an "X/1" style camera. I think this is a hint that we can take to the bank.
Can you clarify what you say? What's s/R style camera? Lower spec camera?
 
You didn't just call the 6D2 sensor "half-decent" did you? :)
Every full-frame sensor released in the last 5+ years has been "half decent". But we don't spend $2K+ on a camera system for "half decent" now, do we? Actually, I take that back; PLENTY of photographers may buy whichever camera they think is the best on-paper, and yet in real world use they don't even come close to pushing the envelope as far as that camera could possibly take them. So yeah, the 6D2 is a fantastic camera for anyone who simply doesn't push the envelope that much. But then again those are also the idiots who probably shouldn't have bothered upgrading from their 80D in the first place, LOL, and just worked on taking better pictures first. ;-)
 
Likes: bokehmon22
What exactly would 6DII type mirrorless camera have?
Cropped 4K or no 4K
8 fps more or LESS
My thought is that if the bring out 2 FF mirrorless cameras Q1 or Q2 next year one with one may well have a 26 mp while being $1599 or $1699 and the other that 50 mp while being $3000 or $4000.
This. I didn't ask /directly/, but based on conversations I'd say there's a 99.9% chance that we'll have a total of 3 RF bodies in ~12 months, not just 2, and there will be both a cheaper and more high-end option. The higher-end option will NOT be a >$5K flagship. The only question seems to be, therefore, which sensor will they put in a ~$3500 s/R class camera? The same 30 MP sensor, or a 50-60 MP sensor? I suspect the latter, in which case I truly hope that its mRAW and sRAW show zero loss of dynamic range, because I'm not shooting 16+ hour Hindu weddings on a 60 MP camera LOL.
 
Sep 11, 2018
6
5
But then again those are also the idiots who probably shouldn't have bothered upgrading from their 80D in the first place, LOL,

How can you call people that ? Who are you ? Do you actually know everything? or are you getting a bit ahead of yourself?
 
But then again those are also the idiots who probably shouldn't have bothered upgrading from their 80D in the first place, LOL,

How can you call people that ? Who are you ? Do you actually know everything? or are you getting a bit ahead of yourself?
Who I am is a generally peaceful person who can't stand to see people fighting over which new camera has a 1/6 EV advantage over the other, who sometimes go so far as to scoff at or scold those who haven't "upgraded" yet, ...meanwhile their portfolios and shooting habits reveal that their own images don't even come close to pushing those exotic cameras/lenses to their full potential.

If YOU are the type of person who 1.) pushes your camera to its limits, and/or 2.) doesn't judge other people for not having the latest gear, ...then we have no real disagreement.

BTW, if you're wondering just what "pushing the envelope" means these days, here's an example of using both a camera and lens at or near its limits: (Spoiler alert: the Nikon Df failed, and the Canon 6D (mk1) had to come to the rescue, due to Nikon's stupid continuous shooting 99-frame limitation.)
 
Likes: bokehmon22

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,437
75
So yeah, the 6D2 is a fantastic camera for anyone who simply doesn't push the envelope that much. But then again those are also the idiots who probably shouldn't have bothered upgrading from their 80D in the first place, LOL, and just worked on taking better pictures first. ;-)
I am curious what limits you refer.

It sounds to me like you insulted all the 6D II owners out there.
 
Oct 26, 2013
975
118
Canon needs to know when they're being uncompetitive. They don't need a pat on the back when they produce a camera that lacks numerous key competitive features which a competitor is putting out.
Your viewpoint is that of the reviewer (as you state that you are). So you compare specs of the different brands. If you think a person should choose a camera by who has the best or most complete specs, by all means, do so. To consider those that disagree with you to be somehow Canon apologists - or that we make excuses - is being very disrespectful and makes the assumption that you are somehow a superior judge of what makes a good camera.

I have used or owned Sony, Canon, Nikon and Olympus cameras. I choose Canon (and also have an Olympus) not because of loyalty or some flawed sense of what I want in a camera. I know exactly what I want in a camera and choose accordingly.

As for competitive....

Most spec oriented reviewers seem to believe that Sony is "king" and that Canon is a disgrace for releasing the 6D II.. Yet a very respected member here spent a good amount of time using the A7 MIII and compared it to his 6D II and said,

"The A7M3 has much better autofocus TRACKING of certain subjects like human faces. There are some cool features like face registration and face preference, and of course, Eye AF is great for human subjects in well-lit conditions. But it is TERRIBLE in comparison to the 6DII in:
- Raw autofocus speed in good conditions
- Raw autofocus speed in dimly lit conditions
- Autofocus in very poor lighting where an AF illuminator is needed -- is excellent in 6DII and unusable in Sony
- Accuracy of spot selection in PDAF mode (the Sony is good for choosing the right point in accurate focus-magnified Autofocus in Contrast Detect mode, but then it's painfully slow)
- Continuous autofocus of a small subject by manually tracking it (such as a bird)
- Autofocus hunting in non-continuous AF modes
- Autofocus at smaller apertures (where the Sony uses crappy, stopped down autofocusing)
To me, every cool feature in the A7M3 is dwarfed by relatively poor autofocus. 20 steps of DR does nothing for me if my bird is blurry.

My own experience with Sony is with the A7 and A7 II. One underexposed by 1 stop, the other by a whopping 1 1/2 stops. I have owned perhaps 10 digital cameras and while there is often some variation in exposure, none were this far off. The kit lenses, while not cheap, were the worst lenses I have owned. There is some thought that this is not really the lenses fault, but due to the short flange distance and narrow mount. The color science of Sony is poor in my opinion. The ergonomics are awful in the opinion of many.

So what may be competitive for one photographer may not be the same for another. Of the 4 brands I have tried:

Color: I think Canon #1, Olympus #2. Sony last.
Ergonomics: Canon #1, Sony last.
Exposure accuracy: All good except Sony.
Lenses ( I am not able to afford lenses that cost thousands, so having medium priced lenses is a must) Canon #1.

Luckily, I haven't needed weather sealing, but recent well publicized tests gave high marks to all brands except Sony, which basically failed.

So, personally, I am glad that Canon is NOT putting out the features that some of their competitors are putting out! Features like poor AF, Poor color, poor ergonomics, poor lenses, poor exposure and poor weather sealing.

Obviously, folks will see this as just another Canon fanboy or apologist. I couldn't care less. I don't care which company sells the most or who is rated #1. I think each person should buy the camera that suits them best. I have no interest in promoting Canon, but just try to be fair and defend Canon, and their users, against the comments I see as unfair.
 
Oct 31, 2016
132
49
Your viewpoint is that of the reviewer (as you state that you are). So you compare specs of the different brands. If you think a person should choose a camera by who has the best or most complete specs, by all means, do so. To consider those that disagree with you to be somehow Canon apologists - or that we make excuses - is being very disrespectful and makes the assumption that you are somehow a superior judge of what makes a good camera.

I have used or owned Sony, Canon, Nikon and Olympus cameras. I choose Canon (and also have an Olympus) not because of loyalty or some flawed sense of what I want in a camera. I know exactly what I want in a camera and choose accordingly.

As for competitive....

Most spec oriented reviewers seem to believe that Sony is "king" and that Canon is a disgrace for releasing the 6D II.. Yet a very respected member here spent a good amount of time using the A7 MIII and compared it to his 6D II and said,

"The A7M3 has much better autofocus TRACKING of certain subjects like human faces. There are some cool features like face registration and face preference, and of course, Eye AF is great for human subjects in well-lit conditions. But it is TERRIBLE in comparison to the 6DII in:
- Raw autofocus speed in good conditions
- Raw autofocus speed in dimly lit conditions
- Autofocus in very poor lighting where an AF illuminator is needed -- is excellent in 6DII and unusable in Sony
- Accuracy of spot selection in PDAF mode (the Sony is good for choosing the right point in accurate focus-magnified Autofocus in Contrast Detect mode, but then it's painfully slow)
- Continuous autofocus of a small subject by manually tracking it (such as a bird)
- Autofocus hunting in non-continuous AF modes
- Autofocus at smaller apertures (where the Sony uses crappy, stopped down autofocusing)
To me, every cool feature in the A7M3 is dwarfed by relatively poor autofocus. 20 steps of DR does nothing for me if my bird is blurry.

My own experience with Sony is with the A7 and A7 II. One underexposed by 1 stop, the other by a whopping 1 1/2 stops. I have owned perhaps 10 digital cameras and while there is often some variation in exposure, none were this far off. The kit lenses, while not cheap, were the worst lenses I have owned. There is some thought that this is not really the lenses fault, but due to the short flange distance and narrow mount. The color science of Sony is poor in my opinion. The ergonomics are awful in the opinion of many.

So what may be competitive for one photographer may not be the same for another. Of the 4 brands I have tried:

Color: I think Canon #1, Olympus #2. Sony last.
Ergonomics: Canon #1, Sony last.
Exposure accuracy: All good except Sony.
Lenses ( I am not able to afford lenses that cost thousands, so having medium priced lenses is a must) Canon #1.

Luckily, I haven't needed weather sealing, but recent well publicized tests gave high marks to all brands except Sony, which basically failed.

So, personally, I am glad that Canon is NOT putting out the features that some of their competitors are putting out! Features like poor AF, Poor color, poor ergonomics, poor lenses, poor exposure and poor weather sealing.

Obviously, folks will see this as just another Canon fanboy or apologist. I couldn't care less. I don't care which company sells the most or who is rated #1. I think each person should buy the camera that suits them best. I have no interest in promoting Canon, but just try to be fair and defend Canon, and their users, against the comments I see as unfair.

Alot of thing you mentioned is debatable. You should check out this video

Canon isn't #1 when it come to color science and Sony is closing the gap with their latest camera. If you edit RAW, there are profile to mimic Canon colors.

Regarding ergonomic, Canon is better than Sony but I'm sure for $2000 ($1800 with edu discount), people can use L plate/grip & custom menu to get over that. Sony have better value proposition with better sensor, IBIS, eyeAF, video features, dual card slot. I doubt Canon L lens are enough to keep people staying with Canon especially now Sigma & Tamron make pretty good lens. (Sigma 135 vs Canon 135, Sigma 14-24 vs 16-35, etc). Some lens from Sigma works fine with adapter too so it isn't incredibly hard to switch.

There are alot of photographers who are willing to overlook the poor ergonomic, menu, color to get an affordable camera body with all those specs. That's why Sony have the best selling FF camera in N America.

Sony next generation may have even better specs such as that 5.6 million dot EVF 240fps (A7SIII), improve color science and maybe a redesign bigger body (rumored). I doubt they stay idle with sensor tech either, and improvement on ergonomic issue especially now that Nikon/Canon both going toward the bigger size FF mirrorless camera.

Yes Canon is lagging behind the competition when it comes to specs that matters to most consumers and that's why Sony is #1 when it come to FF camera. I also believe there a fewer photographers who prioritize ergonomic, menu, color science etc over features and price. Nowadays, most photographers just looking to get the biggest bang for your buck.

I'd love to stay with Canon since I value everything you listed, but I found the tech features to be underwhelming. Just let the reviewers/YouTubers complain, if anything, we get better specs camera at a better price.
 
Last edited:
But it is TERRIBLE in comparison to the 6DII in:
- Raw autofocus speed in good conditions
- Raw autofocus speed in dimly lit conditions
- Autofocus in very poor lighting where an AF illuminator is needed -- is excellent in 6DII and unusable in Sony
- Accuracy of spot selection in PDAF mode (the Sony is good for choosing the right point in accurate focus-magnified Autofocus in Contrast Detect mode, but then it's painfully slow)
- Continuous autofocus of a small subject by manually tracking it (such as a bird)
- Autofocus hunting in non-continuous AF modes
- Autofocus at smaller apertures (where the Sony uses crappy, stopped down autofocusing)
Since the 6D2 has two completely different AF systems, due to the fact that it's got an optical viewfinder and a mirror box, I'm not sure which AF performance you're referring to in any of these instances. However, the bottom line as I said is that the 6D2 should have had the 5D4's off-sensor PDAF system.

Either way, trust me I'd love for "the word to get out" that Sonys just don't work as smoothly as Canons, or Nikons, or whatever. I don't like it when people judge a camera based on the spec sheet alone. As a reviewer, I always recommend that people actually hold multiple cameras and get to know them before making any decisions, and I also encourage potential buyers to avoid taking advice from people who have only ever held the one camera they own and know.

Unfortunately, like I said, I'm still watching the Sony A7iii be people's final decision time after time, ...after time. If I got the feeling that it was even remotely close to an even split, I wouldn't be this critical of "the #1 brand that obviously knows what they're doing because sales are still strong..."
 
There are alot of photographers who are willing to overlook the poor ergonomic, menu, color to get an affordable camera body with all those specs. That's why Sony have the best selling FF camera in N America.
Part of the issue is that many Sony shooters are doing more video shooting than than stills, and they couldn't care less about ergonomics because the camera is spending 90-99% of the time enclosed in a "rig", or on a gimbal. They aren't spending hours a day with the camera to their eye and both hands perfectly wrapped around the camera+lens.

As a stills shooter, I feel every minor oddity in the contours of a camera. Whenever I get a new camera that digs into one of my fingers in a new way, it hurts after 12+ hours with the camera. So I absolutely prefer Canon/Nikon ergonomics.

But again, ergonomics is almost always an afterthought with buyers these days, who often make their decisions based on internet reviews and spec sheets. They learn to live with whatever ergonomics they wind up with, they trudge through whichever menu system they are forced to. Only a select few can afford to just say, "nah, this is too frustrating, I'm going to go through the painstaking trouble of familiarizing myself with a whole different system, just for a potentially more convenient shooting experience..."

It's a shame that so many brick-and-mortar camera shops are gone; just 10-20 years ago it was really easy to make a camera system decision based on actually holding cameras in your hands, and having an expert there to show you every little function. These days, you're lucky if the big-box electronics store in your nearest city has even one or two of the cameras you're interested in buying, let alone three or more of them. And forget about the expert on-hand to guide you through every function.

That's why I have an encouraging attitude in (most of) the reviews I do. While I don't pull any punches if I think a product should have included a feature at a certain price point, I always recommend holding the gear for yourself, if you can, before making any decisions.
 
I am curious what limits you refer.

It sounds to me like you insulted all the 6D II owners out there.
When a camera is that underwhelming compared to both its predecessor and its competition, you have to wonder...

Again, it's a great camera if you don't push the envelope very much. Just like all cameras are. But I'm not here to debate the acceptability of mediocre cameras that sell well. I'm here to encourage Canon to do better, in spite of the fact that they're still #1. Because "It's OK, we're still #1" is exactly what Kodak told themselves many times too...
 
Likes: bokehmon22
Jan 5, 2013
45
10
This is how i see it on the EF-M side of things too, as someone who invested on it.
But it's success will lie on its perceived segmentation, this will be like EF-S was to EF BUT a lot less
flexible in terms of lens compatibility. Low end is a pretty strong word for a platform that will be
a favorite for consumers and a handy backup for prosumers.
I think we need to remember here that part of the appeal of the M series cameras, especially the latest M50, is how compact they are, making them very suitable for travel, hiking, run and gun vlogging, etc., not to mention how reasonably priced they are for what they do. While many reviews of the M line point out a few shortcomings, most sum up the user experience in a very positive light. With the latest release of the new fast EF-M lens, it sure appears Canon plans on continued support for the line.
 
Likes: mirage

takesome1

EOS 5Ds R II
Aug 23, 2013
1,437
75
. I'm here to encourage Canon to do better, in spite of the fact that they're still #1
Do you really think there is someone in a Canon office in Japan that is waiting on your encouragement?

I was at a NBA game last season, the guy next to me was screaming and cussing the ref because he thought he had made a bad call.
The next call went in our teams favor, the guy looked over at me and seriously said "See, if you cuss the ref's they will start calling it your way."
The guy seriously thought the ref had listened to him and he had made the change.
This did give my group something to laugh about later.
 

jolyonralph

Kodak Brownie
Aug 25, 2015
945
131
49
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
I guess Sega was the Myspace of the game console world.

BTW, don't forget one of the most popular systems of all, the *SONY* Playstation. ;-) :p Proof that they know how to both shake up a market AND survive long-term, indeed...
Actually, that's what I was (poorly) referring to. Sony came from nowhere into the games industry and dominated it. Then half a decade later Microsoft said "hey, we can do that too"
 
Aug 21, 2018
26
2
If they bring a camera at a lower price point to the R, the internet will freeze over. Canon cannot do such a stupid move. They cannot possibly gimp the R any further. A lot of people are waiting for the R to drop to 1800 (1400 refurb) which is what it's worth. Lower model will keep the R price high.
What if it didn't come until 2nd interations of the R cameras and they actually are as good as the Sony? Maybe in 2020 or 2021.