Canon’s EOS-1D X Mark II equivalent mirrorless is coming sooner than originally thought [CR1]

Larsskv

EOS 7D MK II
Jun 12, 2015
764
183
I’ve had the opportunity to own the Panasonic S1R for the past few months. The viewfinder and the monitor on that are spectacular. It changed my opinion about how I can tolerate in OVF. It blew the Canon R’s out of the water, and it was no slouch for a mirrorless camera.

I’m sure the flagship releases coming from Sony and Canon will use tech such as these.

The real question in my mind is whether or not Canon is capable of putting together a camera that does high frames per second while also doing all of the various calculations that are typically seen as an advantage with a mirrorless camera.

I will be much relieved if I see a very high FPS number along with an adequate megapixels number. My Sony A9 does 20 frames per second at 24 megapixels. Those 24 megapixels seem closer to the 5D Mark four’s 30 megapixels, because the A9 doesn’t have an AA filter.

I would like to see a 1D version of the mirrorless camera do something between 28 and 30 mp. My current expectation is that this will not happen, that Canon will help resolve its throughput issue by not improving the 20 mp resolution beyond 24mp.

I am excited to see what the new flagships are going to be both for Sony and for Canon.
I am aware that the new Panasonic has a great EVF, but is it bright enough to render a scene for eyes adjusted to strong sunlight?
 

lawny13

EOS M50
Mar 6, 2019
32
43
A fast professional R body will require professional R lenses (especially telephoto). 70-200mm f2.8 will be there, what about others? I'll not but a fast and strong EOS R if I have to use adapters.
Or maybe Canon has a plan to release 1-2 L more telephoto lenses?
We probably will have 24-70 and 15-35 f2.8L so I don't see huge problems there.
If the camera can drive the EF 100-400, the 300, 400, 500 etc primes like native would that not suffice? It would be for existing 1DX owners. Those who will be entering the system from scratch will just have to determine for themselves if it is good enough. Last but not least, if it is smaller than the 1DX (like the R is to the 5DIV) there are people like wedding photographers that would definitely pick this up, with the trinity f2.8 zooms, it would be an awesome combo.
 

dsut4392

EOS T7i
Jul 31, 2014
65
17
The real complaint by opponents of adapters is the additional surfaces introduced into the optical path. Thus increasing the potential of out of alignment optics.
The controls for focus and aperture are identical and Canon would ensure proper performance. My experience with both Canon TCs and R adapters is that they are completely transparent in operation.
Using a TC and adapter would be clunky but as there are no moving parts in either the risk is low.
The 1D series are solid but so is the 5D series. I have used both for many years and have had no failures with either.
That only makes sense if the adapters contain optical elements, which these don't. Adapters do increase the chance of there being tilt between the optical axis of the lens and the sensor plane (due to slop in the interface), but the chance of this having any significance in the real world is minimal (unless your real world involves shooting flat planes perfectly aligned to your sensor).
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,660
2,914
That only makes sense if the adapters contain optical elements, which these don't. Adapters do increase the chance of there being tilt between the optical axis of the lens and the sensor plane (due to slop in the interface), but the chance of this having any significance in the real world is minimal (unless your real world involves shooting flat planes perfectly aligned to your sensor).
A tilt induced by an adapter will affect the phase detect AF, and would require AFMA even for mirrorless (contrast-based AF is relatively less affected).
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,086
260
I wonder would Canon bring out a white weather sealed adapter you could leave on a big white.
A9 specs on paper at least are a high level. It will be interesting if Canon match or exceed those specs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,264
681
A tilt induced by an adapter will affect the phase detect AF, and would require AFMA even for mirrorless (contrast-based AF is relatively less affected).
At which magnitude does the lens tilt angle start to affect on-sensor phase detect AF?
 

Jasonmc89

EOS 80D + 100-400mm mkii
Feb 7, 2019
138
97
UK
All I can say is that as usual expectations are way to high leaving us with page after page of gnashing of teeth when it does arrive. Then, when the dust settles it'll be .... just another solid Canon performer. I hope I'm wrong in my restraint.

As others have said, I think the viewfinder is a the sticking point, as well as battery life. It must be great in all circumstances, otherwise the other advantages tend to pale unless it's strictly a second camera. My daughter used my R and it's hers now, but shooting together, clearly she was battery disadvantaged. RX must have a super battery.

Jack
It’ll probably have the big fat one all 1D series bodies have.
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,660
2,914
At which magnitude does the lens tilt angle start to affect on-sensor phase detect AF?
The Canon 77D and cheaper DSLRs don't even have AFMA so the sometimes large AF effects aren't considered by Canon significant for users of those!
Tilt-angle effects on on-sensor phase detect will be progressive and vary according to the lens, focal length etc, and I don't know the formulae. But, the effects with mirrorless can obviously be significant enough for Olympus and Sony to add an AFMA function.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
300
116
The holy trinity lenses will be there in time for this body.
I've gone to always shooting primes in the mid-90s, to trinity around 2001, but since 2010 or sometime I've switched to 24-105/4IS and stayed there. The first-gen EF was good but a little soft. The RF is as sharp as it needs to be, though, in my opinion.

I really don't think the 24-70/2.8IS is a must-have for a pro any more. You've got the f/4IS prime on one side, then on the other the 28-70/2 and the f/1.2 primes.

What this means is that on the tele end the 70-200/2.8 is also kind of dead. A 100-300/4ISL or even 100-400/5.6ISL would be the same size, more or less, and get the same kind of bokeh at the long end.

Finally on the wide end a 12-24/4IS would be the logical next move.

In short a new trinity is foreseeable that instead of 17-200 at f/2.8, now it covers more like 12-400 at f/4.

One final note is that with f/2.8 trinities there's not quite as much interest for big fast primes, but with an f/4 trinity suddenly the f/1.2, f/1.4, and even f/1.8 and f/2.0 glass could excite a legitimate interest.

What we really need more than anything is 35/2 and 50/1.8 that stick out no further than the grip, so we can have our R's in our backpack at all times. And with f/4 trinity you could see quite a number sold to even the reporters who today have no interest in f/1.8 given that their limited-range trinity is f/2.8.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,607
2,060
Tilt-angle effects on on-sensor phase detect will be progressive and vary according to the lens, focal length etc, and I don't know the formulae. But, the effects with mirrorless can obviously be significant enough for Olympus and Sony to add an AFMA function.
Nikon, too.
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,264
681
The Canon 77D and cheaper DSLRs don't even have AFMA so the sometimes large AF effects aren't considered by Canon significant for users of those!
Tilt-angle effects on on-sensor phase detect will be progressive and vary according to the lens, focal length etc, and I don't know the formulae. But, the effects with mirrorless can obviously be significant enough for Olympus and Sony to add an AFMA function.
If you are going to claim that the adapter mount adds some problems that the lens mount itself doesn't have despite being essentially the same stuff, you need to tell the difference between these two cases.

A mirror tilt introduces the difference in the actual phases being measured, which can make the camera believe that the image is not in focus when it in fact is, where the DPAF sensor tilt merely introduces a really small relative error to the perceived distance the lens focusing group needs to travel to achieve the focus.

There also other reasons to introduce the AFMA other than the AF sensor accuracy. The lens AF accuracy also plays its role if you want the lens to focus fast and to avoid focus hunt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,082
404
All adapters will affect the mounting of a lens on one body relative to how it would mount to another.

Most combinations will be acceptable for photography. Those which are not are outliers. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if the current eos r cameras have AFMA but that it’s not user accessible.
185243
 

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,660
2,914
If you are going to claim that the adapter mount adds some problems that the lens mount itself doesn't have despite being essentially the same stuff, you need to tell the difference between these two cases.

A mirror tilt introduces the difference in the actual phases being measured, which can make the camera believe that the image is not in focus when it in fact is, where the DPAF sensor tilt merely introduces a really small relative error to the perceived distance the lens focusing group needs to travel to achieve the focus.

There also other reasons to introduce the AFMA other than the AF sensor accuracy. The lens AF accuracy also plays its role if you want the lens to focus fast and to avoid focus hunt.
I did not in that post claim anything about the adapter mount, so I don't know why you brought it up. I just pointed out that AFMA can be required to correct for tilt etc of the lens relative to the on-sensor AF. If you want me to say something about an adapter, I will do. It's not a question about being "essentially the same stuff", it's the standard problem of propagation of error when combining more than one component: if there is an error of tilt angle of the lens flange of e1 and that of the adapter front surface of e2 and of the rear surface e3, then the errors will sum as e(total) = sqrt(e1^2 + e2^2 + e3^2). On average, the overall tilt angle increases as more components are added, and in some rarer cases there will be compensation.
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
469
467
www.flickr.com
I wonder would Canon bring out a white weather sealed adapter you could leave on a big white.
A9 specs on paper at least are a high level. It will be interesting if Canon match or exceed those specs.
I believe Canon lists the current adapters as already being weather sealed, so I suspect that they wouldn't release a white one.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,607
2,060
I believe Canon lists the current adapters as already being weather sealed, so I suspect that they wouldn't release a white one.
Yes, the existing EF-EOS R adapters (including the drop-in version) are weather sealed. Many people seem unaware of that fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jprusa
"Announcing these two cameras together would be a unique move for Canon..."

The concept reminds me a bit of Canon's decision to introduce both the 5Ds and the 5DsR at the same time, though clearly DSLR and mirrorless versions of the 1DX-series models would be more different from one another.

As with the 5Ds/5DsR introduction, I suppose the logic could be that Canon would be letting users make the decision, with those thirsty for a mirrorless version getting what they want and those with concerns about such cameras' performance being allowed to take a more conservative path.

(I'm fascinated that Canon still bothers with the 5Ds version, since almost everyone prefers the non-AA-filtering version of the camera and, as far as I can tell, few of the AA-filtering 5Ds models are sold at this point.)

However, given that this strategy would require significant'y different camera – different mounts, largely different physical construction – that seems unlikely in this case.
 

amorse

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 26, 2017
469
467
www.flickr.com
I've gone to always shooting primes in the mid-90s, to trinity around 2001, but since 2010 or sometime I've switched to 24-105/4IS and stayed there. The first-gen EF was good but a little soft. The RF is as sharp as it needs to be, though, in my opinion.

I really don't think the 24-70/2.8IS is a must-have for a pro any more. You've got the f/4IS prime on one side, then on the other the 28-70/2 and the f/1.2 primes.

What this means is that on the tele end the 70-200/2.8 is also kind of dead. A 100-300/4ISL or even 100-400/5.6ISL would be the same size, more or less, and get the same kind of bokeh at the long end.

Finally on the wide end a 12-24/4IS would be the logical next move.

In short the trinity is dead, long live the trinity, but instead of 17-200 at f/2.8, now it covers more like 12-400 at f/4.

One final note is that with f/2.8 trinities there's not quite as much interest for big fast primes, but with an f/4 trinity suddenly the f/1.2, f/1.4, and even f/1.8 and f/2.0 glass could excite a legitimate interest.

What we really need more than anything is 35/2 and 50/1.8 that stick out no further than the grip, so we can have our R's in our backpack at all times. And with f/4 trinity you could see quite a number sold to even the reporters who today have no interest in f/1.8 given that their limited-range trinity is f/2.8.
I think that is a bit of an overstatement - it really depends on the needs of the "pro" and what they professionally shoot.

I'll take the f/2.8 from 16 to 200 range over f/4 12-400, but to each their own. I just don't find myself below 16mm or over 200 very often, but that extra light capturing capability has a lot of value to me, and I have no interest in carrying more glass than I need so primes are largely out. My pack is heavy enough as it is!