Canon EOS 90D and Canon EOS M6 Mark II announcements coming at the end of August

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,968
1,530
Irving, Texas
Black Magic just announced their 6K pocket cinema camera with EF mount for $2500 USD. I bought my R back when people were still believing that it actually shot 4K. In fact that was the primary reason I had bought it. That will do as my stills shooter and my 80D as my back up stills shooter for the next 10 years. But with the new BM announcement I am no longer waiting for Canon to finally release a hybrid camera capable of 4K. I have very likely bought my last Canon camera.
The R doesn't shoot 4K? Hmmmm.... I wonder why it is in my menu of choices then. o_O:poop: Go buy what suits your needs and be happy. Nobody cares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tron

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
Who cares? EF-M is dead, and EF is not too far behind. If they made cameras that weren't 5 years outdated the day they were released, maybe they wouldn't be hemorrhaging customers at an astonishing rate. Just food for thought...
I love the way so many posters are in complete denial.

The EOS M line is the best selling MILC on the planet in several markets, who would kill that cash cow?
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,387
823
sure. sensor size don't matter. lol. dream on. half-format. half-brained. half-witted. lol.
Is there not an age limit for posting on this forum?

Go back in time before the 7D2 and ask haggie if the 7D series would ever have the AF or weather sealing of a 1D series camera, and I'm sure the answer would have been Canon would never do that! And yet there's the 7D2 with the best weather sealing Lens Rentals ever saw and a 65pt 1-tier AF sensor.

And in this case yes, a 2014 APS-C sensor is a good match for a 2009 APS-H sensor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,082
404
th

thx. i know. but don't care at all about video stuff. i'd like to buy a compact, capable, affordable, pure stills-optimized camera without any video recording and devoid of HDMI connectors, whether they be "clean " or "dirty". :)
It’s even full frame. You’re welcome!

 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D SR
Jan 28, 2015
3,968
1,530
Irving, Texas
It’s even full frame. You’re welcome!

I have a great condition Canon A-1 and a couple of Mamiya cameras I'll sell him. FF and stills optimized. The Canon even has the motor winder.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
912
435
Numbers like 44 vs 58 are very meaningful if I buy a thousand units. If I buy one, the odds arent really that different in my view, and other factors matter more to me. If they're important to you, thats fine too, it really depends what scale you're using and what rating the other factors might hold, like weight or cost.

I understand that the difference in construction durability is important to you. To me they end up in the same class from a practical perspective, as I explained earlier - mostly fine in rain, dead in seawater to over-summarise. The vulnerabilities are essentially the same to me.

But Im repeating myself, so its probably just value differences or the like.
Vegas loves people who think that way.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
912
435
sure. sensor size don't matter. lol. dream on. half-format. half-brained. half-witted. lol.
An APS-C sensor is not half the size of an APS-H sensor. It's roughly 81% in linear terms and 66% in areal terms. That's less than the comparative difference between an APS-H sensor and a FF sensor (an APS-H sensor is 77.5% the linear size of a FF sensor and 60% the areal size of a FF sensor).
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
912
435
Yes but compared to the contemporary 7D, image quality wasn’t one of them.
The difference is not as much as one might think. There's less than one-half stop difference in all of the measured metrics at DxO between the APS-H 1D Mark IV and the APS-C 7D Mark II until you get out to ISO 25600. Dynamic range difference is greater than S/N, TR, or CS, and it's not that big a difference:

20190811ss2.png


The difference between the 1D Mark IV and the 1D X mark II is much greater than that between the 7D Mark II and the 1D Mark IV.
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
The difference is not as much as one might think. There's less than one-half stop difference in all of the measured metrics at DxO between the APS-H 1D Mark IV and the APS-C 7D Mark II until you get out to ISO 25600. Dynamic range difference is greater than S/N, TR, or CS, and it's not that big a difference:

View attachment 185979

The difference between the 1D Mark IV and the 1D X mark II is much greater than that between the 7D Mark II and the 1D Mark IV.
But you used the 7D MkII, I said compare the 1D MkIV to its contemporary, the 7D, and you have a stop of difference at 1600 and the difference just gets greater from there. From personal experience with both I know the 7D IQ was much more challenged in poor light at 1600iso than the 1D MkIV. So that single stop was very noticeable and 1600iso is hardly extreme when talking sports in poorly illuminated stadiums etc.

Comparing different generation cameras is largely pointless, sensors get better. Are current sensors better than older bigger sensors? I'd hope so! Are they good enough for any single users output? Only they can answer that.

Screen Shot 2019-08-11 at 8.33.48 PM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: canonical

Lee Jay

EOR R
Sep 22, 2011
2,069
51
Yes but compared to the contemporary 7D, image quality wasn’t one of them.
Actually, image quality in many of my situations was one of them.

I feel like I gave up very little since my full-frame fast medium lens choice was going to be the 24-70/2.8 and I instead got the Sigma 18-35/1.8. That 1 1/3 stop advantage mostly makes up for the sensor size difference. Also, I'm commonly focal-length-limited and the higher pixel density of the 7DII over the full-frame options (except the 5Ds) gives me more pixels on my target in those cases. Finally, one of my favorite lenses is the 8-15/4L on crop. There's no full-frame equivalent other than cropping from full-frame and, again, that often results in fewer pixels in the final image.

There are of course some situations where full-frame would provide better image quality, but in my situation those are fewer than you'd think. I know since I shot full-frame for 10 years before getting the 7DII.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,788
876
119
Actually, image quality in many of my situations was one of them.

I feel like I gave up very little since my full-frame fast medium lens choice was going to be the 24-70/2.8 and I instead got the Sigma 18-35/1.8. That 1 1/3 stop advantage mostly makes up for the sensor size difference. Also, I'm commonly focal-length-limited and the higher pixel density of the 7DII over the full-frame options (except the 5Ds) gives me more pixels on my target in those cases. Finally, one of my favorite lenses is the 8-15/4L on crop. There's no full-frame equivalent other than cropping from full-frame and, again, that often results in fewer pixels in the final image.

There are of course some situations where full-frame would provide better image quality, but in my situation those are fewer than you'd think. I know since I shot full-frame for 10 years before getting the 7DII.
And again, you are comparing the 7D MkII to the 1D MkIV, which I have pointed out isn't a relevant or fair comparison. If you were a 1D MkIV owner when the 7D MkII came out, 5 years later, then the sensor tech had moved on enough to make IQ a non issue behind the choice.

However the differences between the IQ of the 1D MkIV and it's contemporary 7D were noticeable in 2009, the pixel density wasn't there and the Sigma 18-35/1.8 didn't exist.

What I was trying to point out was saying the APS-H sensor size wasn't that useful because a 5 year younger camera with a smaller sensor was nearly as good is kinda silly. In the height of the sensor development generation I find it more surprising that the older APS-H sensor is still measurably (though arguably not visibly) 'better' than the five year younger sensor.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
912
435
But you used the 7D MkII, I said compare the 1D MkIV to its contemporary, the 7D, and you have a stop of difference at 1600 and the difference just gets greater from there. From personal experience with both I know the 7D IQ was much more challenged in poor light at 1600iso than the 1D MkIV. So that single stop was very noticeable and 1600iso is hardly extreme when talking sports in poorly illuminated stadiums etc.

Comparing different generation cameras is largely pointless, sensors get better. Are current sensors better than older bigger sensors? I'd hope so! Are they good enough for any single users output? Only they can answer that.

View attachment 185980
Your response was to a comment comparing the 1D Mark IV to the 7D Mark II, not to the original 7D. "Contemporary" in such a context can be taken to mean "current at the time this is written" and thus a reference to the 7D Mark II.

If you had wanted to be clear that you were referring to the original 7D, perhaps you should have used the phrase, "... compared to the 1D Mark IV's contemporary, the 7D's image quality..."

In which case my response would have been more along the lines of, "Who said anything about the 7D?"

You can respond all you want that it's not fair to compare the 2014 7DII to the 2009 1DIV, but that is what was being discussed: A lower tier model in 2014 was the near equal of a higher tier model from 2009.


Do you think the words "action camera" are magical or something? That by merely uttering them your bald assertion becomes a fact?

Would Canon build a lower tier camera that is equal to or better than a previous higher tier camera for a particular category of photography? The answer is that they have in response to market conditions, and if the market dictates it they will do so again. They respond to the market, not to your personal "woe is me, the sky is falling!" narrative. Just off the top of my head the 5D series took over studio/landscape from the 1Ds series. Go back to the film days and for a full year and a half the EOS 3 blew away the EOS 1 series for action photography. And if we get down to it, the 7D2 itself is practically a 1D IV at a far lower price point. The very camera you're crying about is itself an example of Canon doing something you claim they would never do! :ROFLMAO:

sure. sensor size don't matter. lol. dream on. half-format. half-brained. half-witted. lol.

For numerous reasons, I prefer a 7DII over a 1DIV, and I came from full-frame.
 
Last edited:

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,129
1,646
Canada
I love the way so many posters are in complete denial.

The EOS M line is the best selling MILC on the planet in several markets, who would kill that cash cow?
The answer is simple.

Because I want to pay three times as much to get a camera that is too big for my needs and will end up sitting at home while I use my phone instead.

Seriously though, for the vast bulk of the market, FF cameras and fast lenses are more than they are willing to spend, and the price/performance/size of the M cameras fits the bill perfectly.

Also, a 1DX2 and a 24-70F2.8 does not fit into the hatch of my kayak :)
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,387
823
Seriously though, for the vast bulk of the market, FF cameras and fast lenses are more than they are willing to spend, and the price/performance/size of the M cameras fits the bill perfectly.
I still have the original M + 22mm + 18-55 IS. I have to admit that it is a fun, easy to carry camera which never the less produces solid 16x20 prints and even larger. The 18-55 is surprisingly good for a 'kit lens' and the 22mm...well...I wish Canon would introduce a few more fast pancake primes of that caliber.
 

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
167
92
Then again, I don't see much difference between any of the latest APS-C sensors with the exception of Fuji. The real jump in high ISO comes from going to FF, with Fuji crop looking like it's in between a typical crop and typical FF sensor.
Im not entirely convinced by this. With my Fuji x-e3, I found that it overstated its iso compared to my canon cameras. Shooting both at identical exposures and iso resulted in the image about half a stop darker on the Fuji. Once you pushed the exposure to match the images, noise got a lot closer. Plus it seemed there was some softening of high detail as if there were always some noise reduction, even when switched off.

I wish I still had my m5 to do some comparison shots to show.
 

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,082
404
Im not entirely convinced by this. With my Fuji x-e3, I found that it overstated its iso compared to my canon cameras. Shooting both at identical exposures and iso resulted in the image about half a stop darker on the Fuji. Once you pushed the exposure to match the images, noise got a lot closer. Plus it seemed there was some softening of high detail as if there were always some noise reduction, even when switched off.

I wish I still had my m5 to do some comparison shots to show.
I often wonder how much of that is truly “overstating” of ISO rating and how much is variation in T-stops.
 
Last edited: