Canon EOS RP Specifications & Images

analoggrotto

EOS 80D
Aug 27, 2016
105
45
This thread is just getting silly. Google "Canon Dual sensing IS" and you will see it has nothing to do with digital IS. Canon uses gyro data from the lens and motion tracking data from the sensor (dual) to improve control of the physical IS unit in the lens (ie. dual sensing). Google is your friend.
When the leak was fresh, I desperately googled it hoping for some indication of IBIS. What a realization!
 

mpb001

EOS T7i
Sep 10, 2016
81
70
If Sony can put a dial on the rear of the A7xxx bodies, why should Canon not be able to do so on the larger Rx bodies? It's just another feature (or lack thereof) to differentiate between the EOS R and the 5DIV, like frames per second, dual card slots, the position of the AF-on button, the lack of a joystick and so on. In my opinion the whole EOS camera body ecosystem just got more differentiated and more confusing with the positioning of the R and Rp.
I think that we are likely to see these dials in the higher end R series. This RP camera is entry level, ir that equates to a mirrorless Rebel, the control set on the RP makes sense. Nearly all camera companies approach the design of entry level DSLRs or even mirrorless similarly. It is not just Canon.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
I would add the 760d, 77d and 800d to that list as well.
None of those models offer AFMA. To me that is a critical "improvement." Of the three you cite, the 800D does not offer two control wheels so that both Av and Tv have a direct control when shooting in manual exposure mode. A "camera" is about more than just the performance of its sensor.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
IMO it simplifies the image reconstruction dramatically. The "color science" is nearly the same - in that point the agree.
But Bayer conversion expands the color of one subpixel to its neighbourhood while deriving the brightness of the colored subpixels from its own value and its neigbourhood. I do not know the Debayering Algorithm explicitly but just from those two conditions I see a lot of calculations and potential for mistakes.
In the case of pixel binning you can derive the R, G and B values directly from the subpixels and calculate the basic R, G and B values while dividing G1 + G2 by two (for the typically two green subpixels).

After that there comes the same translating process from the debayered subpixel RGB values or the non-bayer R, G and B ADC values of the Sensor readout chain into numbers.

If you only use 25 MPixels a good debayering might be good enough but for me it would be interesting to have ONE camera where I can switch between (1) very good color reproduction at the cost of resolution and (2) very good resolution at the cost of color reproduction. At least during postprocessing.

And lots of thanks for the "pink" is not in the visible spectrum statement - while trying to teach my studends (13 ... 18 yr.) the beauty of spectra and the simplicity of our basically simple RGB universe I never thought to bring them into the state of cognitive dissonance: There "exists" a color which is not in the rainbow spectrum.
Your understanding is based on the false assumption that only "green" light (or light between, say, 480-580 nanometers) gets past the "green" filter, only "red" light (or light between 580nm and infrared) gets past the "red" filter, and only "blue" light (or light between UV and 480nm) gets past the "blue" filter. If our cameras operated that way, they could not reproduce color. If the cones in our retinas operated that way, we could not perceive color the way we do. "Color" is a construct of our eye-brain system based on the differences in the overlapping sensitivities of the the three types of cones in our retinas. Trichromatic color reproduction is also based on the differences in the overlapping sensitivities of the color components of our imaging devices (and the cones in our retinas).

It's also based on the false assumption that our color reproduction systems use the same three colors as the colors of a Bayer filter array as primaries. They do not. Not sRGB. Not Adobe RGB. Not CYMK. Not web offset printing. Not any other color reproduction system that uses anywhere from three to dozens of colors. The values collected by a Bayer masked camera must be translated into a standard color space before they are meaningful.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
As I'm sure you are aware, when using live view with Canon's current DSLR's the focusing system is the same (DPAF) as that used by the EF R's and should yield similar results. My 1DX2 and 5D4 both focus just fine in reasonable light and subject contrast for both stills and video using lens rigs with a max apperture of f11 or smaller. In fact, it works pretty well in totally unreasonable conditions as well. I'd expect the other DPAF DSLR's to do the same but I don't own those. The advantage of using the EF R's is the EVF ( if you consider that an advantage). Slap a magnifying hood on the rear display and you are good to go. It seems to be a widely held misconception that DPAF focusing on Canon's DSLR's is bound by the max aperture limitations of the PDAF sensor.

edit: I use an f4 lens with stacked 2x and 1.4x tele's which results in f11. Obviously not ideal for every scenario but a nice trick to have in your bag when it's called for.

Warning! Do not try and mate a 1.4x and a 2x tele directly together. If you go that route you have to put an extension tube between them (EF-12) or you are going to scratch some glass!
Well, except that the processing of the information off the sensor when doing DPAF seems to be a LOT faster with the R than with cameras such as the 5D Mark IV when used in LV. It probably has something to do with the additional processing provided because it is the primary means of using the camera for shooting still images, rather than a secondary one. It's all about the allocation of limited resources in size limited devices concerned with limited available energy and limited ability to get rid of heat. Or it may have more to do with the increased data throughput between the camera and lenses with the R system than the EF system.

However, more than a few folks have reported that when adapted to an R body, their most recent EF glass AFs faster than when attached to an EF body (recently introduced EF lenses probably have some firmware elements included to make them more compatible with R bodies than older EF lens designs - Canon has long included "hidden" capabilities in one piece of a system several years before the other piece is introduced: i.e. IS lenses first introduced in 1995 and the bodies beginning in 1993 that "secretly" included the firmware needed to run IS, or bodies introduced since late 2014 that have the ability to control the whiz-bang auto-aiming bounce feature of the 470EX-AI introduced in early 2018). This flies in the face of the assumption that more battery power is available to move focus elements when used with cameras with higher capacity batteries (such as a 5D Mark IV or 1D X Mark II) than when used with cameras with lower capacity batteries (such as an EOS R), as was almost always the case when comparing different EF and EF-S bodies.

I don't think my previous comment implied anything of the sort. Viewfinder based PDAF systems are fundamentally different than sensor based DPAF in several ways. That's what I stated. Imaging sensor based AF is not the same as dedicated PDAF sensor based AF. The context of my previous comment was with regard to a comment that states, "On most high-end dSLRs, you get center spot from 5.6 to 8 and nothing past 8." I was merely pointing out that several "high end" Canon DSLRs do, indeed, give more than just center point AF with f/8 lenses or lens/extender/TC combinations using viewfinder based PDAF. I then pointed out that imaging sensor based AF in LV is not restricted by the same maximum aperture limitations that viewfinder based PDAF is, and the limiting aperture for the same camera will be different when using LV than when using the dedicated PDAF sensor.

But beyond that, two different implementations of DPAF won't necessarily give the same performance in terms of speed and accuracy, even though the concepts by which they both operate are the same.
 
Last edited:

justaCanonuser

Grab your camera, go out and shoot!
Feb 12, 2014
481
285
Frankfurt, Germany
It's a sin which cannot be pardonned to criticize the Leica M 3, best Leica ever!:mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I am German, in fact I live in Hesse, the German state where Leitz/ Leica is located, so I am allowed to write such a comment about the Leica M3 ;). I didn't say that the M3 was no good camera, in fact it offered the best rangefinder technology of its time when it hit the market. Such a bright and precise rangefinder was a revolution for 35mm cameras. But Leica needed a few more years to move to such a clean design like the Canon P already had in the late 50s - in fact, the M6 has it and for me it is the most beautiful and ageless Leica ever made. But that's a matter of personal preferences. A well working M3 is of course a gem, no question.

That said, I have and use two Canon 7 rangefinders when I shoot film. They are not such beauties, but the Seven was the most capable rangefinder ever made for the old Leica M39 thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navastronia

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,416
880
If you only use 25 MPixels a good debayering might be good enough but for me it would be interesting to have ONE camera where I can switch between (1) very good color reproduction at the cost of resolution and (2) very good resolution at the cost of color reproduction. At least during postprocessing.
Foveon sensors sample RGB at every pixel site. Their color detail reproduction is only slightly better than a Bayer sensor of the same physical resolution. When I say "slightly" it's something you can pick up in some areas while pixel peeping, but which is meaningless in print. A 100mp Bayer image will absolutely look better in print than a 25mp Foveon image, assuming a print size large enough to tell the difference (since 25mp can saturate many common print sizes).

The other problem with this idea is that the CFA is fixed so you can't go into a 25mp mode where every pixel samples RGB. A pixel covered by a green filter still only sees green. (Though that is a gross simplification, per Michael Clark's posts. He is correct that there is bandwidth overlap of the three filters.)
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
It is my opinion only. If you think $2100 70-200 III is worth it over the affordable 70-200 II 2.8 kudo to you.

Yes, lets look what what the competitor are charging to justify Canon's price for the new one without any significant improvement. If you have the money, go for it.

As for me, if there are no significant in performance, I'll skip it and buy the older generation for the exact performance. If you want the latest and have the mean for it, just buy whatever you want. I don't care.
You miss the entire point that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II debuted at $2,600 in 2010, and for most if its life was sold by authorized dealers for MORE than the introductory price of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III of $2,100.

The authorized price of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II only dropped below $2,100 six weeks before the release of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III. It is now being heavily discounted to clear existing inventories. It's a great deal if you don't need to modest improvements of the lens coatings in the "III".

But it is being totally disingenuous to imply that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III is more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II was for all but the last six weeks of the eight-plus years that it was the "current" Canon 70-200/2.8! It's actually cheaper than the "II" was over much of that eight year period!
 

Yasko

EOS 80D
Jun 9, 2017
114
18
Really Interesting!
I am using a 200D/SL2 as travel camera today.
I'd be really interested, how much bigger this one is.
Now let's go for some native small primes :)

Edit:
EOS RP
Size: 132.5 x 85.0 x 70.0 mm
EOS 200D
Size: 122.4 x 92.6 x 69.8 mm

Just one cm in with. Therefore FF. Really interesting...
The lenses will be larger. Or the smaller lens will negate the FF improvement regarding depth of focus and ISO :rolleyes: („pi times thumb“ as we say in Germany)
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
I see your point. And quite frankly too I can't see how the 80D replacement fits in with the current scheme of things... RF is FF and EF-M being APS-C, with APSC being small and light. I would be surprised if Canon themselves know what they are going to do with their DSLRs. My guess is that Canon will start producing APS-C M cameras 3 to 5 years from now once they have filled out the whole FF lineup for the R. Until that happens and as long as there is demand,, a 80D successor would be released.
All EOS M bodies are already APS-C cameras.
 

Aussie shooter

@brett.guy.photography
Dec 6, 2016
562
614
None of those models offer AFMA. To me that is a critical "improvement." Of the three you cite, the 800D does not offer two control wheels so that both Av and Tv have a direct control when shooting in manual exposure mode. A "camera" is about more than just the performance of its sensor.
Fair enough re the controls. Tbh i didn't realize the 60d offered AFMA either.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
Fair enough re the controls. Tbh i didn't realize the 60d offered AFMA either.
It doesn't, although the 50D did. That's one reason those other bodies I listed are a "significant improvement." The 70D also includes AFMA, but I did not list it because, in that case, the sensor performance was not really improved at all over the 60D. The 80D sensor was a significant improvement over the 60D and 70D. Perhaps I should have included the 70D. It also included the 7D's 19 pt. AF system over the 60D's 9 pt. AF, as well as AFMA.
 
Last edited:

Etienne

EOS 6D MK II
Sep 19, 2010
1,361
156
Ottawa Ontario
You miss the entire point that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II debuted at $2,600 in 2010, and for most if its life was sold by authorized dealers for MORE than the introductory price of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III of $2,100.

The authorized price of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II only dropped below $2,100 six weeks before the release of the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III. It is now being heavily discounted to clear existing inventories. It's a great deal if you don't need to modest improvements of the lens coatings in the "III".

But it is being totally disingenuous to imply that the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III is more expensive than the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II was for all but the last six weeks of the eight-plus years that it was the "current" Canon 70-200/2.8! It's actually cheaper than the "II" was over much of that eight year period!
NOT true. I bought my 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II for US $1850 from B&H less than 6 months after its release. And B&H had this lens on special at least twice a year since release for less than $2100.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
That's a nice Canon Fan dream, but tests prove otherwise: the 6D2 was a step backwards in low light / high ISO performance.
Yeah, that really looks like a step back to me. SNR of 26.2 dB for the 6D mark II compared to 26.2 dB for the 6D at ISO 3200. SNR of 29.1 dB for the 6D Mark II compared to 29.2 dB for the 6D at ISO 1600. I guess you got me there!
20190209ss3.png


And although I don't put much stock in DxO's composite scores (because they do not disclose the weighting that goes into them so that I can judge if they are concerned with the same things I am), there's also this:

20190209ss4.png

That really looks like a step back to me, huh?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: nchoh and dtaylor

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
1,241
627
NOT true. I bought my 70-200 f/2.8L IS Mark II for US $1850 from B&H less than 6 months after its release. And B&H had this lens on special at least twice a year since release for less than $2100.
That was back when B&H was still selling gray market lenses imported from Hong Kong taking advantage of the highly fluctuating exchange rate between the USD and yen, wasn't it? In your case, though, it was probably used, wasn't it?

You're comparing apple to oranges. The same thing with "instant rebates" during Canon promotions. Instant rebates for limited periods do not change the official MSRP to which the price returns when the promotion is over.
 
Last edited:

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
629
240
Yeah, that really looks like a step back to me. SNR of 26.2 dB for the 6D mark II compared to 26.2 dB for the 6D at ISO 3200. SNR of 29.1 dB for the 6D Mark II compared to 29.2 dB for the 6D at ISO 1600. I guess you got me there!
And although I don't put much stock in DxO's composite scores (because they do not disclose the weighting that goes into them so that I can judge if they are concerned with the same things I am), there's also this:

That really looks like a step back to me, huh?
Honestly, these are next to useless. In real-life examples the 6D is indeed better, there is another article on fstoppers as well. Ultimately, the difference is pretty small and the tradeoff is worth it.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,416
880
Honestly, these are next to useless. In real-life examples the 6D is indeed better,
You are wrong. And if you bothered to skim the thread or just look at a review site you would find test images proving it and verifying Michael Clark's post.

...there is another article on fstoppers as well...
fstoppers is click bait, and words do not trump observable images.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

AlanF

Canon 5DSR II
Aug 16, 2012
5,981
3,648
As I'm sure you are aware, when using live view with Canon's current DSLR's the focusing system is the same (DPAF) as that used by the EF R's and should yield similar results. My 1DX2 and 5D4 both focus just fine in reasonable light and subject contrast for both stills and video using lens rigs with a max apperture of f11 or smaller. In fact, it works pretty well in totally unreasonable conditions as well. I'd expect the other DPAF DSLR's to do the same but I don't own those. The advantage of using the EF R's is the EVF ( if you consider that an advantage). Slap a magnifying hood on the rear display and you are good to go. It seems to be a widely held misconception that DPAF focusing on Canon's DSLR's is bound by the max aperture limitations of the PDAF sensor.

edit: I use an f4 lens with stacked 2x and 1.4x tele's which results in f11. Obviously not ideal for every scenario but a nice trick to have in your bag when it's called for.

Warning! Do not try and mate a 1.4x and a 2x tele directly together. If you go that route you have to put an extension tube between them (EF-12) or you are going to scratch some glass!
I have an old Kenko 3xTC (much better than their 2xTC) that is not meant to AF with a DSLR, and was sold only for manual focussing. But it now AFs fine on the 5DIV with LV plus a 100-400mm II at f/17 and 1200mm. It will be a useful piece of kit with an R!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Graphic.Artifacts

padam

EOS 7D MK II
Aug 26, 2015
629
240
You are wrong. And if you bothered to skim the thread or just look at a review site you would find test images proving it and verifying Michael Clark's post.
fstoppers is click bait, and words do not trump observable images.
Yes. And that video included that.
I guess some just see it differently and it is regretful to add anything to a debate like this, because some people get triggered and will just jump on it straight away saying "you are wrong", that's just too easy :) Again as a user of the camera, I don't think it is that big of a deal, but I can't see it having better DR or ISO than its predecessor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quarkcharmed