Canon executives say a lot more coming in 2019

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
334
285
117
Williamsport, PA
4K TVs are everywhere in the USA; many computer and even the latest smartphone displays are greater than HD (revealing the resolution limitations of HD footage); and most video work is shot in 4K even when finishing in HD, to make use of the greater resolution to reframe and to enhance quality; also, many pros and prosumers need and want a hybrid camera that does stills and video; and, to top it off, many corporate productions are shot on Sony FS7s and the matching A7 series is used for a ton of gimbal work. All this goes without mentioning any future proofing benefits of shooting in 4K.

So, really who's clueless here?
99% of consumers are clueless.
To get good 4K requires skill beyond just having the camera.
A home movie of your vacation to the Poconos etc. would bore me to death even in 16K.
There is so much more than the number and you don't seem to understand that concept. A 4K TV with a professionally done 4K program is likely very nice, but your home movie is far from that quality no matter how good your TV is it can't fix poor imagery, you just might get possibly sharper looking crap.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,255
680
they will end up encompassing another demographic, selling more cameras.
Non sequitur.

"Encompasing another demographic" does not mean "selling more cameras". It may as well mean "selling less cameras".

But they must have the will to do the R&D to make it happen and include the features in the first place. In the long run, if they invest in the development, these features will sell more cameras, not less.
The "features" would sell more to a marginal demographic. The time and money spent on extra R&D would sell less to the core demographic. Are the gains in the former are worth the losses in the latter? It depends, but considering that the market is competitive but still segmented and Canon is still its leader, I won't be surprised to know that they aren't.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,129
1,646
Canada
I'm saying that a whopping 3.5 stops of difference in these DR tests means relatively little, and 1 stop means nothing.

Complaining about the DR in the 5D4 or R is like complaining that the A73 only has 24mp while the 6D2 and RP have 26mp. (When is Sony going to stop recycling sensors and give us 27 or even 28mp??? If they don't fix this soon I'm switching to Canon!)

The incessant complaining on this board about relatively minor spec sheet differences gets on some of our nerves, as does the exaggeration of those differences. Different spec but as I pointed out earlier reading this thread one might walk away thinking that Canon doesn't have 4k on any camera yet while Sony A7 bodies some how magically gained 4k60p.
I should have put in a smiley face....

I agree with you, but I'll go one step further..... most people can't tell the difference between most pictures taken on any DSLR in the last 10 years, and there are a lot of P/S cameras and even phones that you could include in the list.

Personally, I think that the lens you choose has more impact on your photography than the camera you choose.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
356
186
I'm absolutely certain it does mean that. But how that translates to practical, in field differences is the point that is lost when people complain about scores.
I don't know how well it translate in real life. Like I said, I have to use it on a field on a paid gig, post process and print huge canvas to see if there is a difference, but it's nice to have the advantage there if you need it.


And we're right back to the "old, uncompetitive sensor" narrative :rolleyes:

I agree the new S bodies are interesting and well spec'd. But sensor vs. sensor I would pick the R's 30mp over the S1's 24mp (for stills) because that difference might actually be visible in a few cases (large prints and/or extreme cropping). The DxO scores in your screenshot aren't going to be visible any where outside of 200% pixel peeping. Canon's 30mp sensor is competitive.
It isn't just sensor, but competitive features as well.
EOS R has no IBIS, no dual card slot, no 5.76 million dot EVF, 4K60, no high resolution mode, focus bracketing, backlit buttons while charging $2300 vs $2500 with free battery and grip, no AA filter.

The better sensor is a nice bonus but that never stop me from making great works with my old Canon 6D. I just like getting value for my dollar spent.

You might be right there is no difference in quality if your intended audience is for web. I print large print often so it matters to me. I also make album as well.

We are really chasing marginal benefit with diminish return with camera body and lenses. Why spend more when I don't need to even if I can afford it. As a long time Canon user who primarily shoot stills and never make a switch to Sony even though the price and specs are promising, I realize Canon next EOS R Pro will likely be more expensive while providing less like the EOS R did.

Whether I shoot Canon, Sony, Nikon, Panasonic, it doesn't matter. All it matter is the results and how much enjoyment I get from the camera. There is more to photography than just the body or lenses from x camera company. I'm loyal to no one. I buy whatever that give me feature rich camera that's affordable so I can fund my other hobbies and travel more.
 

bhf3737

---
Sep 9, 2015
451
439
Calgary, Canada
www.flickr.com
The read noise for Panasonic S1 is alot lower. This could mean less noise in the shadow recovery. I don't know but it requires more testing.
....
It's a nice bonus to have a competitive sensor that rival Nikon and Sony. Panasonic S1 definite is a great bang for your buck vs Canon EOS R that's similar price without IBIS, dual card slot, 2 year old sensor, focus bracketing, joystick, 5.76 million dot EVF, 4K60, high resolution mode, backlit buttons with alot of things that make Canon a good camera (ergonomic, weather seal, menu, fully touch screen LCD, logical button layout).

I'm not saying all this because I'm a Panasonic fanboy but just as someone who is brand agnostic looking for a great value. I have no problem buying into Canon again if they provide competitive offering with their EOS R Pro line at a competitive value.
Not all that glitters is gold or is it? Have you taken any pictures with the S1 camera yet? How good are they? How is the AF? What is keeper rate? How responsive is the camera (e.g. start-up, LCD, EVF, joystick, and card read or write? How good are the SOOC jpegs? etc.
Convincing anyone to listen and buy this camera based on hearsay is like barking up the wrong tree.
Could you please post some sample images taken with your S1 (when/if you have it).
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,932
1,242
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
Still. I joined Canon's Australian R&D group in 2011 and he was then 74, and they categorically said they'd be installing younger blood progressively and now he's an 82-year-old fossil still running them. You can see why Canon are no longer the trail blazers.
So, if you're 82 you are fossil?
Like:
Robert Frank – 94
Lee Friedlander -- 85
Joel Meyerowitz -- 81
Robert Adams -- 82
Jerry Uelsman -- 85
Duane Michels -- 87
Elliott Erwitt -- 90.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,387
823
You might be right there is no difference in quality if your intended audience is for web. I print large print often so it matters to me. I also make album as well.
You're going to struggle to see DxO's claimed DR and high ISO differences regardless of print size. Resolution though...

You said you often print 24x36. The S1 leaves you at 167 ppi if you don't crop at all for any reason, not even horizon adjustment. The 5D4 or R would leave you at 187 ppi.

I print large as well and my preference is to not drop below 180 ppi. I moved to the 50mp 5Ds because that leaves you with 241 ppi at 36", and well over 200 ppi even if you crop. It can also deliver 181 ppi at 48". Obviously this can vary with subject, but in print resolution tests I've found 180 ppi to be acceptable ("good") and 240 ppi to be noticeably better ("very good" to "excellent").

Now, I'm not trying to pick on your choice (the S1 is a nice camera) or on 24mp. Nor claim hard limits for print resolution because that's going to vary on subject, audience, and viewing distance.

But this gets to the heart of what irritates me about DxO scores and claims of "my sensor is better than that old Canon sensor." You would have a very hard time showing the DxO claimed DR or high ISO differences in any print of any scene. But the resolution difference is baked into every frame. So why should anyone judge which sensor is better based on DxO? Who, btw, derives their scores from "normalized" 8mp versions of original files.

I realize Canon next EOS R Pro will likely be more expensive while providing less like the EOS R did.
You mean the rumored 75mp body?

I also take issue with the statement that the R "provides less" as if it were a simple matter of fact. That's going to depend entirely on the buyer and their preferences. The R has native support for RF and EF glass, better AF, and a few other features up its sleeve. Anyone out there who feels the S1 feature set better matches what they want should buy the S1. But no single camera is the best camera for every person and every need.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
356
186
Not all that glitters is gold or is it? Have you taken any pictures with the S1 camera yet? How good are they? How is the AF? What is keeper rate? How responsive is the camera (e.g. start-up, LCD, EVF, joystick, and card read or write? How good are the SOOC jpegs? etc.
Convincing anyone to listen and buy this camera based on hearsay is like barking up the wrong tree.
Could you please post some sample images taken with your S1 (when/if you have it).
You can find reviews on YouTube and online articles. I don't post my photos since it's mostly clients work and personal landscape photo. I do not want to get doxxed since I have a professional career outside of photography. I do photography only as a side gig.

The camera is very responsive. It reminds me of Canon camera in many ways - fully touch screen LCD, intuitive menu, ergonomic is superb, EVF is best I've used including EOS R/A7III/A9/A7RIII. The SOOC jpeg look good. I always shoot raw so I do not rely on the JPG. Even with Canon 5D IV/EOS R, I never hand over any SOOC to clients or publish SOOC works.

I really like the backlit buttons and plenty of buttons options. The front switch for electronic shutter is a nice option. The rear dial that quickly switch from AF-C, AF-C, Manual is very nice to have to allow quick change. The dial to change mode setting is also very nice. The entire menu can be fully customized and save to SD card. That's really nice to have as backup. Beside it's being as big as 5D IV and weight and the odd power button placement, the ergonomic is very nice.

I'm currently only UHS-I and it kept up with 9 fps. I do not rely on 7 fps with my 5D IV or EOS R so 9 fps is plenty for me. I will buy CFExpress card when it's available this summer.

The keeper rate is alot higher than my 5D IV. It track the eye much better than the EOS R I had a couple months ago. It still doesn't beat Sony A7III but it's good enough for me.

I'm not convincing anyone to buy this. I don't get commission, have affiliate link, YouTube views etc. If you buy it great, if you don't, that's fine.

After the battery and battery grip, I see it more like a $2000 camera purchase for me that's fully specs. I still have yet to try it on paid works and try the Sigma MC-21 adapter. Once I determine it's suitable for my works, my Canon 5D IV will be up for sale since I see FF mirror less as the future.

This isn't going to be my last camera purchase. If Canon, Sony, Panasonic has a competitive camera that has good blend of camera usability and features, I'll get one. I really hope Canon offer competitive features and price in their EOS R Pro line (5.76 million dot EVF, IBIS, new sensor, dual card slot, better eyeAF) that's similar price to the competitions.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
356
186
You're going to struggle to see DxO's claimed DR and high ISO differences regardless of print size. Resolution though...

You said you often print 24x36. The S1 leaves you at 167 ppi if you don't crop at all for any reason, not even horizon adjustment. The 5D4 or R would leave you at 187 ppi.

I print large as well and my preference is to not drop below 180 ppi. I moved to the 50mp 5Ds because that leaves you with 241 ppi at 36", and well over 200 ppi even if you crop. Obviously this can vary with subject, but in print resolution tests I've found 180 ppi to be acceptable ("good") and 240 ppi to be noticeably better ("very good" to "excellent"). I moved to the 50mp 5Ds in large part because of the resolution it can deliver in 36" and 48" prints.

Now, I'm not trying to pick on your choice (the S1 is a nice camera) or on 24mp. Nor claim hard limits for print resolution because that's going to vary on subject, audience, and viewing distance.

But this gets to the heart of what irritates me about DxO scores and claims of "my sensor is better than that old Canon sensor." You would have a very hard time showing the DxO claimed DR or high ISO differences in any print of any scene. But the resolution difference is baked into every frame. So why should anyone judge which sensor is better based on DxO? Who, btw, derives their scores from "normalized" 8mp versions of original files.



You mean the rumored 75mp body?

I also take issue with the statement that the R "provides less" as if it were a simple matter of fact. That's going to depend entirely on the buyer and their preferences. The R has native support for RF and EF glass, better AF, and a few other features up its sleeve. Anyone out there who feels the S1 feature set better matches what they want should buy the S1. But no single camera is the best camera for every person and every need.
75 mpx is definitely over kill for event work. I will most likely shoot mRAW if I buy it.

I print huge with Canon 6D and also with my 5D IV. I can't tell the differences. I also seen plenty of photographer using Sony A7III/A9 24 mpx sensor to print huge as well. I can't tell the difference either. If you search over the net, plenty of people use 24 mpx to print 24 x 36. I know photographers using 1DXII 20 mpx and it isn't a problem either.

If it's ever a concern, Panasonic S1 has an option for 96 mpx high resolution mode or buy 47 mpx S1R. It isn't a concern for me.
 

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,387
823
I print huge with Canon 6D and also with my 5D IV. I can't tell the differences. I also seen plenty of photographer using Sony A7III/A9 24 mpx sensor to print huge as well. I can't tell the difference either. If you search over the net, plenty of people use 24 mpx to print 24 x 36. I know photographers using 1DXII 20 mpx and it isn't a problem either.
It's going to vary based on subject matter, but I can open an album and point to the differences. Yet I don't know if I could stage a test that would show the differences represented by the DxO scores you posted.

It isn't a concern for me.
That's fair. But understand DxO scores are not a concern for others.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
356
186
It's going to vary based on subject matter, but I can open an album and point to the differences. Yet I don't know if I could stage a test that would show the differences represented by the DxO scores you posted.



That's fair. But understand DxO scores are not a concern for others.
I didn't buy S1 just because of a better sensor ISO or dynamic range or DXO score. It's nice to have. I have no idea how it will affect my workflow. I doubt it will replace my bracketing for landscape shot. It's likely allow me to shoot 6400 with ease and more latitude when it come to shadow recovery.

Why did I bring it up the comparison? It's nice to buy a new camera with competitive sensor whether I take full advantage of it or not. There is nothing wrong 5D IV sensor, but if I'm going upgrade, I might get a new sensor, IBIS, EVF, dual card slot, better 4K, focus bracketing, high resolution mode, joystick than so so offering from Canon. Otherwise, I might as well keep what I have.

The biggest difference for me switching to mirrorless has been no micro adjustment with lenses. When I hit focus, it's very sharp. That combined with no AA filter of S1, it's very sharp. The superb 5.76 million dot EVF allow me to see what you see is what you get - no more chimping for me. The face tracking and eyeAF is going to make it easy for me to concentrate on other things. None of those will show up on print. IBIS will allow me to hand held 1-2 seconds that's possible with non-IS lenses I have. It's not going to show up on print, but allow me for new shooting opportunity.

In many ways, this is the camera I wish Canon would make except with DPAF and perfect adapter for EF lenses for $2500. If they make it, I'll buy one.
 
Last edited:

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,387
823
...but if I'm going upgrade, I might get a new sensor...
We're going to have to agree to disagree because you keep insisting that X is a fact when it's clearly debatable, and then also re-listing the S1's feature set straight from a Panasonic ad. I don't take issue with someone buying the S1. I've said it's a nice, well spec'd camera. My issue is entirely with the "old sensor" and DxO memes.
 

bokehmon22

EOS RP
Oct 31, 2016
356
186
We're going to have to agree to disagree because you keep insisting that X is a fact when it's clearly debatable, and then also re-listing the S1's feature set straight from a Panasonic ad. I don't take issue with someone buying the S1. I've said it's a nice, well spec'd camera. My issue is entirely with the "old sensor" and DxO memes.
I have no problem agreeing to disagree. You don't even acknowledge 5D IV is an old sensor compared to Z6, A7III or S1. Canon 5D IV was released in August 2016. It still perform well and capable of making great images, but the sensor is 2.5 year old.

Whether you agree with DXO score or Phototophoton chart or not, how can we have an honest discussion if you don't even acknowledge Canon 5D IV is an old sensor compare to the competitions.

I own Canon gears and resisted switching to Sony for years, but at least Canon weakness has always been in the sensor, 4K and eyeAF while Sony has always been color and ergonomic. Just because I own Canon gears doesn't mean I will defend its weakness.

Let's end here. I find it a waste of time since we can't logically think when we have so much emotional investment in an animate object.

It's only a camera. In the next few years, something else will be better. I have no problem calling S1 having an old sensor then.
 
Last edited:

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,387
823
You don't even acknowledge 5D IV is an old sensor compared to Z6, A7III or S1. Canon 5D IV was released in August 2016.
"Old sensor" is rhetoric intended to imply inferiority on the assumption that newer always equals better. Of course age doesn't actually prove inferior performance or technology. I think I've made the case on the former.

As to the latter, we would have to have knowledge of the actual circuitry underlying the sensors to evaluate how they relate in terms of state of the art engineering and fabrication.

Whether you agree with DXO score or Phototophoton chart or not,
It's not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a matter of understanding how their tests work, and therefore how large a difference there has to be between two scores before there's any human observable difference in the real world.

Just because I own Canon gears doesn't mean I will defend its weakness.
No would I. But I'm happy to debate claimed weaknesses which do not exist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Quarkcharmed

EOS 5DMkIV
Feb 14, 2018
491
321
Australia
www.michaelborisenko.com
"Old sensor" is rhetoric intended to imply inferiority on the assumption that newer always equals better. Of course age doesn't actually prove inferior performance or technology. I think I've made the case on the former.
Just jumping back to the discussion...
Newer sensor doesn't always mean better sensor, but it's my reasonable expectation as a consumer. I expect to see some improvement in the new camera models as someone who pays money.

You're trying to prove the difference in DR between the best Canon and best Sony is insignificant, but I'm often scratching the limits of my 5DIV in landscape photography and I don't want to downgrade in terms of DR in any way.

So the argument on insignificance just doesn't hold for me, based on my experience.
 
Last edited:

3kramd5

EOS 5D MK IV
Mar 2, 2012
3,082
404
But no Sony full frame camera does 4k60 not even their flagship camera
In fact, their flagship camera is full frame and shoots 4k 60p. With the new firmware it will shoot 4k 120p and 6k 60p.

You might be confused about which camera is their video flagship. Hint: the alpha cameras you probably have in mind are stills focused.
 
Last edited:

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
743
90
Non sequitur.

"Encompasing another demographic" does not mean "selling more cameras". It may as well mean "selling less cameras".


The "features" would sell more to a marginal demographic. The time and money spent on extra R&D would sell less to the core demographic. Are the gains in the former are worth the losses in the latter? It depends, but considering that the market is competitive but still segmented and Canon is still its leader, I won't be surprised to know that they aren't.
Sad to say, but you keep being wrong here. Appealing to a wider customer base will win more money and marketshare in the end and they will eventually have to do this R&D anyway to keep from being left behind in overall video spec. (In fact, they’re probably doing it already.) Why make P&S cameras? Why sell Rebels? Oh, right, why make a mirrorless camera to begin with? To appeal to a wider customer base. You’ll notice that it took some time before Canon noticed they were leaving money on the table by not having FF MILC cameras. But they invested in the R&D to make it happen and...wait for it...encompass another demographic while offering existing customers value at the same time.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
743
90
The fact that, for the most part, the features you are referring to are already available on Canon cameras (albeit in some cases only the 1-series or Cinema line) indicates the research has been done, as far as the technical aspects, and those are features they could include across the lineups. But Canon also does another type of research —market research...and that provides data on which features they should include. The fact that they haven’t included the features you want in the models you want them in suggests their research led to conclusions that differ from yours. I suspect their market research on how to drive sales is more reliable than your personal opinion on what Canon should do (certainly their ongoing ILC market dominance suggests they’re doing things right despite mounds of contrary ‘expert advice’ on these forums), but either way it’s irrelevant because the decisions are theirs.
I don’t know— they’re “infallible market research” that you’ve been extolling the virtues of for years lagged way behind the MILC curve and now they’re playing catch up. So no, I don’t trust it. I work for a very large company, so I know how they can have the “best glasses” but not see the forest from the trees. Corporations are big ships that take a long time to turn...and sometimes don’t see the iceberg until late in the game. Yes, I’m being dramatic— Canon, does not have any profitability issues to worry about— but you get the idea. ;)
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
743
90
99% of consumers are clueless.
To get good 4K requires skill beyond just having the camera.
A home movie of your vacation to the Poconos etc. would bore me to death even in 16K.
There is so much more than the number and you don't seem to understand that concept. A 4K TV with a professionally done 4K program is likely very nice, but your home movie is far from that quality no matter how good your TV is it can't fix poor imagery, you just might get possibly sharper looking crap.
I’m afraid you don’t understand the concept because from your posts there is very little you understand about filmmaking in general. But i’ll Try to spell it out for you one more time. Most professionals are forced to shoot in 4K by their clients. It’s a requirement. Those looking to do professional work should no longer look to HD if they are looking at shooting something. Netflix requires 4K for all new programming.

Making sense yet?