Canon is gearing up for a big 2020 [CR2]

Sep 28, 2019
1
0
I was at Epcot last Friday to shoot fireworks, and I was standing next to a guy who claimed he was shooting with a prototype Canon 1DX Mark III. He said the camera body was of a Mark II, but all internals were of the prototype camera. He didn’t share any specs with me—I only talked to him briefly—but he did show me some of the previews he’s taken with the camera, and I was impressed with what I saw. I think Canon users will be very happy with the images this camera will produce.
 
Oct 1, 2019
1
1
Wish Canon will release a RF to EF lens converter to use with 1DX 3. This camera will be even better with RF lenses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sanj

criscokkat

EOS RP
Sep 26, 2017
313
286
Madison, WI
It just seems odd to me that'd they'd abandon the birders/sports photographers, I refuse to believe there's no APS-C coming in mirrorless. You're basically ceding the entire sports/birding market to Sony with their a6500 or whatever it is. Maybe not today or tomorrow, but within a couple years those 7Dii's are going to be absolutely ancient in comparison.
That's my point, I don't think they are abandoning them at all!

The m6II can already track with a level comparable to the 7dii, and can put more pixels on target. However the form factor isn't the best, and it could use more buffer. I think we will see an r-mount prosumer camera in aps-c. I do not think they will have dual cards and/or 1dx level weatherproofing.

However the other pro features in the 7dii (outside of the speed/focus) will probably only show up only in full frame cameras. Those mirrorless cameras will be able to go into a crop mode similar to the m6ii that will probably surpass the speed that the aps-c cameras can capture, while also putting more pixels on target. There might even be multiple crop modes that get progressively faster.

In short, I think 8-10fps will be the minimum of any future camera sensors, and much faster when in crop modes. The niche that the 7dii filled that other cameras could not match got much smaller, so that's why it went away.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,839
2,813
Irving, Texas
I dont quite get why peoples complain high megapixel camera files would take too much about storage space.
High megapixel jpg is lot smaller than low megapixel raw. At least on image sharpness high megapixel jpg gives lot more information what low pixel raw how ever you waste time editing it.
Some of us save the raw and the jpg. I do. I shouldn’t assume anyone else does. I might be wrong, but I read that every time a jpeg gets saved it loses some information. So for archiving I save both.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

bbb34

5D3
Jul 24, 2012
102
97
Amsterdam
I was at Epcot last Friday to shoot fireworks, and I was standing next to a guy who claimed he was shooting with a prototype Canon 1DX Mark III. He said the camera body was of a Mark II, but all internals were of the prototype camera. He didn’t share any specs with me—I only talked to him briefly—but he did show me some of the previews he’s taken with the camera, and I was impressed with what I saw. I think Canon users will be very happy with the images this camera will produce.
And you could tell a difference between this "prototype" and a Mark II based on the backside display? A likely story! :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

Welcome at CR!
 

richperson

EOS 80D
Sep 6, 2019
149
179
I really hope that whatever they announce, it is ready soon after in February. I know there is a lot of 7D love in here, but I had to relegate mine to the storage box for the football game I shot Friday night. The light was decent, but required me shooting at ISO 10k, which is just not really useable on a 7Dii for me. I ended up with the 1DXii on the 400mm and the R on my 200mm f/2--which is currently one of my favorite combinations. The fps on the R was really not great, but even slow fps with subject in focus and low noise beats 10fps images that are unusable.

I love my 7Dii when there is a lot of light, but in reality I only get that in less than 10% of my venues.

Looking forward to another full frame body with a decent fps in servo mode.
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
590
565
118
Williamsport, PA
Wish Canon will release a RF to EF lens converter to use with 1DX 3. This camera will be even better with RF lenses.
Is this serious?
Pretending it is.
The RF lenses are needing a much shorter distance to the sensor than the EF lenses.
The adapter would need additional optics that would degrade the image.
Same problem with FD to EF converters needing to use additional optics to get to infinity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
As far as the EF-M lenses go, every lens released so far for the EF-M mount has been around 2.4 inches in diameter. One might assume that any future EF-M lenses would also be restricted to a maximum front element of around 56mm.
There are third party lenses that break this restriction...but the larger point remains. As long as Canon self-imposes that restriction, M lenses aren't going to take the world by storm.

Fortunately, every EF and EF-S lens ever made will work...with an adapter. (And I found out how to get a Canon adapter for fairly cheap.)
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,839
2,813
Irving, Texas
Is this serious?
Pretending it is.
The RF lenses are needing a much shorter distance to the sensor than the EF lenses.
The adapter would need additional optics that would degrade the image.
Same problem with FD to EF converters needing to use additional optics to get to infinity.
Why I do not collect FD lenses at all. No extra optics needed for M42 screw mounts.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,839
2,813
Irving, Texas
There are third party lenses that break this restriction...but the larger point remains. As long as Canon self-imposes that restriction, M lenses aren't going to take the world by storm.

Fortunately, every EF and EF-S lens ever made will work...with an adapter. (And I found out how to get a Canon adapter for fairly cheap.)
Actually, it is imposed by the market. If there was $ in it, Canon would be all over it. Especially since the industry is gasping for air right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,839
2,813
Irving, Texas
Same here. In fact, so far I haven't done anything with raw files, but I expect I might in the future and storage is dirt cheap.
Just had to get the wife an external drive for her photos (600gb worth of photos). 2 terabites for $60 from Western Digital. Fits in a front shirt pocket. :ROFLMAO:
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
Actually, it is imposed by the market. If there was $ in it, Canon would be all over it. Especially since the industry is gasping for air right now.
I was referring to the diameter restriction when I talked about "self-imposed." The market might drive Canon to NOT develop a new M lens (or to do so). I can't see how it's going to drive them to ONLY develop M lenses with that outside diameter, and refuse to develop a lens a bit wider.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
Just had to get the wife an external drive for her photos (600gb worth of photos). 2 terabites for $60 from Western Digital. Fits in a front shirt pocket. :ROFLMAO:
Yes, those WDs are pretty nifty. I'm going a lot more expensive; I'm buying a home NAS, but I intend to back it up with Western Digital 4TB units--I bought a bunch on sale the other day for $100 apiece.
 

CanonFanBoy

Really O.K. Boomer
Jan 28, 2015
4,839
2,813
Irving, Texas
I was referring to the diameter restriction when I talked about "self-imposed." The market might drive Canon to NOT develop a new M lens (or to do so). I can't see how it's going to drive them to ONLY develop M lenses with that outside diameter, and refuse to develop a lens a bit wider.
True, but there are some fast lenses for the M. It is possible to make fast lenses with a small diameter. I have a bunch of them (not M). ;) Again, if Canon, through Canon's market research, could see a significant profit in bigger lenses for the M, Canon would be all over it.
 

cayenne

EOR R
Mar 28, 2012
2,203
280
Same here. In fact, so far I haven't done anything with raw files, but I expect I might in the future and storage is dirt cheap.
Oh goodness, PLEASE start using the RAW images.....
:)

I mean, sure, you should always try to get it right in camera, but in the 'heat of battle' quite often, you miss this or that, and I'd hate to think I"d lost a really great shot because some settings were off.....too much fo jpeg resurrection, but could easily be fixed with a RAW work flow.

And like you said, these days, drive space is cheap, a commodity really.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

rbielefeld

EOS T7i
Apr 22, 2015
78
132
[
What do you not like about the a9? I've gotten weary of waiting for a pro Canon mirrorless and thinking of making the jump. Also, is there a decline in the quality of shots with the Canon+Adapter on the a9?
First let me address the quality of the images you get using Canon adapted glass on the Sony a9. The answer is no, there is no decline in quality that I have seen. Image quality with the Canon 100-400, 600 f/4 II, 16-35 f/4 IS and a few others has been excellent. You lose fps and focusing speed a bit when adapting Canon glass to the a9, but image quality is awesome.

With regards to what I do not like about the a9 versus Canon bodies such as the 1DxII and 5D4. First let me say that there is nothing about the Sony a9 that is a deal killer for me, or I would not be using it. Most of what I do not like revolves around ergonomics/usability.

It is a very small camera and without the battery grip it is too small for me to hold comfortably for long periods of time and use with larger lens efficiently. With the battery grip I love it. I do not like how Sony has treated/positioned the various wheels and buttons on the camera body. The worst is the AF-ON button as it is too small and barely raised above the surface of the camera making it hard to find and press at times. I have gotten used to it, but the new a9II will have and a7rIV has restyled buttons that are/will be much better. The wheel located in front of the shutter button and on the rear of the body are orientated the wrong way for easy use IMO, but again you can get used to it. The rear LCD screen is small and has poor resolution compared to Canon. Sony embeds very small Jpegs in their RAW files versus Canon embedding full size Jpegs. This does not seem like a big deal until you want to inspect the images on your media cards for critical sharpness prior to importing them onto your computer. You cannot zoom in to 1:1 to check sharpness because the imbedded Jpeg is too in resolution, you must import the RAWs and build 1:1 previews before you can zoom in to inspect sharpness. This is a big deal to me based on my post-processing workflow. May not be for you. Lastly, how Sony organized the menu of the a9 and the terminology they use is not intuitive. But again you can get past that issue, well at least I did.

What I really like about the a9 is no black-out EVF that is even better than a DSLRs mirror flipping stop motion effect when it comes to not interfering with your ability to track very fast moving subjects. The a9 at 20 fps has no black-out what so ever. You just follow your subject like you would with your naked eyes. Even the delay is so small that keeping up with a fast target is no problem. The other aspect of the a9 that has no rival (IMO) at this point is the AF system. It is really amazing and functions flawlessly in continuous at 20 fps. I have been able to get more long bursts of birds in flight where every image is tack sharp than I was ever able to get with my 1DxII, and I do a lot of bird in flight photography and have been doing it for many years. I am talking about 90+ images all tack sharp. To me this is mirrorless at its best (for now).

I hope this was somewhat helpful.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
True, but there are some fast lenses for the M. It is possible to make fast lenses with a small diameter. I have a bunch of them (not M). ;) Again, if Canon, through Canon's market research, could see a significant profit in bigger lenses for the M, Canon would be all over it.
It is possible to make fast lenses with a small diameter--if they are short focal length as well! And the EF-M 32 is f/1.4 (not earthshatteringly fast, but fast). But any sort of long zoom (or long prime) is going to be slow--very slow--if they insist on making it skinny in outside diameter. I own EF primes that are reasonably fast, but they are ALL fatter than the EF-M lenses.

The point I'm trying to make is not completely incompatible with yours--yours is correct and prior to mine. Canon COULD make fatter lenses, that would be faster (or longer). But they'd have to want to make a new M lens in the first place and don't see a market for it (or enough of one to justify moving people off RF development) (your point, I believe).

But what would happen if they DID decide to throw some love in the EF-M direction? Would they finally break down and decide--"let's make a fatter lens so it doesn't have to be so slow"? Or would they stick with a restriction that has no <I>engineering</I> (or even marketing) reason that I can see?

The Canon rep I spoke to a few weeks ago was visibly annoyed by my Tamron 18-200, but if he doesn't like it--Canon can damned well give me an alternative (if they get over their skinny fetish). If Canon doesn't, he's got no real right to complain.
 

SteveC

M6 mk II
Sep 3, 2019
749
564
Oh goodness, PLEASE start using the RAW images.....
:)

I mean, sure, you should always try to get it right in camera, but in the 'heat of battle' quite often, you miss this or that, and I'd hate to think I"d lost a really great shot because some settings were off.....too much fo jpeg resurrection, but could easily be fixed with a RAW work flow.

And like you said, these days, drive space is cheap, a commodity really.

Just my $0.02,

cayenne
The vast majority of the stuff where I don't find the jpeg satisfactory is because I bunged up the focus somehow. Of course that can't be fixed with a raw file.

Of the remainder, it's basically going to be white balance, or something that can be fixed with crop. The latter can be done with JPEG...the former requires that I reboot my machine into Windows (normally in Linux) because DPP doesn't have a Linux version.