Further clarification of what will be announced by Canon next month

Jun 24, 2020
3
1
I think Canon needs to release one with rangefinder styled body a.k.a EVF in the corner..It just doesn’t make sense to put the EVF in the middle on Mirrorless camera anymore.
 
  • Love
Reactions: usern4cr

canonnews

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 27, 2017
649
994
Canada
www.canonnews.com
I think Canon needs to release one with rangefinder styled body a.k.a EVF in the corner..It just doesn’t make sense to put the EVF in the middle on Mirrorless camera anymore.
it kind of does for the flash mount.

If you use a corner EVF, you have make the entire camera bigger, OR use a 16:9 LCD.
 

SecureGSM

2 x 5D IV
Feb 26, 2017
2,029
940
Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders. For prime lenses, nothing shorter than 135mm can handle an extender. For zoom lenses, the EF 70-200 series and the EF 100-400 series allow extenders, but that is based on the assumption that users will be at the longer ends of the focal length range when extenders are attached.

The big benefit of having a shorter registration distance is for wider angle lenses. Normal lenses benefit some, but not as much as wide angle lenses do. 70mm is right on the line between normal and telephoto. Anything past 85-100mm is not going to see much benefit from shorter registration distances in terms of image quality. A lens in that focal length range might see a benefit in terms of overall size and weight.
+++ Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders.

uhm. Tilt and shift lenses inclusive?
 
Last edited:

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
753
895
The 5D Mark III had the same AF hardware as the 1D X. The 5D Mark IV had the same AF hardware as the 1D X Mark III. Both didn't have as many software options and both seemed to be a TAD, but not by much, less consistent from shot to shot. I think most of us are expecting the AF performance of the R5 to be very close but not quite equal to that of the 1D X Mark III in LV. Even at that level, it will be a massive improvement over the EOS R.
And apparently the R6 will have the same AF system as the R5. THAT could well be the most amazing thing that comes out of these releases
 

Skux

EOS M50
Feb 21, 2020
25
23
Thank god they are releasing extender lens caps, they had me worried for a while there.
 

degos

EOS RP
Mar 20, 2015
257
169
Here's something that might surprise you. Canon don't release anything until it's been through a rigorous round of field testing with their photographers worldwide.
Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.

The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk
 

Joules

EOS 6D MK II
Jul 16, 2017
817
861
Hamburg, Germany
Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.

The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk
"consumer junk"? Do you consider products junk because they are aimed at market segments that don't have or can't justify the budget for high end gear?

I am grateful for the diversity of products Canon is putting out there. Photography is a hobby for many and for lots of people lenses like the ones you mention get them access to the joys that come with this hobby at reasonable prices. Using derogatory expressions for those products comes off as an insult to its buyers to me.

Keep in mind that low end sales also contribute to R&D that is used for L lenses. And that somebody may move upmarket as they skill and economic situation improve over time.
 

gzroxas

Canon EOS R / Travel and Landscape
Oct 3, 2018
46
56
Italy
I’m most curious about the 85mm (to compare f2 but macro and IS vs the Samyang 1.4) and... THE BATTERIES! I really hope the new extra capacity battery can be adapted to the original R, because battery life is one of my main gripes with it!
 

dichterDichter

I'm New Here
Jun 25, 2020
18
13
im really interrested in the r6 and a 70-200 f4 or f2.8. A very interresting thing will be nattery live. my a7ii has a very poor battery live.
 

LSXPhotog

EOS RP
Apr 2, 2015
398
239
www.diossiphotography.com
Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.

Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor."

In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips."
I may stand corrected here. But I also find it hard to believe because it's not what I've been told by anyone from Canon and I can't find anything online to confirm it - only evidence that goes against it. When I had issues with the
Not according to Chuck Westfall before he passed away. The 5D Mark III had the same additional processor as the 1D X MArk II did to handle AF functions.

Please read this article at The-Digital-Picture were Chuck responded to a questionnaire from Bryan about comparing the 1D X, 5D Mark III, and 7D Mark II AF systems. With regard to AF speed, Chuck said, "AF calculation speeds will vary with all three cameras based on the number of active focusing points, ambient light levels, subject contrast, subject distance, lens focal length, maximum aperture, etc. But when all else is equal, all three cameras are virtually equal in terms of AF calculation speed because they all use a similar if not identical AF processor."

In this interview in 2012, Chuck said, "Both the 1D X and the 5D Mark III use dedicated AF microprocessors; these AF microprocessors are not DIGIC chips."
I am very curious about this statement. The 1DX Mark II has Dual Digic 6+ processors and a single regular Digic 6 for metering and AF. The original 1DX had Dual Digic 5+ processors and a single Digic 4 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark IV uses a single Digic 6+ and a single Digic 6 for metering and AF. The 5D Mark III used a single Digic 5+ for everything. The Canon 7D Mark II has dual Digic 6 processors. This comes directly from Canon's press material.

So we know for a fact, they have different processing hardware inside - there are photos of their main boards online to support that as well. His comments made in 2012 appear to be incorrect because the original 1D had a total of 3 processors on board wearing the Digic name and the 5D Mark III only made use of a single Digic. I really have no idea why he would make these comments and contradict what Canon has stated as a company and what the physical hardware indicates.
 

Steve Balcombe

Too much gear
Aug 1, 2014
238
151
Not always. If I want to shoot at f/1.8 without an ND filter and even at base ISO and 1/8000 the highlights will blow and the entire image will be three stops overexposed, then using a three stop ND filter will allow me to use base ISO at 1/8000 and f/1.8 and get a result that is three stops darker.
But you said (my emphasis) "The whole point of an ND filter is to protect the highlights." No it isn't. It's to allow you to use a larger aperture (as in your example above, which I had already given), or a slower shutter speed (for creative reasons) than you would otherwise be able to. That's not "protecting the highlights", which is something you achieve by ensuring you don't expose too far to the right - more often than not without using an ND filter. In the most extreme cases - my f/1.4 lenses wide open in bright sunlight - an ND filter might be the only way to do this, but this is an edge case and in no way "the whole point of" an ND filter.

Or with video, if I am determined to use a 180° shutter and f/1.8, and even at base ISO I'm three stops too bright, then using a three stop filter allows me to use the shutter angle and aperture I want while reducing exposure three stops.
Yes, video typically uses slower shutter speeds than stills so an ND filter is a useful tool - but once again this is not "to protect highlights", it's to allow a suitable exposure of all tones at the required shutter speed..
 
Last edited:

canonnews

EOS 7D MK II
Dec 27, 2017
649
994
Canada
www.canonnews.com
Here's something that might surprise you: junk like the 50mm STM and 24-240 still gets released.

The Explorers of Light et al are guinea pigs for the pro lenses, not the consumer junk
wow. elitist much?

there's a ton of L glass for the RF mount, canon needs diversity - and I'll have you know ..some of those consumer STM lenses are the best bang for the buck you can buy for lenses. it's a shame you sniff and ignore it.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2018
268
199
Kentucky, USA
you don't need a feature in the camera to do this you know. you can already do this with most cameras.
you simply rattle off a burst and combine in photoshop.

the LiveND though is really cool.
Yes, you can do this. But you'd end up with a hundred or so photos you'd have to worry about the names, and store on camera, and transfer, and clean up, and combine, and go back and delete the old ones, etc.

With the in-camera feature you'd get a single raw file (or raw file with all individual images if you want, or raw file with a single image if you want). That's a drastic difference to store and work with.

And yes, the LiveND feature (stopping merging photos anytime) would be really cool. As I said before, with a fast enough graphics processor and fast enough sensor read times you could do almost anything, hence my new motto:

"Smart programming ain't just for SmartPhones!" :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
8,577
2,115
120
wow. elitist much?

there's a ton of L glass for the RF mount, canon needs diversity - and I'll have you know ..some of those consumer STM lenses are the best bang for the buck you can buy for lenses. it's a shame you sniff and ignore it.
I think the more valid point is that previously even Canon’s non L glass has had respect for its capabilities, lenses like the EF 85 f1.8, the EF 35 f2 IS etc mean that even those who can’t or don’t want to spend the money can get really good results, further, until recently Canon didn’t fiddle their RAW files to make their cameras and lenses look better. Well now that isn’t true because every other manufacturer does things like make lenses that have horrific uncorrected distortions and artificially suppress noise in high RAW iso images it means Canon has to to stay competitive on price, which is one of the biggest purchasing decision for people in this market.

From a technical perspective the 24-240 is a dud the old 28-300 was not, Canon could do way better than they did but they are building it down to a price and making compromises they haven’t made in fF cameras before, the f11 lenses are also duds, you can do just as well with a $100 Opteka off eBay.

You might not like the verbiage but there is a valid point to be made when you consider the change of direction Canon has taken and how that will inevitably creep up the ladder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SecureGSM