I think the rumor stated later in the year. I had to hazzard a guess maybe sept/oct announcement.The list does not mention an EOS M5 Mark II.
it kind of does for the flash mount.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.
+++ Canon has never made wide angle or even normal lenses compatible with extenders.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.
Yup, mostly not interested apart from the bodies and maybe the 100-500l but then only if I win the lottery lol.And the only things desirable are the R5 and R6, the lens offerings are crap.
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 releasesThe 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.
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.
"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?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
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."
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."
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.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.
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..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.
wow. elitist much?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
And the only things desirable are the R5 and R6, the lens offerings are crap.
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.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.
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.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.