Here are the full Canon EOS R specifications

[SaP34US]

Does the EOS R use the Digic 8 processor?Will it have double processor on for video and the other photo?
What about ibis or ib electronic IS?
It sounds like great consumer or a prosumer body. If had to guess at a price on it if is considered more of a comsumer level camera $11-1400 while if it is clearly prosumer my guess would be $1400-1900 and w/the kit lens $1550-1800 or $1850-2300. What do you think?

 

[zim]

It's happening right now!



….on the Jeremy Kyle show, he's got a couple of Canon execs on going at each other!

ok that joke may be a little regional

 

[Kit.]

So are you talking signal to noise ratio? Because crop does not affect sensor speed. I still don't get it. In decent light there is no noise to speak of either way.

I am talking about DoF, bokeh, diffraction-limited resolution, and also SNR. I don't consider "the same sensor speed" to be of a practical importance when trying to get the same images from sensors of different size... except for when we are limited by the pixel's electron well depth: highlight clipping due to overexposure happens easier on smaller sensors, but it's a practical limitation of the smaller sensor, not an increased light gathering ability of the "faster" lens.

If we disregard highlight clipping, then we can mentally replace a sensor with a ground glass. The FF ground glass will be illuminated 4 times dimmer than the M43 ground glass with the equivalent image, but once both of them are projected to the final image of the same size, the illumination of the final image will be the same.

So an M43 f/5.6 behaves like an F/11.2 FF lens? In what way?

A M43 200/5.6 lens is practically equivalent to FF 400/11.2 lens in DoF, bokeh, diffraction-related unsharpness, as well as - when shooting with the same shutter speed - motion-related unsharpness and optical SNR.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Sharlin, please read my post again... [1] I am comparing both 85mm f/2 for M43 and FF, I understand that 85mm lenses should have the same angles of view. Am I wrong?

[2] I assume that the lens designer designs the (native) lens to waste as little light as possible, there should be roughly the same amount of wasted light if the lens is native. Am I wrong?

Yes and yes.

As I said, it’s a crop factor. Specifications like 85mm and f/2 are intrinsic to the lens – the focal length is the physical distance between the rear nodal point and the image plane (sensor) with the lens focused to infinity, and the f/stop is the focal length divided by the physical diameter of the iris diaphragm when fully open. Those values are totally independent of the sensor behind the lens. A smaller sensor uses only a portion of the image circle, i.e. a small region cropped from the image circle.

Edit: I see you deleted the post to which I was in the process of replying. Seems you’ve learned something today...here, have a patch.

 

[ahsanford]

Does anyone know the hour for the official anouncement? Please?

Someone posted it would happen on Facebook at 9 PM Hong Kong time on Sept. 5th.

- A

 

[jmoya]

this is basically a mirrorless 6d II. wait for the 5d mirrorless model to be out early next year.

 

[justaCanonuser]

That's why a properly processed dual pixel RAW file delivers more dynamic range than Sony's best sensors are capable of...if that sort of thing is important to you.

This really IS an interesting feature of dual pixel technology.

 

[ahsanford]

This really IS an interesting feature of dual pixel technology.

If we didn't need software outside of our relatively mundane (ACR, LR, PS, etc.) workflow to tap into this potential, I'd be more geeked about this.

Glad Canon can do this, but they should put the screws to Adobe to have a separate tab or slider for DPRAW integration into RAW processing workflows.

Also: when in PTP going to publish DR info on 5D4 with DPRAW? I thought some of us sent Bill Claff files so that he could do just that.

- A

 

[applecider]

If you are using a EF lens on a EF-S body, that would be true, however if you get an EF-S lens on and EF-S camera, the lens being designed to focus as much of the gathered light onto the EF-S sized sensor, that would be different.

As I replied to Talys...

Suppose we take two lenses one M43 and one FF, both are 85 f/2. The focal lengths are the same, so the entrance pupil are the same size. The amount of light gathered is therefore the same. But that same amount of light is focused onto different sized sensors. The M43 sensor being smaller having the same amount of light focused onto it means that the intensity of light on the M43 sensor is greater. Does that mean that a 85mm f/2 lens for M43 is faster than the FF 85mm f/2 lens?

No
Where are you getting the focusing of the full frame EF lens on the smaller sensor?

The light per mm2 is the same, that’s the intensity or the photo settings, the exposure triangle. The light from the EF lens on a crop body that does not fall on the sensor is wasted, it falls on the gears mount battery case, it does not get concentrated or focused on the smaller sensor in normal use. Actually it falls on the light sucking black parts of camera.

The distance from sensor to back of lens is the same for FF vs EF-S. ( mirrorless is a different case), so no change in intensity.
Show us that you can learn, have an epiphany.

It looks like while I composed this msg you did indeed begin your epiphany. Congratulations.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

I am correct.

CanonFanBoy is correct. Although a f/2 lens is an f/2 lens, a M43 sensor is smaller than a FF sensor and hence M43 f/2 lens is slower than a FF f/2 lens. You have to apply the multiplication factor to get the 35mm equivalent.

A slower lens is a lens that lets in less light! A M43 lens with the f-stop as a FF lets in less light than the FF lens.

Nope, it's not "slower". The exposure will be the same given the same scene and aperture. Imagine you shoot FF and then manually crop to 4/3 size in postprocessing. The part you cropped doesn't become darker just because you trimmed the image.

 

[BillB]

If we didn't need software outside of our relatively mundane (ACR, LR, PS, etc.) workflow to tap into this potential, I'd be more geeked about this.

Glad Canon can do this, but they should put the screws to Adobe to have a separate tab or slider for DPRAW integration into RAW processing workflows.

Also: when in PTP going to publish DR info on 5D4 with DPRAW? I thought some of us sent Bill Claff files so that he could do just that.

- A

I don't know that Claff's methodology would work with processed DPRAW files. My understanding his that his DR calculations are based on sensor noise (or at least what comes out of the camera), not image output analysis after playing around with external software.

 

[shutterfreek]

FREEKING HYPED! SO PUMPED! Canon just pulls through.

 

[3kramd5]

If we didn't need software outside of our relatively mundane (ACR, LR, PS, etc.) workflow to tap into this potential, I'd be more geeked about this.

Glad Canon can do this, but they should put the screws to Adobe to have a separate tab or slider for DPRAW integration into RAW processing workflows.

Also: when in PTP going to publish DR info on 5D4 with DPRAW? I thought some of us sent Bill Claff files so that he could do just that.

- A

If they value extracting that extra range at the expense of file size, Canon should get on itself in DPP before nagging Adobe!

 

[ahsanford]

Some folks on this thread (earlier):

• EOS R is a sub-$1k camera at these specs.
• EF lenses will be crippled on EOS R despite copious evidence EOS-M adapts them just fine.
• The EF lens mount is on its last legs.
• EOS R is a complete failure without IBIS, Eye AF, etc.
• A camera with a 5D4 sensor and DPRAW being launched with a new 50L and f/2L zoom is clearly a mirrorless 6D2.

Other folks on this thread (right now):

• Here's my chance! This bright batch of students are the ones where my lecture on equivalence will really change some minds!

- A

 

[nchoh]

Yes and yes.

As I said, it’s a crop factor. Specifications like 85mm and f/2 are intrinsic to the lens – the focal length is the physical distance between the rear nodal point and the image plane (sensor) with the lens focused to infinity, and the f/stop is the focal length divided by the physical diameter of the iris diaphragm when fully open. Those values are totally independent of the sensor behind the lens. A smaller sensor uses only a portion of the image circle, i.e. a small region cropped from the image circle.

Edit: I see you deleted the post to which I was in the process of replying. Seems you’ve learned something today...here, have a patch.

Yes I did... but it was a simple fact put out by Sharlin without any big words that helped me get that bulb lit up!

 

[Kit.]

Speed or what? Obtain-ability of what?

Neither FF 25/0.95 nor FF 50/0.95 as obtainable as M43 25/0.95. Nor they would be as cheap to produce. Nor they would be equivalent to M43 25/0.95 with the images they would be producing.

I guess I am going to have to go outside and see for myself. I'll set my Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II and my Olympus M. Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro to the same focal lengths (marked 35mm on each not 12/24 because we are talking same focal length,

No, we are talking the same framing at the same distance. "Focal length" is not something that I would try to keep constant when trying to reproduce the same picture with cameras of different sensor formats.

However, if you do try to keep the focal length constant, don't be surprised when you won't get equivalent images. You will be able to crop the FF image to get the full M43 image (pixel pitch nonwithstanding), but you will not be able to crop the M43 image to get the full FF image.

not equivalent focal length, but I will also do a test at quivalent focal length. 70mm equivalent sound okay?), f/stop.

With 70/2.8 you will get the equivalent framing, but not equivalent DoF and bokeh. With 70/5.6, you will get equivalent framing and equivalent DoF and bokeh.

I'll set the cameras to the same shutter speed, and ISO.

You don't need to set the same ISO on cameras with different pixel pitch. A camera with a large pixel size actually behaves as a film with higher ISO (larger grain size).

Although, if it doesn't cause highlight clipping, it mostly can be fixed in Lightroom.

At the same framing, DOF is the same. It is actually shallower on M43 at same distance to subject so blur should be more pronounced.

At the same framing and the same distance to the subject, DoF is the same when the absolute aperture is the same.

In the same light? I expect exposure to be the same. I think you are saying I would have to expose longer.

No, I'm saying "practically equivalent". A longer exposure is not practically equivalent to a shorter exposure.

There will be no noise in decent light in my opinion.

Still, a lot of people here are asking for "more DR".

But noise has to do with sensor size and design, not lens speed.

Optical shot noise ("grain" on the digital image) has to do with the amount of photons coming through the entrance pupil. That's the lens-related noise.

There is also sensor-related noise, but I don't think it is worth talking about when we talk about lens equivalence.

So I still don't know what you mean by "slower".

I mean that:
1) results that you can get on M43, you can also get on FF using 2 stops slower lenses with 2 times longer focal length, and
2) results that you can get on FF, you can also get on M43 using 2 stops faster lenses with 2 times shorter focal length (if available).

(1) and (2) together is what makes M43 lenses and 2 stops slower FF lenses with 2 times longer focal length practically equivalent.

@ahsanford

 

[Ozarker]

I am talking about DoF, bokeh, diffraction-limited resolution, and also SNR. I don't consider "the same sensor speed" to be of a practical importance when trying to get the same images from sensors of different size... except for when we are limited by the pixel's electron well depth: highlight clipping due to overexposure happens easier on smaller sensors, but it's a practical limitation of the smaller sensor, not an increased light gathering ability of the "faster" lens.

If we disregard highlight clipping, then we can mentally replace a sensor with a ground glass. The FF ground glass will be illuminated 4 times dimmer than the M43 ground glass with the equivalent image, but once both of them are projected to the final image of the same size, the illumination of the final image will be the same.


A M43 200/5.6 lens is practically equivalent to FF 400/11.2 lens in DoF, bokeh, diffraction-related unsharpness, as well as - when shooting with the same shutter speed - motion-related unsharpness and optical SNR.

Ahhh... that's what my calculator says too. So what you mean is obtainablity of same DOF at the same distance with an equivacal focal length.

Well, I have to respectfully disagree that an M43 f/0.95 lens is two stops slower in speed then. When taking a portrait (6 ft.) with a M43 camera (50mm f/0.95) The shutter speed is the same as taking a photo with a FF camera (50mm f/0.95) at half the distance (3') and DOF is exactly the same. Exactly. At those distances stepping back a little is not much of an issue to me. In that set up or any set up, f/0.95 has the same low light capability whether FF or M43, except for noise; which is a sensor issue and not a lens issue.

Now I don't have to test. Thank you!

You original post said that small and light lenses are unobtainable for FF. I disagree. Canon's EF 50mm f/1.4 is small and light. Some think the quality is good. If you wish to define "quality" as only being "L" lenses and the resolution of such, well that is your issue. My niece is a pro wedding/ engagement, portrait photographer. (Jenna Davis) She uses an ASP-C Canon and standard EF lenses. She makes her living this way. People like the quality of her work. Her EF 50mm f/1.4 is small, light, and does a great job for her. When it comes down to it the photographer makes the photo. My friend is a famous celebrity fashion photographer. He goes all over the world. He uses a crop Nikon and old Nikon MF lenses. He only uses an modern AF lens for the runway shots (70-200) Apparently the quality of his very old Nikon MF lenses is good. He tells me lenses don't matter. The style of photo matters. So many people say that "L" is a pro lens. I love my"L" glass. But it doesn't make Pro photos. The photographer does that(not me). So these people crying for a pro camera and small, light Pro lenses (Some even saying clients expect the latest and greatest), in my opinion, are talking about price. Their remarks about having to have the latest and greatest to compete are mostly BS. Plenty of people make extremely good livings with M43 (https://www.olympus-imagespace.co.uk/photographers/damian-mcgillicuddy/) , APS-C, and FF with lenses that these blowhards insist are not good enough (not you). Cameras and lenses are not professionals. Some photographers are.

I know, there are people who only shoot wide open all the time. Oh well.

Please understand, I am not big on M43 systems. I have one. I rarely use it because it is too small for me. I just disagree with you about speed. For me, DOF isn't the issue. Fair enough?

 

[ahsanford]

@ahsanford

Pick your battles, people. This is a new body thread!

- A

 

[crashpc]

I was reading the first page thinking it is the last one. Could be changed for each other, no difference in knowledge really.
We´re so hyped. Hopefully we´ll know by tomorrow.

 

[Ozarker]

Pick your battles, people. This is a new body thread!

- A

Well, our discussion started out on the body thread with fast light lenses being unobtainable. But yes, we are now on a tangent.