Is there an EOS R series camera with an APS-C sensor coming? [CR1]

Jul 16, 2017
86
16
Hamburg, Germany
but i dont see any need for manual focus rings on "regular mainstream" AF lenses any longer given today's technology
Do you see a need for Exposure Control Dials on modern cameras? Or pedals and steering wheels on cars?

Automation can work great and deliver potentially superior results. But it can also kill the fun, the satisfaction, it detaches your involvement with your work. As I see it, dedicated cameras are mostly enthusiast products these days. And they should offer all the controls they can, so that somebody who is willing to do that can get as involved with his or her imaging as they care to be. Just because all settings could be accessed over a screen, and the images would likely be the same, the shooting experience would probably be less pleasant for a large number of people.

To get back on topic, it seems common knowledge that a smaller backfocus distance allows wide angle lenses to be smaller than their counterparts for higher distances.

Do we have some reference for the way image circle size affects lens size? I think it's right to assume costs increase with larger image circles, but would an 50mm RF-S be any different in size than a 50mm RF for FF? Would it be different at other focal lengths?
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
I am all for having possibilities to control every aspect of image capture myself, but by 2018 means - not being forced to use mechanical contraptions and shenanigans dating back to the 19th / early 20th century [when they were the only possible solution]. Things have evolved. We don't need horse carts any longer, we do have cars. And Zeppelins have also gone out of fashion in favor of heavier than air craft. Only imaging gear seems to be steeped in the past forever.

Tapping a touchscreen to select where I want to have sharp focus in the frame and then just letting a capable auto-focus system do its job is much more to my liking. Or having a capable scene-aware auto-exposure system taking care of "balanced exposures", where i only need to change something, if I specifically want a different exposure needed for a specific creative idea of mine. Not having to take care of the mundane technical aspects of photography allows me to FOCUS my attention (pun intended) on subject, subject interaction (if needed), overall scene, foreground, background, light/ing, composition, right moment - that's our task as photographers, that's were we and our personal visions and imagination make all the difference and "the image".

I know that some photographers consider themselves (also) as "skilled operators of some complex machinery not everyone can handle" and unfortunately all camera makers are prone to succumb to the notion that "more knobs, buttons, dials, rings, wheels and other physical control points on cameras and on each and every lens are ... better. Witness Canon's decision to add yet another turning "control" ring to each RF lens. Much smarter approach in my opinion is the one followed by Nikon with new Z-lenses: make the mostly un-used manual focus ring (on Z lenses) user-assignable and useful as control ring for other tasks. Even smarter would be adding a freely assignable control ring to camera body around lens mount base [as seen for example on some Canon Powershot models] and eliminate it from lenses.
 
Last edited:
Likes: aa_angus
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
I think the power should be left with the old and wise rather than the young, eager and stupid. The problem today is that many of the old in power now used to be young, eager and stupid.
the problem is that many of the older ones in power now are even more stupid than the young. :p :eek:
 
Jul 13, 2013
221
7
Pondering over this problem, I do think that Canon will develop RF-S (RF APC).
At present, Canon just wants to take away the pressure that has been building up from the Sony mirrorless (and Nikon) FF. FF is still upmarket, so they offer big and expensive lenses that showcase the potential of the new mount.
But a key aspect of the RF mount is the new pins and improved transfer speeds etc. So, the RF mount is future proof. EF and EF-S will eventually die when mirror boxes become technically obsolete. As far as I can tell, the M mount uses the same communication protocol as EF lenses. Thus, if an EOS-M system is kept alive in parallel with the RF system, at some point it will become obsolete when new cool things can be done with the RF mount.
The RF mount has actually the same inner diameter as the EF mount (54mm). And the EF mount is being used to make small Rebel dSLRs for years now. Of course, mirrorless APS-C cameras can be even smaller, but even though it may look ugly, a small mirrorless body with APS-C sensor should be possible.
There is still a big price, weight, and size advantage for APS-C lenses in the wide-angle range. (see EF-S lenses versus EF lenses).
People could argue that EOS-M can cater to the entry/compact market, which in a way is true, but then one never has to full potential of Canon's lens line-up (once EF/EF-S is dead) due to RF incompatibility. And surely Canon will focus lens development on RF (like it is now doing for EF). And Canon would never develop the EOS-M line into a major line with lots of lenses.
In the end, only the RF mount has all the new communication features. And I doubt Canon would come up with an EOS-M mark2 mount with upgraded protocol. Rather they would focus on making cheap and small RF APS-C bodies, together with RF-S lenses, rather than bringing EOS-M into the future (That doesn't mean that EOS-M won't be staying around for many years to come).
 
Jul 13, 2013
221
7
Do you see a need for Exposure Control Dials on modern cameras? Or pedals and steering wheels on cars?

Automation can work great and deliver potentially superior results. But it can also kill the fun, the satisfaction, it detaches your involvement with your work. As I see it, dedicated cameras are mostly enthusiast products these days. And they should offer all the controls they can, so that somebody who is willing to do that can get as involved with his or her imaging as they care to be. Just because all settings could be accessed over a screen, and the images would likely be the same, the shooting experience would probably be less pleasant for a large number of people.

To get back on topic, it seems common knowledge that a smaller backfocus distance allows wide angle lenses to be smaller than their counterparts for higher distances.

Do we have some reference for the way image circle size affects lens size? I think it's right to assume costs increase with larger image circles, but would an 50mm RF-S be any different in size than a 50mm RF for FF? Would it be different at other focal lengths?
Yes, wide-angle lenses will be simpler with the shorter flange distance. A 24mm lens on a 45mm flange would need a retrofocus design, which falls away with a 20mm flange distance.
The image circle is another issue. For long lenses it doesn't matter much (front lens dictates the physics), but for shorter, fast lenses, you need more glass diameter to cover the larger sensor. Also, because of high image quality demands, the FF lenses need more elements to correct for aberrations at the image edge. (Think the old classic 50mm f1.4 lenses which are pretty bad wide open away from the center, nobody is prepared to accept that anymore, that's why you have now 1 kg monsters....)
But for smaller apertures, e.g. a 35mm f4 lens, it wouldn't make much difference in lens design to cover APS or FF. There (35mm/4 is < 10 mm ) the lens diameter is smaller than either sensor size. The FF lens might just need a bit bigger barrel to avoid vignetting. One can see that for most purposes no EF-S primes were developed by Canon, people have to resort to EF lenses.
For lenses in the 10mm to 20mm range, you still would need retrofocus designs, so, an APS-C lens (think EF-S 10-24) would still be more compact than FF lenses.
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,390
440
Canada
i know, a small minority still uses manual focussing. to me it is just an old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems in the past. and as a personal preference, no problem. enough manual focus lenses out there from Alpa, Angenieux ... to Zeiss ... and a new one every other day on kickstarter.

but i dont see any need for manual focus rings on "regular mainstream" AF lenses any longer given today's technology.

eg why would architectural images with perfectly still, non-moving subjects typically offering good contrast structures for AF "to bite on" really need manual focus ring twiddling?

any current day mirrorfree camera with on-sensor AF system (=no back or front focus issues) is or really should be able to nail it perfectly using AF. with numerous, small and precise AF points covering entire frame, selecting the desired focus spot via touchscreen - also a manual intervention, ;-) - plus possibly using 10x magnification, should be no issue, even with camera fixed on tripod. this is so different from yesteryears mirrorslappers with only a few coarse af points bunched together in the center of the frame! not to speak if mirrorslappers and their structural requirement for AFMA due to detached, separate phase-AF sensor.

with 2018 mirrorfree on-sensor AF cameras: manual focus ring, manual focus gear in lens ... what for? Select desired AF field and let on-sensor (DP)-AF do its job. Properly functioning, precise focus by wire AF lens is (or should be) all that's required.

actually why should not even next gen RF T/S lenses be AF (only) with an on-sensor (DP-)AF system covering (almost) entire frame and full reala-time communication between lens and body and lens characteristics parameters in camera firmware?
Why does your car have airbags? Every now and then, you need it.

Same for manual focus.
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
Well, although for you and a few others manual focussing may be a life-saver, it is not really comparable to life-saving safety equipment beneficial to 100% of users. Right? :)

Not saying there should be NO lenses with manual focus rings. As we know, currently ALL lenses - MF and AF - come with that ring. I would just be able to have a choice and get "2018 contemporary, native mirrorfree AF lenses without manual focus ring". At a somewhat lower price than lenses with, of course.

It is exactly the same as with "stills cameras without video capture". I simply dislike being forced to pay for items I absolutely don't need or want. Especially when those items really are only used by (very) small minorities of customers. :)
 

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,390
440
Canada
Well, although for you and a few others manual focussing may be a life-saver, it is not really comparable to life-saving safety equipment beneficial to 100% of users. Right? :)

Not saying there should be NO lenses with manual focus rings. As we know, currently ALL lenses - MF and AF - come with that ring. I would just be able to have a choice and get "2018 contemporary, native mirrorfree AF lenses without manual focus ring". At a somewhat lower price than lenses with, of course.

It is exactly the same as with "stills cameras without video capture". I simply dislike being forced to pay for items I absolutely don't need or want. Especially when those items really are only used by (very) small minorities of customers. :)
But what if Canon (or other camera companies) have done the research on customer wants and needs, and determined that the demand for manual focusing is there? What if they have determined that leaving it out will hurt sales more than the savings of not having it?

Although you or I have no idea if such a study has been done, we should consider that user interface design is a major criteria with Canon, and the odds are that they have considered and discussed every single knob, button, ring, slider, jack, door, or display on their gear. The fact that focus rings and video are there on every camera and lens indicates that these are functions that Canon (and others) have deemed critical, and thus, your wants and needs are in the minority. Since your viewpoint is in the minority, devices tailored to you would be a much smaller production run, and in the end you would end up paying MORE for a camera without video or a lens without a focus ring.
 
Likes: pj1974
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
ndicates that these are functions that Canon (and others) have deemed critical, and thus, your wants and needs are in the minority.
Nope. Whatever Canon may "deem critical" does not necessarily mean it reflects majority wishes. As you can see in every poll in this forum, only a small fraction of Canon customers use their stills cameras for video recording. And people manually focusing lenses today (even occasionally) is definitely a very small minority of all Canon lens purchasers.

I believe it has more to do with Canon - like all other (stills) imaging gear makers simply being "behind the times" in a number of aspects by about 1 or 2 decades. Maybe caused by having octagenarian board members. All their lives they have only seen lenses with manual focus ring. ;-)
 
Oct 26, 2013
1,044
238
Nope. Whatever Canon may "deem critical" does not necessarily mean it reflects majority wishes. As you can see in every poll in this forum, only a small fraction of Canon customers use their stills cameras for video recording. And people manually focusing lenses today (even occasionally) is definitely a very small minority of all Canon lens purchasers.

I believe it has more to do with Canon - like all other (stills) imaging gear makers simply being "behind the times" in a number of aspects by about 1 or 2 decades. Maybe caused by having octagenarian board members. All their lives they have only seen lenses with manual focus ring. ;-)
Your statements have absolutely no logical basis. Your premise, it seems, is that since we now have AF, we no longer need manual focus. Despite the fact that AF:

a) does not always work.
b) is often not as precise

So, the new technology should replace the old and no longer be offered even though:

a) You will miss some shots when the camera does not AF (yes, it happens - even more with mirrorless than DSLRs in my experience - often shooting sunsets).
b) You can at times get better results with manual focus.

In other words, being "with the times" means we should accept poorer results.

Yes, very logical!
 
Likes: pj1974

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,390
440
Canada
Nope. Whatever Canon may "deem critical" does not necessarily mean it reflects majority wishes. As you can see in every poll in this forum, only a small fraction of Canon customers use their stills cameras for video recording. And people manually focusing lenses today (even occasionally) is definitely a very small minority of all Canon lens purchasers.

I believe it has more to do with Canon - like all other (stills) imaging gear makers simply being "behind the times" in a number of aspects by about 1 or 2 decades. Maybe caused by having octagenarian board members. All their lives they have only seen lenses with manual focus ring. ;-)
You are probably not old enough to remember shooting with DSLRs before they included video.... or film cameras before AF was invented.... :)
 
Likes: pj1974
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
You are probably not old enough to remember shooting with DSLRs before they included video.... or film cameras before AF was invented.... :)
sorry, i have to disappoint you. :)

Started out with an Agfa Silette, handed down to me by my godfather uncle, when he got himself his first SLR. My first own camera, a *full frame* :) 135 format viewfinder camera with manual focus 50mm/2.8 lens.


ofc I also had to use a separate lightmeter (Gossen) to determine exposure.



Fallback option was the time-honoured method of:




1977 i bought a Minolta XD-7 SLR [USA: XD-11] after working on construction sites for 2 summers as junior helper for a plumber. A fabulous piece of meticulously crafted fine mechanics.

Could only afford a Rokkor MD 50/1.7 lens. f/1.4 or f/1.2 was out of reach. Now i had TTL auto-exposure with both Av + Tv semi-auto modes, wow! However, despite its "rock-solid metal shell", the camera was soon totalled when it hit the asphalt in a minor bicycle accident. So I worked another summer and got myself a new XD-7 plus MD 50/1.7 and MD 24/2.8.

Cost of film was a constant issue for me too. I shot almost exclusively on Kodachrome 64. Dynamic range non-existant severly limited and not much room for exposure error. And even when i perfectly nailed exposure and was happy with composition, many of my captures were not well focused. I had ongoing difficulties using the darn split prism and microprisms in viewfinder that always just went black on me, thanks to my moderately fast consumer lenses and often precious little light.

In 1990 i bought my first SLR with AF, a Minolta (Maxxum) 8000i. It was a god-sent revelation for me.

If i recall correctly, it had a whopping 3 AF points! I loved it nevertheless. "Point, AF and re-compose image" got me a much higher ratio of shots in focus than all through my manual focus days!

And I lived happily ever after, without twiddling manual focus rings, except in an absolute pinch - and usually without much success either. :)

So now, in 2018 I am ready to get me some nice "pure-AF" lenses along with a decent FF-sensor mirrorfree camera.
 
Last edited:
Jul 6, 2017
845
65
Davidson, NC
For video I sometimes focus manually to something around the hyperfocal distance for the focal length and aperture rather than being concerned whether the autofocus setting were right to track my main subjects and letting the camera know who I wanted it to track for the moment. Sometimes manual is less work than automatic. That also reduces the risk of having the focus do some searching during the video.

I don't much like focus by wire, so I set lenses that have that almost always to AF. I've been pleasantly surprised by the 24-105mm STM kit lens, and the autofocus has been flawless. I use that lens in situations where I don't need to do much of anything manually anyway. The FBW is the only thing I don't like about it, and I don't much use it accordingly.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,803
30
Not sure that Canon would go the route of an APS-C sensor in the ML. they may simply make a high MP camera and when using an EF-S lens you will get a reduced size image. I tried an EF-S lens on an R body today and the resultant file was 14.5MP.
 
Likes: mirage

Don Haines

posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
Jun 4, 2012
7,390
440
Canada
Not sure that Canon would go the route of an APS-C sensor in the ML. they may simply make a high MP camera and when using an EF-S lens you will get a reduced size image. I tried an EF-S lens on an R body today and the resultant file was 14.5MP.
What happens when you try a third party crop lens on it?
 
Jun 12, 2012
215
8
England
i know, a small minority still uses manual focussing. to me it is just an old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems in the past. and as a personal preference, no problem. enough manual focus lenses out there from Alpa, Angenieux ... to Zeiss ... and a new one every other day on kickstarter.

but i dont see any need for manual focus rings on "regular mainstream" AF lenses any longer given today's technology.

eg why would architectural images with perfectly still, non-moving subjects typically offering good contrast structures for AF "to bite on" really need manual focus ring twiddling?

any current day mirrorfree camera with on-sensor AF system (=no back or front focus issues) is or really should be able to nail it perfectly using AF. with numerous, small and precise AF points covering entire frame, selecting the desired focus spot via touchscreen - also a manual intervention, ;-) - plus possibly using 10x magnification, should be no issue, even with camera fixed on tripod. this is so different from yesteryears mirrorslappers with only a few coarse af points bunched together in the center of the frame! not to speak if mirrorslappers and their structural requirement for AFMA due to detached, separate phase-AF sensor.

with 2018 mirrorfree on-sensor AF cameras: manual focus ring, manual focus gear in lens ... what for? Select desired AF field and let on-sensor (DP)-AF do its job. Properly functioning, precise focus by wire AF lens is (or should be) all that's required.

actually why should not even next gen RF T/S lenses be AF (only) with an on-sensor (DP-)AF system covering (almost) entire frame and full reala-time communication between lens and body and lens characteristics parameters in camera firmware?
The problem is that nobody has yet invented a camera system that can read the photographer's mind. Auto focus systems are accurate, but sometimes they focus on the wrong subject and that is where manual focus is needed - to guide the camera to the point you want to be in sharpest focus. This is particularly important for product photography and macro work where very precise focus is required.
To call it an "old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems" or dismiss it as just "a personal preference" demonstrates that you don't really understand how or why manual focus might be used.
 
Jul 31, 2018
297
110
The problem is that nobody has yet invented a camera system that can read the photographer's mind. Auto focus systems are accurate, but sometimes they focus on the wrong subject and that is where manual focus is needed - to guide the camera to the point you want to be in sharpest focus. This is particularly important for product photography and macro work where very precise focus is required.
To call it an "old habit borne out of necessity due to totally inadequate AF systems" or dismiss it as just "a personal preference" demonstrates that you don't really understand how or why manual focus might be used.
No, camera does *not* have to know "what user wants to focus on". Have a look at Canon EOS R ... on-sensor (DP) AF system with 5000+ AF fields, covering (almost) the entire frame, accurate enough to allow "targetting" any desired point in the frame to AUTO-focus on. Even when camera is locked down on tripod.

For high-quality macro shoots I'd use tethered focus stacking and control starting point and end-point for focus distance and dial in desired intervals for software to then precisely AUTO-run the capture sequence.

No need whatsoever for "manual focusing by twiddling a ring on a lens" today - other than for personal preference. No problem, those who do can choose any lens. But I would like to finally have a choice of "pure-AF" lenses too.