More Mentions of a Canon Mirrorless Announcement Ahead of Photokina [CR1]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,981
1,182
I may not have been as clear as I hoped above. Some of those I know who use long focal length lenses with crop bodies also own FF bodies, but they don't tend to use the FF bodies when using the long lenses for BIF.
No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,877
1,207
Canada
That is precisely what Canon does NOT do with their premium models.
That is also why Sony annoys a few of its users when they release a new camera a year later solving the problems that the previous model should not have had in the first place.
Also, when you compare Canon products to the rest of the world of electronics, there are astoundingly few firmware updates...… Personally, I prefer stable products....
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
482
183
I wish Canon had a facetracking feature that could be used while looking through the viewfinder. AFAIK that is not possible with any Canon FF camera, right? Focus peaking while looking through the viewfinder is also something I would love to have. Tell me that is not useful?

Your statements boil down to: All technological advancements in other cameras are just marketing. That is a very cheap shot, which is why I do not consider your oppinion valid at all. Differentiate at the very least.
Have you ever used the iTR tracking feature offered by the 1D X, 1D X Mark II, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II? Three of those four are FF cameras.

When using AI Servo AF with iTR active, if one initially acquires AF on a face, the camera will use information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to assist the AF system in tracking that face using the color/shape of the face. If some of the many other user selectable AF settings are properly chosen, it does so fairly well and with decent speed. The only reason we probably don't hear more about it is because:

1) It's not perfect, particularly if some of the other user selectable AF parameters aren't set for speed. Canon doesn't tout something that only works as advertised some of the time the way Sony does.
2) Too many pro shooters don't bother reading the 500+ page User Manual or the supplementary 200+ page AF Manual when they get a new 1D X Mark II and don't even know iTR tracking exists.
3) It requires using 'Auto AF point selection' and the users who even get that far immediately dismiss it because they don't read the manual to discover that even when in 'Auto AF point selection' AF mode the initial AF point each time AF is initialized can be a manually selected single AF point.
4) Many shooters select one (of six available) AF cases and stick with it forever. Each AF case has three parameters that are adjustable within that case. It takes a long time and a lot of experimentation to to learn how to use the various use cases most effectively for the various scenarios for which they are designed to be used. That means shooting in non-mission critical situations (a/k/a "practicing") to learn how to use it. Too many pros think they don't ever need to practice shooting with a new tool when they're off the clock. Imagine a classical musician that gets a new instrument or is asked to play a difficult piece they've never done before thinking they don't need to rehearse before the premiere.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,877
1,207
Canada
No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.
Myself, when out in the canoe, I tend to have two camera/lens in my pelican case and when the occasion arrives, reach for the appropriate one. For wide, I pick up a 6D2 with a 24-70 on it, for long it's a 7D2 with a 150-600...… and as Neuro has said, when the light falls off the 7D2 stays in the case and I use the appropriate lens on the 6D2.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
482
183
No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.
On the other hand, the 7D II does have a pretty significant fps advantage over the 5Ds. It also has an AF system that is much better in terms of shot-to-shot consistency than the 7D. Both are rather significant when talking about BIF. If one crops the image from a 5Ds down to the size of a 7D Mark II, one also gives up the entire FF advantage, too. I that case, why not just use the 7D Mark II and take advantage of the higher frame rate?
 
Reactions: nchoh

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,877
1,207
Canada
Have you ever used the iTR tracking feature offered by the 1D X, 1D X Mark II, 5D Mark IV, and 7D Mark II? Three of those four are FF cameras.

When using AI Servo AF with iTR active, if one initially acquires AF on a face, the camera will use information from the RGB+IR metering sensor to assist the AF system in tracking that face using the color/shape of the face. If some of the many other user selectable AF settings are properly chosen, it does so fairly well and with decent speed. The only reason we probably don't hear more about it is because:

1) It's not perfect, particularly if some of the other user selectable AF parameters aren't set for speed. Canon doesn't tout something that only works as advertised some of the time the way Sony does.
2) Too many pro shooters don't bother reading the 500+ page User Manual or the supplementary 200+ page AF Manual when they get a new 1D X Mark II and don't even know iTR tracking exists.
3) It requires using 'Auto AF point selection' and the users who even get that far immediately dismiss it because they don't read the manual to discover that even when in 'Auto AF point selection' AF mode the initial AF point each time AF is initialized can be a manually selected single AF point.
4) Many shooters select one (of six available) AF cases and stick with it forever. Each AF case has three parameters that are adjustable within that case. It takes a long time and a lot of experimentation to to learn how to use the various use cases most effectively for the various scenarios for which they are designed to be used. That means shooting in non-mission critical situations (a/k/a "practicing") to learn how to use it. Too many pros think they don't ever need to practice shooting with a new tool when they're off the clock. Imagine a classical musician that gets a new instrument or is asked to play a difficult piece they've never done before thinking they don't need to rehearse before the premiere.
Well said!

Personally, when I got a 6D2, I read the AF manual. At first my AF hit rate on moving targets was pathetic, but after a lot of experimentation and a lot of practice, I figured out what works for me and saved it in the custom modes... C1 for small and fast, C2 for medium, and C3 for large and slow items.... BTW, once you and your friends become senior citizens you don't need iTR because your subjects don't move that fast :)
 

Isaacheus

EOS 80D
Jun 22, 2017
199
12
New Zealand
That is precisely what Canon does NOT do with their premium models.
That is also why Sony annoys a few of its users when they release a new camera a year later solving the problems that the previous model should not have had in the first place.
That'd be kinda disappointing if they didn't do this: another example is the dual pixel raw in the 5dmk4, seems to be a beta feature but it sounds like it could have great potential. I'd find it better to have features that only work sometimes/with caveats than not have them at all still, maybe it's just me though
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,981
1,182
On the other hand, the 7D II does have a pretty significant fps advantage over the 5Ds. It also has an AF system that is much better in terms of shot-to-shot consistency than the 7D. Both are rather significant when talking about BIF. If one crops the image from a 5Ds down to the size of a 7D Mark II, one also gives up the entire FF advantage, too. I that case, why not just use the 7D Mark II and take advantage of the higher frame rate?
Exactly my point, reasons that are not about sensor size and 'reach',

All of the BIF shooters I know personally use cropped bodies with those big whites (or other long lenses) for the reach.
Incidentally, if you're always cropping, you likely need a longer lens.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
482
183
That'd be kinda disappointing if they didn't do this: another example is the dual pixel raw in the 5dmk4, seems to be a beta feature but it sounds like it could have great potential. I'd find it better to have features that only work sometimes/with caveats than not have them at all still, maybe it's just me though
Dual pixel raw fell flat on its face because Adobe and other third party raw processing application makers refused to integrate it into their products.

Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4 is better than a lot of folks give it credit for being (and a lot better than previous versions), but it also has a long ways to go in some areas. I actually prefer the finer color control DPP allows compared to LR. But like any complex piece of software, you have to spend time learning how to use it. Too many people try it, can't find the tool for what they want to do in the first thirty seconds, and then cry about how "It can't do such-and-such" because they didn't take the time to find the capability that is actually in there.
 
Last edited:

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
Not being aggressive - but do you shoot landscapes?
Because in 15 years of shooting landscapes with Canon digital cameras I have never felt I have lost a shoot because of insufficient dynamic range. Not once.
Indeed. It depends upon where the light source is, and to what extent you want to flatten out the DR in post. Many of us don't like the "HDR" / "cartoon" look, but some do. As having "higher DR for landscapes" involves under exposing to keep (a little) more highlight info and then raising shadows it's something that I've never felt compelled to do due to the reduced tonality at the shadow end, even with the "14 stops of DR" Sony.

For Landscape, to be honest I see little practical difference in DR between the original Canon 5D, the Sony A7, Pentax K5ii and now the 5Ds. All at base ISO of course.
 

Treyarnon

EOS T7i
Jan 11, 2018
59
35
Cornwall, UK
Visit site
Dual pixel raw fell flat on its face because Adobe and other third party raw processing application makers refused to integrate it into their products.

Canon's Digital Photo Professional 4 is better than a lot of folks give it credit for being (and a lot better than previous versions), but it also has a long ways to go in some areas. I actually prefer the finer color control DPP allows compared to LR. But like any complex piece of software, you have to spend time learning how to use it. Too many people try it, can't find the tool for what they want to do in the first thirty seconds, and then cry about how "It can't do such-and-such" because they didn't take the time to find the capability that is actually in there.
Have you found Dual Pixel Raw useful?
Genuine question - I don't have a 5D4, and you just don't hear a lot of opinion on it.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,981
1,182
Most camera users - including FF camera owners - never use 100-400 or long white teles. It is a very niche use case in the overall market. Importance of large body to use large lenses is totally exaggerated in this forum
The f/2.8 standard and telephoto zooms (24-70, 70-200) are bread-and-butter lenses for many FF shooters, and they are also ‘large lenses’ which are poorly balanced by small MILC bodies
 
Reactions: jeffa4444

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
482
183
Have you found Dual Pixel Raw useful?
Genuine question - I don't have a 5D4, and you just don't hear a lot of opinion on it.
I don't own a 5D Mark IV. I'm still happy with my 5D Mark III. There are several reasons.

1) I don't find that the 5D Mark III misses AF that often when used properly, thus the need for dual pixel raw isn't really on my list of considerations about whether to get a 5D Mark IV.
2) Most of what I shoot is high frame rate sports/performing arts. The added file sizes of 30 MP compared to 22 MP plus the added file sizes of dual pixel raw turned on compared to dual pixel raw turned off would slow me down too much. Even if I had a 5D Mark IV I doubt I'd use dual pixel raw that often due to buffer issues.
3) It's a lot of money for a minimal benefit for me and what I shoot. The only thing I wish the 5D Mark III had that it doesn't is flicker reduction. But the 6D Mark II has that at less than half the price of the 5D Mark IV.

The 5D Mark IV is a very nice camera. For me it's just not worth what it would cost compared to the camera I'm already using.
 

jeffa4444

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 28, 2013
1,413
63
65
No doubt. But there are several relevant factors besides sensor size and "reach". When I had a 7D then bought a 5DII, I continued using the 7D for BIF because of the better AF and higher frame rate. At the high ISOs needed for shutter speed early/late in the day, FF trumps crop. Also, a 7DII has no 'reach advantage' over a 5Ds.
100% correct. The 5DS even when cropped hard delivers great detailed shots if kept within its optimum ISO range (I rarely go higher than 400ISO and I'm normally at 100ISO)
 

MrAndre

I'm New Here
Aug 12, 2018
22
14
It also depends on what you value. Some people value photography and the resulting images. Others value a list of specifications.
You can keep telling that to yourself. You have no idea what I value, but even you cannot defend canon in reasonable way and thats why you make it personal. Cheap shot! If I want to buy a FF camera with landscape and portraits in mind in 2018 and dont have the money for a top of the line camera, Canon is not on par with others. Thats just how it is. Can you still produce nice images with Canon cameras? Yes, of course!
Do you get the best value for your money? I do not think so.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,981
1,182
You can keep telling that to yourself. You have no idea what I value, but even you cannot defend canon in reasonable way and thats why you make it personal. Cheap shot! If I want to buy a FF camera with landscape and portraits in mind in 2018 and dont have the money for a top of the line camera, Canon is not on par with others. Thats just how it is. Can you still produce nice images with Canon cameras? Yes, of course!
Do you get the best value for your money? I do not think so.
Of course, you are welcome to have and express your opinion. Based on what people are actually purchasing, your in the minority, but that should not affect your personal viewpoint in the least.

Then again, things like native lens selection, reliability, service and support are also part of a value proposition. In those areas, Sony is not on par with others. That’s just how it is.