New mid-level DSLR and EOS M5 Mark II the next ILC’s from Canon? [CR1]

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,830
1,003
what's BCN?

Same organization that puts out these:

 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,860
1,180
Canada
they don't really. their sensors still don't match Sony's at low ISO's in terms of DR, and they can't match what Sony has in terms of Aptina's dual ISO patent.
Canon's sensors have a much slower readout rate, and they have nothing outside of R&D patents that match the A9 sensor.
Sony Electronics has a 16 bit ADC 62MP and 100MP full frame sensors already done just waiting for camera bodies.

Sony electronics has at least a two generation jump on Canon .. right now.. and at a rate of investment of probably 15 times that of Canon's sensors, they probably won't catch up quickly.

There's the possiblity that Canon will do a quantum leap forward with their next sensor. but as of right now, they aren't anywhere close. sorry.
Canon produces more patents than Sony, and spends more on R&D than Sony. They also have 200Mpixel sensors “just waiting for a camera”.

And more importantly, when people go outside the lab to take pictures they bring along an entire camera with lenses, not just a sensor.'
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
146
Canon produces more patents than Sony, and spends more on R&D than Sony. They also have 200Mpixel sensors “just waiting for a camera”.

And more importantly, when people go outside the lab to take pictures they bring along an entire camera with lenses, not just a sensor.'
not with respects to sensors. Sony has more patents than Canon when it comes to sensors, which is what we're talking about here.

also Canon doesn't spend more on R&D than Sony, Sony for last fiscal is 470,000 million yen, Canon is 315,842 million yen.
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

EOS 80D
Dec 9, 2018
189
64
I take a more conservative approach to this- the high-end DSLR will hang around for some photography pros for quite some time but most hybrid shooters, prosumers, hobbyists, and video shooters will almost all be on MILC within the next 5-10 years.
I'm vocally predicting death of SLRs soon (or at least FF), but to be clear I don't have an emotional investment in that. I'm not on "Team Mirrorless." I just haven't heard any possible advantage to SLRs except battery life and especially when you have long viewing times per exposure (wildlife).

So curious, do you have any particular reasons to think "high-end DSLR will hang around for some photography pros for quite some time?"

Also, I think the 5-10 years you mention may be much closer to 5, albeit counting from when there is a pro MILFF, trinity zooms + superwide + portrait available. I think take-up of the RF system hasn't even begun yet. I don't think the FD user base lasted 3 years once EF trinity zooms were out (and 50/1.4, 35/2). In fact not even Nikon lasted 3 years after EF system's initial trinity zooms were out.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,830
1,003
I don't think the FD user base lasted 3 years once EF trinity zooms were out (and 50/1.4, 35/2). In fact not even Nikon lasted 3 years after EF system's initial trinity zooms were out.
Yes, but the situation is quite different. With a couple of niche exceptions, Canon declaratively switched from FD to EF and terminated FD bodies and lenses. Canon is not switching from EF to RF, they’ve just added RF to the mix (and with an adapter that allows full compatibility of EF lenses on RF-mount bodies, which was not the case with FD), and they’ve explicitly stated that both systems will continue to be developed in parallel for some time to come.
 

SwissFrank

EOS 80D
Dec 9, 2018
189
64
they’ve explicitly stated that both systems will continue to be developed in parallel for some time to come
Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.
 

SwissFrank

EOS 80D
Dec 9, 2018
189
64
A what now?
The mockup for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS looks like a munchkin compared to the EF-mount lenses. Sports people and fixed-location reporters probably don't mind the size, but people moving around have a hard time coping with an EF 70-200/2.8IS. I could see say wedding photogs switching to RF just to get a much smaller version of that lens. (Or to get the IS on the 24-70/2.8, or to get the 28-70/2.0, or ...)
 
Reactions: FramerMCB

snappy604

EOS RP
Jan 25, 2017
222
91
Nothing wrong with being tempted by certain competitor features and I know a few of the long term fans here will pounce on this :) so be it.


Anecdotally I have been seeing a lot of used Canon gear for sale on local markets.. 5D MkIVs etc. Of the group of folks I consistently interact with on SLRs, most have now switched to Sony A7IIIs. New firmware coming out from Sony seems to continually be addressing capabilities on lens adapters on the A7IIIs... (apparently eye focus for animals is coming for adapted lenses?)

so while the numbers being quoted indicate Canon is a strong leader, my experience looking around at the local enthusiast circles is that a change is occurring.

Am I jumping? nope.. don't have the money at moment and I still would prefer to stay Canon. Personally I think the competition is great and some of the things that came with the R helped even things a bit, but still seem.... lack-luster to me. I hope it's just Canon building up to another tech leap, but time will tell.

Will it help me take better pics? probably not, but it will give me more latitude for my goof ups ;-) and that has value for me.
 
Last edited:

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,830
1,003
Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.
The difference between excellent lens performance and slightly more excellent lens performance pales in comparison to the difference between manual focus and autofocus. I don’t imagine owners of the 16-35/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 MkII lenses were rushing out to buy the MkIII versions. And that’s assuming the lenses are better, the 24-105 is essentially identical between EF and RF.

The 28-70/2 is nice, but the extra stop adds quite a bit of weight and those 4mm on the wide end are quite significant. A retracting 70-200 is nice, but may also be perceived as less robust. An RF 24-70/2.8 IS would be nice, but the need for IS in that focal range is debatable. On the balance, all of these little improvements may add up to an advantage for the RF-based system, but seem unlikely to be a massive driver of MILC adoption among pros.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,830
1,003
Got a link?
There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).

As for the link...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=RF+70-200
:rolleyes:
 

malarcky

I'm New Here
Nov 30, 2016
23
5
Sometimes it's hard to imagine that the camera consumer community aren't the most brazen, and feckless people in the world. It's almost as though they are always telling us how bad the engineers are doing based on their personal knowledge of what's possible in technology advancements. There is a sense that they are always more knowledgeable than the camera brand manufacturers are, because there's always shortfalls in the designs that they are producing. These wonder people are blessed with the knowledge of how much the technology is advancing, and why there is a crippling of certain cameras due to the competitive nature of these brand names.

Sometime these brands are competing with themselves, such as the video capabilities being dumbed down so that the consumer is forced to buy a product in the dedicated video camera line instead of having those capabilities in the DSLR line. Everyone knows (they would make you think), beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these manufacturers are holding back certain features to make these devices more competitive in their own line of products. It's just an amazing feat, for the commenters to know more than the engineers, and how the implementation of these devices are strategically placed in order to make the upper echelon of products sell more. I just have never seen such brazen statements, such as "The limit has been reached on the light gathering capabilities of (such and such) that line of products", without knowing a thing about the actual implementation of the products themselves.

I'm not trying to make photographers look bad here, I'm just highlighting the strange way that these comments are just plain headstrong in their perspective of the evolution of modern day camera technology. When the Canon 6D MkII came out, it was the worst camera ever made, as it wasn't any better in expanding the dynamic range of an ISO 100 capture in regards to the 6D. It turns out, that the benefits of the new camera overall was more than enough to qualify as a great upgrade overall. Sure there were some instances where it fell slightly behind, but overall, it kicked butt over the 6D in overall performance. When you read the comments when this model came out, it was all about the ISO 100 capture nitpicking that left a bad taste in these peoples mouths, so it scored poorly "overall". Comments such as "Canon dropped the ball", or "The 6D Mk II falls way short of being an upgrade over the 6D". Of course, like I was saying all along, the 6D Mk II is a much better camera than the 6D in places that matter, like the articulating screen, the Dual Pixel focus, the ability to electronically work with Canon converters and the most popular telephoto lenses, and many, many other features that MATTER THE MOST. When a group of distractors gets away with the initial bashing of a new model, they can pat themselves on the back for the bragging rights that the 6D MkII was a poor upgrade because the ISO 100 capabilities didn't spank the 6D. Just the implimentation of Dual Pixel focus technology was enough of an improvement to discount the ISO 100 measly shortcomings. A new camera model doesn't need to outdo the previous model in the specifications in every single category to be a worthy upgrade. It's the overall package that matters most.

It's things like I just described that give the camera community the unique ability to tell the other members in the camera community that they know more than the engineers that develop and manufacture these wonderful devices. Sometimes I just don't understand where someone can brazenly assume that they know much more than the engineers who are responsible for the actual development of these wonderful cameras, but it runs rampant all the time it seems. You see it so many times, and looking back on just about every single camera that Canon has upgraded, it was the initial impressions that dogged the model, only to be a much better model, every single time.

EDIT: I wasn't meaning to respond to neuroanatomist . I was just responding to these posts overall.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
I didn't mean "cater to" - I meant compete for. You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent. There have been a lot of people that have switched brands these last few years. Ideally, for Canon, you'd want them to switch to your brand and not away from it...
Actually, few companies gain market share by being excellent. Excellent may work for high-end niche products. But, for most products and services, "good enough" is the best strategy. I know it's popular for companies to market themselves as though their products are excellent. But the reality is they succeed by offering decent products at a competitive price (not my opinion, this has been documented.)

Your second statement, by the way, is factually wrong as has been pointed out innumerable times on this forum. Don't confuse churn with switching. On any given day, there will be switching from one brand to another. Companies are content to lose a few customers so long as they are gaining more than they are losing. Canon's numbers show that they are gaining more than they are losing.
 

QuisUtDeus

EOS T7i
Feb 20, 2019
97
69
There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).

As for the link...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=RF+70-200
:rolleyes:
And in massive amusement, Canon won't even confirm that it extends, even though anyone with a vague understanding knows it will.
 
Reactions: Michael Clark

malarcky

I'm New Here
Nov 30, 2016
23
5
Post deleted due to circumstances beyond my control. I want to extend a "Thank you" to the moderation team here at CANONRUMORS.
 
Last edited:

FramerMCB

Canon 40D & 7D
Sep 9, 2014
330
40
51
...but the need for IS in that focal range is debatable.
Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,860
1,180
Canada
Actually, I had a realization around 2000 that SLRs were probably going to be replaced by what we call mirrorless, so I'm sure Canon was thinking about it since sometime in the 20th century...
Same here.

What many need to consider is that this is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary change.

When we went from film to digital, it was a revolutionary change. We changed from analog to digital, we went from dark rooms to computer screens.

Mirrorless is evolutionary. Our workflow remains the same, the sensors are basically the same. A Mirrorless camera is a DSLR being used in liveview mode with an extra display (EVF) and no mirror.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
7,860
1,180
Canada
Yes, I read what he wrote thanks.

Will most people be using MILCs in 5-10 years? We’ll see, it’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But, “The DSLR wil be dead in 5 years,” was the prediction by pundits...about 7 years ago. We’re still waiting, and the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs.
In 5 years, the odds are quite high that I will be using the DSLR cameras I have now. I may add a FF Mirrorless by then, but what I have now meets the functionality that I need.

As to the typical camera buyer, my feel is that the three biggest factors are price, ergonomics, and name recognition. The typical buyer does not care about Mirrorless, about DR, and about fancy programmable controls. These cameras spend their lives in Auto mode. The only real decision people make is to choose between small size ( like an M) or something like a Rebel or SR2 that looks more like a “real” camera and may ( or may not) fit the hand better, and that depends more on the size of the persons hands than any technical specs
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
23,830
1,003
Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...
I would certainly like IS in all my lenses. But ‘typical’ uses of a 24-70mm lens involve people, and that generally means 1/60 s or preferably higher (I use a 1/125 s minimum) to eliminate the effect of subject motion, which obviates the need for IS. I’d still like it (not all uses are ‘typical’, and I certainly appreciated being able to handhold 1/3 s waterfall shots with the RF 24-105/4L IS), but I doubt IS in a 24-70 will be a major driver of purchase decisions for most people in terms of switching from a DSLR to a MILC.