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

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,013
1,466
Canada
I'm sure the f/4 lenses will be coming. Heck I'm wondering when the 24-240 will come and how good it will be in daylight...
Im sure that when the R is mature we will have the ultra fast lenses, the midrange lenses, and the kit lenses that are F6.3...

But yes, I really want to see the 24-240 when it comes out. With an RP, that could make a kick-ass walkabout camera!
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,071
253
Right. If you're a White House reporter or do sports or what have you--you don't move around much--then the size doesn't matter. If you're a travel photographer or wedding photographer, especially a petite one, then having a smaller, somewhat lighter bag is going to be a win though. Even if it's as long at 200mm, it's not going to be at 200mm in your bag or backpack.
I'd find smaller to pack very attractive. I wouldn't mind if it zooms out to the same size. A clever design by Canon. It looks chunky so probably hasn't lost weight but the size is nice.
 

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,071
253
Im sure that when the R is mature we will have the ultra fast lenses, the midrange lenses, and the kit lenses that are F6.3...

But yes, I really want to see the 24-240 when it comes out. With an RP, that could make a kick-ass walkabout camera!
As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwissFrank

Hector1970

EOS 6D MK II
Mar 22, 2012
1,071
253
No, it is a contracting market. You can gain market share while your sales continue to go down.
Completely agree and that's the current situation. Slowing the rate of loss of sales is improving your market share currently.
When companies can't get volumes they try to widen margins.
I suspect Canon is good with margins.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,013
1,466
Canada
As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.
I did a lot of hikes with a 60D and an 18-200. It was a good all-in-one combo. The 18-200 is fairly dated, just about every superzoom DSLR lens out there now beats it, so I am confident that the 24-240 would be significantly better. I think that the combo of that lens on a RP is going to be a best selling combo for Canon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974

QuisUtDeus

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2019
115
80
As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.
Not that long ago I was crossing my fingers for an updated 28-300L in the 100-400Lii body. A 24-200 IS USM would have been great too. On the R it's probably better, but I'm still torn on the body.

But I could pair it with the RF35 for night. Hmm.
 

Pape

EOS RP
Dec 31, 2018
348
196
The ‘Really Right’TM version would be a very high resolution sensor using a lens with a wide focal length (prime) paired with a fixed narrow aperture.

No need to focus; most everything is within DOF.
No need to zoom, just crop digitally.

Solid statist’s fantasy.
Phone cameras are going to that direction :) To work it needs incredible fast focus stacking too ,F needs to be 1 cause diffraction.
To achieve that need burst speed like 4000 fps and focus what can move as fast.
If thinking you got 1,6 gigapixel full frame sensor and 25 mm lens ,you can crop from that 25mpixel picture what got 200mm lens field. 1,6gigapixel got diffraction limited on f1,2
I wonder if house sized computer could make 4000fps with 1,6gigapixel
10 year and phone camera can do that?
 
Last edited:

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
289
113
I won't be a fan of global shutters until a rolling shutter sensor can reach native ISO 25 or lower with the same color filters and without loss of quantum efficiency. For reasonable money.
I don't follow, can you go into more detail?
 

Kit.

EOS 6D MK II
Apr 25, 2011
1,089
518
I don't follow, can you go into more detail?
In order to support the same full well depths, a global shutter sensor needs to have twice as large capacitance per unit area as a rolling shutter one does.
 
Last edited:

masterpix

EOS T7i
Jun 29, 2016
91
56
For what it worth, I don't see that the XXD's and the 7D's can be merged into one body in a way not sacrifice too many options of each of the bodies, the articulate screen of the 80D and the control buttons of the 7D. The light weight of the 80D to the strength and durability of the 7D and so on. Canon will do good if they keep both lines separate until they will, eventually, will be replaced by a mirror-less models (due to the fact that mirror-less, by definition, are simpler bodies - no penta-prism or flipping mirrors).

I am still wondering when Canon will announce the new 7Dmk3.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haggie and Ladislav

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
289
113
In order to support the same full well depths, a global shutter sensor needs to have twice as large capacitance per unit area as a rolling shutter one does.
OK, I'm an engineer and have looked at some sensor designs but I still don't follow your original point...
 

rrcphoto

EOS 5D MK IV
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
In order to support the same full well depths, a global shutter sensor needs to have twice as large capacitance per unit area as a rolling shutter one does.
basically yes, the global shutter sensor needs to store the value of each pixel into memory. to be somewhat efficient, you need to go stacked. BSI such as Sony's latest global shutter sensor also helps. for a normal FSI non stacked global shutter, none of them will have the same full well capacity as a non global shutter sensor. you lose your FWC by at least half.

Sony came out with a novel way of doing it, but unlikely it will ever reach production. each pixel had an ADC attached to it via a stacked sensor, and the digital values stored in memory for each pixel. allowing for full well capacity being the same as a non global shutter.
 

QuisUtDeus

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2019
115
80
For me, the RP with an EF-S lens on an adapter, would make a great crop camera. No interest in either an M or a 7D3. YMMV.
Just out of curiosity, if you want to use EF-S lenses on an adapter, why do you want a FF camera like th RP? It seems like for that task, the M50 would do just as well.

I keep trying to tell myself that I can be as happy with an M50 as an R, but it's that FF sensor that's the big draw. With EF-S lenses, why pay for it and carry it around?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pape

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
289
113
Just out of curiosity, if you want to use EF-S lenses on an adapter, why do you want a FF camera like th RP?
Personally, I like to always have a good camera in the backpack. My R is small enough I don't notice any extra weight or bulk, but all the RF lenses (even the 35/1.8, which is huge given how modest its spec is) are big enough they're a PITA to carry around. So the idea of having a small lens, even if it is only a small-sensor image circle is interesting. That way I get to take all my photos using one camera's muscle memory, understanding of features, and the like. I don't need to learn two different bodies. And the photos likewise come out via one camera's workflow, not two. And it's cheaper than buying an R-series AND the latest small-sensor body. Finally while the R is bigger than a small-sensor body, it's smaller than an R plus a small-sensor body together when I'm travelling for instance.

But just as the mirrorless RF allows better lens designs than the SLR EF, the EF-M mount must be superior to the EF-S. So my biggest complaint about the RF system is that the flange distance doesn't allow EF-M's to be adapted. I can't see any advantage Canon had in making the flange 20mm instead of say 17mm (the EF-M is 18mm) and this is the biggest reason I considered moving from EF to Sony instead of to RF.
 

degos

EOS 80D
Mar 20, 2015
197
121
I'd find smaller to pack very attractive. I wouldn't mind if it zooms out to the same size. A clever design by Canon. It looks chunky so probably hasn't lost weight but the size is nice.
Clever? It's, uh, a fixed-aperture extending zoom... like the 24-70. It's not particularly novel.

There's nothing inherent about the RF mount that made it possible only now.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
289
113
There's nothing inherent about the RF mount that made it possible only now.
The Canon RF White Paper says the exact opposite. They say that the RF allowed this new formula and construction.

The proof will be if they ever come out with another 70-200/2.8IS for the SLRs: if it's as small as the RF version you'll have been proven right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pj1974