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

cellomaster27

Capture the moment!
Jun 3, 2013
339
28
San Jose - CA
Sony does not have a very good reputation for surviving bad weather, the Canons seem to have a great reputation.

The 1DX2 is the toughest of the lineup, but the 7D2 May be just as good. Both are as well sealed as you are going to see. personally, my 7D2 has seen everything from +40 to -20, has spent days outside on a hiking trip below freezing, heavy rain, freezing fog, and lots of time in a canoe.

The later ones of the 5D series are supposed to be almost as well sealed as The 1DX2 ......

When you want something that works no matter what, you can’t go wrong with a higher end Canon.

As to the R series, way too early to tell, but at some point I am sure that Roger from Lens Rentals will rip one apart and critique it. :)

Interestingly enough, the Olympus cameras also have a great reputation for weather sealing......
There are plenty of videos up on youtube demonstrating the weather-sealing robustness of canon cameras, at least the higher end. As a tool for the job, I can't be babying my camera. Once, it got so dirty, I washed it in the sink with water and towel. I'm pretty mean to my camera I guess.. haha! Whenever weather gets bad, all of the Sony cameras disappear. :LOL: The canon Eos R is not up there in terms of weather sealing according to Roger.. I did read his article. Unless the next FF ML canon is super disappointing, I don't see myself purchasing the R: based on all of the things that I already mentioned. I am one of the people here on the forum that is waiting for that epic FF body that can use the amazing RF glasses. Anyone else starting to sell their EF equipment?
 

BrightTiger

EOS M50
Aug 21, 2015
31
20
, I don't think anyone's moving just to have a mirrorless. No-one cares about mirrorless. They care about the lenses and AF.
You might not. Many if not most are. It's not the body is mirrorless. It will also be all the features mirrorless will enhance or add, in addition that's where the newest tech will be regardless.
I shoot wildlife and long since moved over. Lighter is great. And there are small/travel and DSLR-sized bodies. More room to put more features in.
Mirrorless is about a box will more room. But what it offers is what matters. And it's the future, now.
 

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,472
1,078
Irving, Texas
You might not. Many if not most are. It's not the body is mirrorless. It will also be all the features mirrorless will enhance or add, in addition that's where the newest tech will be regardless.
I shoot wildlife and long since moved over. Lighter is great. And there are small/travel and DSLR-sized bodies. More room to put more features in.
Mirrorless is about a box will more room. But what it offers is what matters. And it's the future, now.
Lighter. Just the body.
Mirrorless is about a box with more room. More room to put more features in. Inconceivable! Mirrorless bodies are smaller. So how do you also get more room? What features do you need more room for? It isn't as though camera companies removed the mirror box assemblies and there is now a cavernous area in the body in which to stuff features into.
Which features does mirrorless enhance or add? Which capabilities does mirrorless lose? Aren't those features at home on the circuit board anyway? So what is this need for more room?
And it's the future, now. Nothing new or futuristic about mirrorless. Mirrorless is actually older than the SLR, when film was the sensor (range finders).
BTW: I own a DSLR and a MILC. I reach for the DSLR 99.99% of the time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,285
614
Resistance to change should not be confused with preference, or not drinking the Kool Aid. I don't think anyone is fearful. The "change" you talk about is not a big change at all.
Mirrorless fans need to remember that DSLRs still have some key advantages.
  • Battery life.
  • Viewing experience. (Having now had real stick time with a Sony A9 I'm going to say straight out that I still prefer an OVF despite the advantage of exposure preview. That's not to say an EVF is terrible or unusable, but MILC fans completely discount those with a preference for OVFs.)
  • Viewing and focusing in low light. That's often cited as a MILC advantage. But I can focus the Milky Way through a 24mm f/1.4. I've never seen anything more than static on a MILC under those conditions. And having your night vision obliterated in one eye is a strange feeling. At least if I'm using the rear LCD screen to review shots my eyes are even.
  • Ruggedness: I won't say MILCs can't be as rugged as DSLRs, but the manufacturers haven't hit that point yet.
  • Feel with big lenses.
I fell in love with my Canon 5Ds and the files it produces. It feels very much like MF digital without the expense. So I'm the target audience for a 70+ MP Canon MILC with IBIS. And while I will probably have one of those shortly after it comes out, I can say right now there will be times when I still grab the DSLR. A two day hike through the Zion Narrows would be a classic example where ruggedness, OVF, and battery life make the choice for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

CanonFanBoy

EOS 5D MK IV
Jan 28, 2015
3,472
1,078
Irving, Texas
Mirrorless fans need to remember that DSLRs still have some key advantages.
  • Battery life.
  • Viewing experience. (Having now had real stick time with a Sony A9 I'm going to say straight out that I still prefer an OVF despite the advantage of exposure preview. That's not to say an EVF is terrible or unusable, but MILC fans completely discount those with a preference for OVFs.)
  • Viewing and focusing in low light. That's often cited as a MILC advantage. But I can focus the Milky Way through a 24mm f/1.4. I've never seen anything more than static on a MILC under those conditions. And having your night vision obliterated in one eye is a strange feeling. At least if I'm using the rear LCD screen to review shots my eyes are even.
  • Ruggedness: I won't say MILCs can't be as rugged as DSLRs, but the manufacturers haven't hit that point yet.
  • Feel with big lenses.
I fell in love with my Canon 5Ds and the files it produces. It feels very much like MF digital without the expense. So I'm the target audience for a 70+ MP Canon MILC with IBIS. And while I will probably have one of those shortly after it comes out, I can say right now there will be times when I still grab the DSLR. A two day hike through the Zion Narrows would be a classic example where ruggedness, OVF, and battery life make the choice for you.
Yup. I might also be interested in a 70mp camera (DSLR or MILC) from Canon... but I shoot fashion and portraits. Being able to crop that much could help me get two or three shots from a single photo.

Strange thing to me is that the mirrorless missionaries (As apposed to people who just like the cameras) seem quite fanatical and sometimes delusional: "Mirrorless is smaller and lighter. There's more room for more features. Mirrorless is the future. I can fit more in my bag." Please.

Back in 2008 when I got my first DSLR (Canon XSi) I hauled that camera and every lens / flash I had everywhere. It was murder. Then I realized that I could anticipate what I might be shooting anyway and did a whole lot of culling before each trip after that. But these people screaming smaller and lighter when speaking about FF MILC, and the associated lenses, do not have the equipment they are singing the praises of and probably never will. They assume: "Mirrorless is always smaller and lighter." They do this and have not even looked up the lens sizes and weights, much less held the gear. They are just spewing ignorance.

Personally, smaller and lighter will never make the decision for me. The correct tool for the job, and how I like to do it, will. The weight means nothing for my situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dtaylor

dtaylor

Canon 5Ds
Jul 26, 2011
1,285
614
Personally, smaller and lighter will never make the decision for me. The correct tool for the job, and how I like to do it, will. The weight means nothing for my situation.
Agreed with one caveat: I really love my M+22mm or 18-55mm for casual shooting. But either combo is truly small and light. P&S small and light. Not "I've shaved a few ounces off my body but I'm carrying a lens just as big as a DSLR" small and light in which case give me the grip and ergonomics of the DSLR.
 

transpo1

EOS 7D MK II
Jan 12, 2011
727
76
Apologies (in simpler terms, that means 'I'm sorry'). I wasn't cognizant of the fact (in simpler terms, that means 'I didn't know') that I needed to explicitly define (in simpler terms, that means 'spell out') all of the underlying frameworks that are obvious to those with a modicum of intelligence (in simpler terms, that means 'stuff most people with some smarts get'). To be unambiguoisly descriptive (in simpler terms, that means 'clear'), "...the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs," referred to ILC buyers.

Using dimunitive terminology occasionally facilitates comprehension (in simpler terms, that means 'small words might help you understand').
Yes, you're using so many BIG words, I can see how intelligent you are...and insecure. Don't worry, I won't tell anybody ;)
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Michael Clark

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
665
291
We don't know if it's not already, hehe.
The rumors usually get out fairly quickly when pre-production models are in the hands of photographers in the wild. We usually see blurry, cropped photos of a well known photographer with close Canon connections using cameras with tape over their model names and the like.

Technically I was responding in a sub thread conversion directly to someone, which is why I quoted them. It certainly had nothing to do with you. Even less to do with you because you obviously didn't read the entire sub thread to realize what was being talked about.


I wasn't implying anything. you're the one that reached for a conclusion that I did not state. I was simply responding as anyone could have clearly have deduced from the conversion that you quoted me out of context about, was about someone mentioning canon versus sony sensor patents and also mentioning the total R&D budgets of canon and sony. Of course, you're the only one to have taken this tact, so many you should read versus assume, not my problem you have trouble with english.
If you're posting to a forum, you're posting to everyone here. There are no sub-threads or nested comments here. But even if there were, you're still "talking" to everyone who can see what you post.

Your statement:

"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. "


I think it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to interpret your statement as applying to sensors, which you had just specified immediately before is "What we're talking about here."

Just for the record: at the point I read and responded to your post, I had read every other post on this topic that had been posted prior to yours.


The appropriate response would have been, “Thanks for the correction, I was wrong when I stated, ‘You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units.’”

Since you seem to be a big fan of pedantry, in spite of your apparent inability to admit your own errors, the point is that you can sell fewer units in a given y/y or other time period, but as long as your competitors’ sales slip relatively further, you will have gained market share. This has happened for Canon a few times. In other words, a gain in market share results from a relative increase in sales compared to others in the market, independent of absolute sales numbers.
Thanks for the correction. I overestimated the ability of those who read that post to understand the context in which it was written and left out the assumption that "more units" was to be understood relative to how many your competitors in the same market sold as compared to a previous period. I certainly did consider a much longer response that included all of that but rejected it as unnecessary.

Please accept my apology for not connecting the dots for everyone. It certainly deflected the conversation from the point that was being made: That market share is measured by sales units, not by "excellence."
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,319
1,673
It certainly deflected the conversation from the point that was being made: That market share is measured by sales units, not by "excellence."
Oh, was that your point? Next, you should consider making the points that the earth revolves around the sun or that 2 + 2 = 4. It’s always helpful to have a Captain Obvious around to explain things we all know.
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,005
1,456
Canada
Yup. I might also be interested in a 70mp camera (DSLR or MILC) from Canon... but I shoot fashion and portraits. Being able to crop that much could help me get two or three shots from a single photo.

Strange thing to me is that the mirrorless missionaries (As apposed to people who just like the cameras) seem quite fanatical and sometimes delusional: "Mirrorless is smaller and lighter. There's more room for more features. Mirrorless is the future. I can fit more in my bag." Please.

Back in 2008 when I got my first DSLR (Canon XSi) I hauled that camera and every lens / flash I had everywhere. It was murder. Then I realized that I could anticipate what I might be shooting anyway and did a whole lot of culling before each trip after that. But these people screaming smaller and lighter when speaking about FF MILC, and the associated lenses, do not have the equipment they are singing the praises of and probably never will. They assume: "Mirrorless is always smaller and lighter." They do this and have not even looked up the lens sizes and weights, much less held the gear. They are just spewing ignorance.

Personally, smaller and lighter will never make the decision for me. The correct tool for the job, and how I like to do it, will. The weight means nothing for my situation.
But Mirrorless is so much lighter!

Today I had my DSLR, two lenses, studio tripod, two light stands, studio flash, background, two more stands and pole to hold the background, and assorted bits and pieces. If I had a Mirrorless camera it would have been so much lighter!
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
665
291
Oh, was that your point? Next, you should consider making the points that the earth revolves around the sun or that 2 + 2 = 4.
My original statement was in response to someone who said, "You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent."

Perhaps I was attempting to state the obvious to someone who obviously did not see the obvious?

It’s always helpful to have a Captain Obvious around to explain things we all know.
Please forgive me for attempting to usurp your devinely appointed rightful position, Captain.
 

koenkooi

EOS RP
Feb 25, 2015
337
193
Mirrorless fans need to remember that DSLRs still have some key advantages.
  • Battery life.
  • Viewing experience. (Having now had real stick time with a Sony A9 I'm going to say straight out that I still prefer an OVF despite the advantage of exposure preview. That's not to say an EVF is terrible or unusable, but MILC fans completely discount those with a preference for OVFs.)
  • Viewing and focusing in low light. That's often cited as a MILC advantage. But I can focus the Milky Way through a 24mm f/1.4. I've never seen anything more than static on a MILC under those conditions. And having your night vision obliterated in one eye is a strange feeling. At least if I'm using the rear LCD screen to review shots my eyes are even.
  • Ruggedness: I won't say MILCs can't be as rugged as DSLRs, but the manufacturers haven't hit that point yet.
  • Feel with big lenses.
I fell in love with my Canon 5Ds and the files it produces. It feels very much like MF digital without the expense. So I'm the target audience for a 70+ MP Canon MILC with IBIS. And while I will probably have one of those shortly after it comes out, I can say right now there will be times when I still grab the DSLR. A two day hike through the Zion Narrows would be a classic example where ruggedness, OVF, and battery life make the choice for you.
As a counterpoint to your #2 and #3 I present my, admittedly nice use case: MP-E 65mm in my back yard. Going beyond 3x makes an OVF really, really dark especially when you are casting a shadow over your subject. Exposure simulation combined with being able to zoom in 10x makes it an ideal tool for this.

Having said that: I keep running into the same problem lately: when trying to take a picture of something above me, with the sun at 90 degrees to my right the EVF will get washed out and you have to really smash your eyesocket to the eye-cup on the RP. The R might do a bit better here.

Now give me 70+ MP, IBIS and a blinky warning light in the EVF when I hit the diffraction limit and I'd very happy.
 

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
289
113
You might not. Many if not most are. It's not the body is mirrorless. It will also be all the features mirrorless will enhance or add, in addition that's where the newest tech will be regardless.
I shoot wildlife and long since moved over. Lighter is great. And there are small/travel and DSLR-sized bodies. More room to put more features in.
Mirrorless is about a box will more room. But what it offers is what matters. And it's the future, now.
You totally misread my point. My point is that it's not the sole fact that it's mirrorless that will drive sales, but all the things that you mention that mirrorless gives people.
 

Quirkz

EOS 80D
Oct 30, 2014
129
47
This too is surely happening at times. As a lifelong software engineer I just cannot see a reason the R lacks two memory slots or a larger battery, other than they're dumbing it down a bit to make room above for a "pro" model with higher margin.
As a lifelong software engineer, I’m surprised that you haven’t encountered this. Features get cut all the time. Each feature adds cost to manufacture, develop, to test. You have a deadline, and with hardware, a target unit cost to manufacture. Sometimes it’s artificial segmentation, but sometimes it’s just simply ‘cutting this thing let’s us keep that thing and stay within out target unit price or target market date.’
 

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,005
1,456
Canada
As a lifelong software engineer, I’m surprised that you haven’t encountered this. Features get cut all the time. Each feature adds cost to manufacture, develop, to test. You have a deadline, and with hardware, a target unit cost to manufacture. Sometimes it’s artificial segmentation, but sometimes it’s just simply ‘cutting this thing let’s us keep that thing and stay within out target unit price or target market date.’
And as someone who also programs hardware, sometimes you get into the situation where the firmware does not fit onto the available storage so you have to decide what gets dropped....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quirkz

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
289
113
Features get cut all the time. Each feature adds cost to manufacture, develop, to test. You have a deadline, and with hardware, a target unit cost to manufacture. Sometimes it’s artificial segmentation, but sometimes it’s just simply ‘cutting this thing let’s us keep that thing and stay within out target unit price or target market date.
But dual memory slots have been around since 2002 or before. My EOS-1Ds MkI had duals. Given how small the cards are, two such slots could have been made to fit. Given both how cheap memory is, and how important a long stream of firmware updates adding features is in this market segment, they're surely not capped out on firmware space.

I'll grant there are some examples in the distant past I can think of where features had to fit the space available, but that was literally 1983. Anything i've done in my career has been a matter of writing the software, then figuring out the RMEC, not vice versa.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,319
1,673
As a lifelong software engineer I just cannot see a reason the R lacks two memory slots or a larger battery, other than they're dumbing it down a bit to make room above for a "pro" model with higher margin.
Could you add a second card slot and a larger battery without making the EOS R larger, heavier and more expensive? Those are three good reasons not to do it, right there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee

SwissFrank

EOS RP
Dec 9, 2018
289
113
Could you add a second card slot and a larger battery without making the EOS R larger, heavier and more expensive? Those are three good reasons not to do it, right there.
Extra battery--of course the camera would be a bit bigger, heavier and expensive. Given the number of people bleating that they won't buy one because of battery capacity, though, if they were trying to maximize sales of the R instead of working to build a whole product line, they'd have done that. But extra slot? You'd never note it was there. Look how little space the current slot takes between the battery and the back of the camera. It's not there because they've planned models above it that need to be differentiated, not because they think a slot for a 2g memory card would somehow be just too heavy. Suddenly you're like some guy who's never seen an SD card or the slot you stick one into.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
Jul 21, 2010
24,319
1,673
Extra battery--of course the camera would be a bit bigger, heavier and expensive. Given the number of people bleating that they won't buy one because of battery capacity, though, if they were trying to maximize sales of the R instead of working to build a whole product line, they'd have done that. But extra slot? You'd never note it was there. Look how little space the current slot takes between the battery and the back of the camera. It's not there because they've planned models above it that need to be differentiated, not because they think a slot for a 2g memory card would somehow be just too heavy. Suddenly you're like some guy who's never seen an SD card or the slot you stick one into.
Sure, the second card slot is for differeniation. Suddenly you’re like some guy who’s never looked at the features and prices of cameras and noticed the direct correlation between them.
 

QuisUtDeus

EOS 80D
Feb 20, 2019
115
80
And as someone who also programs hardware, sometimes you get into the situation where the firmware does not fit onto the available storage so you have to decide what gets dropped....
...Or you run your server host out of floor space, AC, and power supply, and you just can't cram more hard drives in no matter how hard you try. And moving or adding hosts is prohibitive because of red tape.