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

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
It's going to take much more than a sensor's performance to get me to switch to something other than Canon. I can't be the only one who also values environmental toughness, battery life+ inter body compatibility, menu system(HUGE factor) ergonomics and most important ,lens selection. I fiddled with Nikon, Oly and Panasonic, only to sell it off with not nearly the resale value of Canon gear. I hold Sonys and just cannot fathom them becoming an extension of my hand like a 5D series body. I'm good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
It's going to take much more than a sensor's performance to get me to switch to something other than Canon. I can't be the only one who also values environmental toughness, battery life+ inter body compatibility, menu system(HUGE factor) ergonomics and most important ,lens selection. I fiddled with Nikon, Oly and Panasonic, only to sell it off with not nearly the resale value of Canon gear. I hold Sonys and just cannot fathom them becoming an extension of my hand like a 5D series body. I'm good.

That whole menu system thing is funny, because the Sony system is essentially the same as the Canon one, with the only difference being that there are a lot more things to adjust on the Sony cameras and therefore their menu is larger. And the form of a handgrip is the most subjective thing about a camera. The Canon DSLR grips aren't deep enough for my hands. Does that mean their bodys have bad ergonomics in general? Or maybe just for me?
 
Upvote 0
Just a user comment about DSLR vs. mirrorless - amateur, very critical in IQ, seeing cameras as a tool:

While ordering an M50 I was very sceptical if mirrorless is close to usability with dirty electronic viewfinders compared to these crisp optical VFs.

After 2 hours I was shure that a good EVF outperforms a standard OVF in terms of usability/flexibility.
  • I like exposure preview which helps especially in night shots.
  • I like to use the Technicolor Picture Style which is very flat. If you see blown out areas they are
blown out w/o interpreting histograms etc.!
  • Flexibly configurable information overlay in the VF.
  • CHOOSING AF POINTS ACCORDING TO MY NEEDS LEAVING THE CENTER AREA MOST OF THE TIMES.
  • PRECISE AND ACCURATE AF.
  • SAME WITH POOR MANS SUPERTELE (5.6 400) WITH 2x TC (f/11 AF, slow but dead on !!!).
  • 100% IMAGE FIELD JUST IN CHEAPEST CAMERAS
  • QUICK REPLAY OF LAST IMAGE SHOT IN EVF (good for those 50+ y.o. people with reduced close focus range)
The dowsides of EVF, lower brightness in bright sunlight and the larger power draw of mirrorless cameras will be reduced by brighter OLED displays and larger batteries. And if I have to pimp my M50 with a battery grip taking two 3000 mAh round 18650 cells by designing and printing one :)

On the neutral side: In my experience a "mediocre" viewfinder image is helpful to create better images - the flat Technocolor Picture Style helps because images seem to be flat, a little bit hazy. You have to get the right composition and light to bring the viewfinder image to life - a very good viewfinder image might make you lazy.

For me - despite I like optical and mechanical systems a lot - the DSLR is dead. My next cameras will be EVF/mirrorless cameras. Except ... Canon will make a combo system using a DSLR - EVF hybrid viewfinder: SLR = optical or mirror up and than OVR. Or they use a semitransparent mirror while using the sensor for AF avoiding alignment problems between PD AF sensor array and imaging sensor by using DPAF sensor :)
 
Upvote 0
It's going to take much more than a sensor's performance to get me to switch to something other than Canon. I can't be the only one who also values environmental toughness, battery life+ inter body compatibility, menu system(HUGE factor) ergonomics and most important ,lens selection. I fiddled with Nikon, Oly and Panasonic, only to sell it off with not nearly the resale value of Canon gear. I hold Sonys and just cannot fathom them becoming an extension of my hand like a 5D series body. I'm good.

You are not the only one! While using "underdog cameras" just these are reliable, support photographic basic principles and a good lens selection.
Just used the now "old" EF 100 mm USM Macro on my M50 and it performs very very well. Not only optically but ergonomically while the combo is looking strange, maybe ugly.
 
Upvote 0

koenkooi

CR Pro
Feb 25, 2015
3,574
4,109
The Netherlands
You are not the only one! While using "underdog cameras" just these are reliable, support photographic basic principles and a good lens selection.
Just used the now "old" EF 100 mm USM Macro on my M50 and it performs very very well. Not only optically but ergonomically while the combo is looking strange, maybe ugly.

I liked the EF-S 60mm better on an M camera. For me it balanced better and the autofocus seemed to work better. The downside is that it's an EF-S lens, so it's pretty useless on my RP.
 
Upvote 0
I liked the EF-S 60mm better on an M camera. For me it balanced better and the autofocus seemed to work better. The downside is that it's an EF-S lens, so it's pretty useless on my RP.

I own the EF-S 60mm too but having the great EF-M 32 with its close focus abilities the EF 100 is a better "real" tele option if you want to use just two lenses. Maybe the AF of the EF-S is a little bit faster because it has to move only ~25% of the mass compared to the EF 100 (0.6^^3).
 
Upvote 0
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
:ROFLMAO: Let me take a stab at one sided rhetoric...

how about you try that again without quoting me out of context. and btw, lensrentals found the engineering and weathersealing,etc of the Sony 400mm G just as good as the new Canon 400mm III.

Sony's making great strides, and there's no way canon could (or should) try to complete with Sony Electronics (note, I stated Sony electronics, not sony imaging). whether they can catch up may become a bigger issue in the future.
 
Upvote 0

epic.one

EOS M5 | Sony A7
Jan 26, 2019
41
18
Johannesburg
I'd like to see Canon merge the xxD and 7D series into one model. That camera would definitely compliment my 6D II for those times when I'm photographing wildlife or sports.

It's also nice to see that they're not pulling the plug on EOS M yet. Hopefully the new 24MP sensor can manage 4k without any crop. A higher quality EVF, and enhanced eye-AF would be welcome too. I'm not expecting Canon to deliver IBIS with the M5 II, but it might serve as a decent product for testing the technology in the real world before equipping it on the future full-frame EOS R cameras.
The reason Canon won't merge them is purely because of price. They would rather keep them separate and have a dedicated middle-of-the-ground camera like the 77D - I agree with that strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
Upvote 0

Don Haines

Beware of cats with laser eyes!
Jun 4, 2012
8,246
1,939
Canada
Yes,

The basic problem of merging is as follows:

Let’s say you have two lines, one with quality/features of level 10, and the other of level 7.

Technology marches on, the next iterations will be better, say at 11 and 8. If you merge them, anything less than a 10 means that half your market stays with what they already have, or upgrades to the old model.

To get sales, you need a merged camera that is better than both the cameras you are merging, and that is not a merge, it is upgrading the 7D2 and dropping the 80D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
31,094
12,857
Yes,

The basic problem of merging is as follows:

Let’s say you have two lines, one with quality/features of level 10, and the other of level 7.

Technology marches on, the next iterations will be better, say at 11 and 8. If you merge them, anything less than a 10 means that half your market stays with what they already have, or upgrades to the old model.

To get sales, you need a merged camera that is better than both the cameras you are merging, and that is not a merge, it is upgrading the 7D2 and dropping the 80D
Features at 11, price at 9. 7DII owners get a slight bump in features and a lower price, 80D owners get a big bump in features and a price increase. That parallels the 1DsIII and 1DIV merging into the 1D X.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
DPAF/QPAF is one of such ways.

Technically, Canon does not need to compete with Sony on its own. It could cooperate with Samsung, for example.

Entirely possible. and probably something Canon should do.
Looking at where Canon is as far as global shutters and where Sony Electronics is, Sony is around two full generations ahead of even Canon's patent applications.

Going it alone may just not be a grand idea.
Features at 11, price at 9. 7DII owners get a slight bump in features and a lower price, 80D owners get a big bump in features and a price increase. That parallels the 1DsIII and 1DIV merging into the 1D X.
problem is if you do that, the 80D loses the size and weight advantage over the 7D. then you have the fact that bringing a fully articulating screen to the 7D drastically changes its ergonomics.

there's no right or easy answer. and btw, there's certainly no guarantee the price will be lower either. it's basically a 7D Mark III and you're dropping the 80D.
the problem is the articulating screen, and merging the ergonomics.

I personally don't think Canon will do this. I liked the idea that the 90D and 7D Mark III are basically the same under the hood, but with different styles and ergonomics. Shared R&D between the two, but for two different customers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

When people see all those big white lenses at the Olympics, they don't think "I need to run out and buy a Sony".

You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units (relative to your competitors, than you did previously).


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.

Nikon's woes in the early 1990s were almost exclusively about AF performance. The invention of the USM is what killed Nikon in the pro 135 format market.
Canon made a clean break from their existing system, announced very clearly that they were doing so, and clearly explained why (to move to an all electronic connection between camera and lens). That decision is what enabled their AF performance to take off like a rocket when the UltraSonic Motor was created.

Nikon's miscalculation was their notion that pro shooters, who almost exclusively shot with Nikon cameras, would ever even be interested in AF. (Along with the assumption that compatibility with existing and legacy lenses would trump performance advantages.)

They then further shot themselves in the foot by deciding to put AF in the body, where different sized lenses with focusing elements of a very wide range of masses were being driven by the same motor. The heavier focusing elements in the larger lenses (e.g. large telephoto lenses used for sports and reportage) were hopelessly slow compared to Canon's brand spanking new USM lenses.

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.

A lot of that 470B yen Sony spends on R&D has absolutely nothing to do with cameras or imaging sensors. A lot of the 315.8B yen Canon spends on R&D is also on things other than cameras and sensors for conventional cameras.

Please make up your mind. Are we talking about sensors only or not?

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 ...)

You do realize that the new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an extending zoom design and is just as long as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III when zoomed to 200mm? It's right there in the patent filing.


MF to AF was also a revolutionary change. While I'm convinced RF/mirrorless will win and EF/DSLR will go away, I don't think it will be anywhere near as fast as the FD to EF transition was. I think people who are suggesting that FD to EF is a good metaphor for EF to RF are going to be surprised when EF hangs around for much longer than they expect.

It was at Canon. It was not at Nikon. That's what cost Nikon the biggest part of the pro market for at least the next two decades.


Interesting since it was his individual reviews that resulted in me getting the Canon over the Tamron. I have two Tamron lenses and really like them. But I couldn't ignore the sharpness and micro contrast in the Canon 24-70 vs. the Tamron 24-70 while looking over his samples.

To be sure the Tamron is a good lens and it's a close call, but I had to go Canon on that one.

Yet a lot of folks go for the Tamron with VC precisely because it works better for them if they shoot handheld almost all of the time. Your assumption that because you chose absolute lens performance when the camera is mounted on a tripod → everyone else will as well is about like Nikon's assumption that no pros were interested in AF back in 1985-90.


The 7DII is 5 years old this year. How many years we need to wait for a replacement?

Until Canon decides one is ready and meets a need in the marketplace.

If Canon releases an incremental update, folks complain trash Canon because it's not really an upgrade.
If Canon waits until they have a significant improvement in a model line, folks complain trash Canon that is took way too long.

Some folks just like to complain because they can't have the latest, greatest, top of the line feature at every single point on the list in the cheapest entry level model just announced.


Sure, I'd say the same in their shoes. If they think like I do, they're 90% sure that "some time to come" might turn out to be more like three years, but further recognize they may be misreading the market and don't want to say anything that precludes selling SLRs for another 15.

RF lens designs (except telephotos) and full-sensor AF features (face recognition, etc.) simply cannot be rolled out for the SLRs. A few years of that is going to be a reason to move as well.

Well, except for cameras like the 1D X Mark II that have 750,000 pixel RGB+IR light meters that are coupled to the AF system and assist in tracking moving subjects and do, in fact, recognize things such as facial features.

Does Canon need to more effectively exploit the capabilities of high resolution, full color light meters? Certainly.
Do they need to market those capabilities better? Surely they do.
But that does not mean that such capabilities simply can not be rolled out for the SLRs when some SLRs already have such capabilities.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
4,722
2,655
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.

Just because it is shorter at 70mm (and is the same length at 200mm), it's highly unlikely to be any lighter. Extending designs have an extra barrel that fixed length lenses do not require.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
A lot of that 470B yen Sony spends on R&D has absolutely nothing to do with cameras or imaging sensors. A lot of the 315.8B yen Canon spends on R&D is also on things other than cameras and sensors for conventional cameras.

Please make up your mind. Are we talking about sensors only or not?

actually, I wasn't talking to you at all. So "we" weren't talking anything.

not to mention you clipped out what I was replying to, which certainly didn't state R&D on sensors, which of course, no one knows. but If I had to hazard a guess, since they have more patents, they most likely spend more on sensor R&D than Canon does. It only makes sense. what drives Sony is smartphone sensors, and the tech in those has to be top-notch, including design rules that would never be necessary for larger sensors.
 
Upvote 0
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
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.

the RF one will be a win for traveling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0