Another interview about the EOS R and talk of an APS-C EOS R Body

[jvillain]

30.3 MP/1.6/1.6 = 11.8 MP, not 18MP

Doooh!!! Thanks for pointing that out. But that just went from bad to downright depressing. :-(

Does any other APS-C system have a native lens that is as good as the Sigma 18-35?

The one that might be able to get in the game is Fujifilm but I am not sure. That 18-35 is a really nice piece of glass. I would prefer to stay with Canon if they give me the option. But if Sigma anounced a mount conversion to Fujifilm I would be at the store this weekend checking out their camera bodies.

 

[jvillain]

That's probably not true. However, you can use a shorter focal length lens with a crop camera than with a FF camera. For example, the Canon 100-400 lens weighs 1.64 kg. On a crop camera, it gives about the same field of view as the Sigma 150-600 sport lens, at 2.86 kg, on a FF camera. Long lens weight is dominated by the size of their front elements. The 100-400 uses 77mm filters while the 150-600 uses 105mm filters.

I have the crop equivalent to (the holy trinity plus a 150-600) but it all fits in a small back pack along with a flash and other gear. And the whole rig cost me about half of what doing it with FF would have. My 80D body is already the lightest thing in my back pack. It's the lenses that need to visit the gym. Personally I like the fact that Canon didn't go for the smallest MILC ever made with the EOS R. I hope if they do come out with a mirrorless equivelent to the 7D or 80D with an R mount that they stay in about the same size package.

Besides how much would it really cost Canon to develop such a camera? They aleady have have a line of APS-C sensors from the M line. The OS is already written. They can make up the cost by charging double what a M5 goes for. Bringing out such a camera doesn't have to spell the end of any other line.

 

[transpo1]

the Steve Jobs approach to market research might be best here. Whatever whining is done in these forums is just whistling upstream - Canon will do whatever the R system roadmap is and follow it at a leisurely pace. I would guess the timeframe for a top notch R body is three years and at least three iterations. Lenses are easier, but don't expect Canon to match the pace that Fuji set when they introducted the X system. in the meantime, what you see is what you get.

This would be an idiotic strategy for them— they have to move fast introducing more R bodies; not necessarily crop, but definitely pro. They’re already behind in MILC and they know it.

 

[mirage]

well, mirrorfree digital cameras can be shrunk right down to barely fit the lens mount.

eg Sony A5100 (= without EVF)

http://j.mp/2SxSe0Y

Canon followed a similar approach with the first, ultra-compact EOS M, M2 models, but went bigger and bigger with later models (currently minimum size is EOS M100). Sony also started small with A7 1st gen and made subsequent generations bigger and bigger, partially to accommodate larger grip and better battery, partially to overcome heat dissipation issues stemming from continuous full-bore 4k video recording for 29 minutes on end.

a stills-centric mirrorfree digital Canon EOS camera (sans 4k video capture!) could be built extremely compact around R-mount FF-sensor.

Personally I would live it and be willing to take a few compromises in exchange for most compact size - eg "no 4k video, no prominent grip, no top display, no "record video" button, no ON/OFF dial, no M.-fn slider ...

But it should still come with integrated (excellent!) EVF and decent battery charge. In other words, an EOS R built to minimum size possible with RF mount and LP-E6N power pack and a pop-up EVF (as on some Sony RX-100 models and RX1R II) ... for maximum portability, plus some very compact, moderately fast, easily affordable RF lenses (in addition to f/2 zooms and f/1.2 behemoths).

Not sure if Canon will ever do it. I don't sense much ambition yet to serve the "i want full frame goodness in a camera as compact as possible" market segment. IBut I am sure there is drmand and there would be a market for such a camera/ system.

Actually it would be the very market segment Olympus should have positioned themselves in, rather than going going all-in with soon-dead mFT! Just as they did in the days of film SLRs with their OM series: "fully capable FF cameras, noticeably more compact than equivalents by Canon, Nikon and other brands". it might have saved Oly's *ss, but too late now.

 

[justaCanonuser]

I'd prefer if R would stand for "Relax (and go out shooting instead of discussing specs)"

 

[justaCanonuser]

well, mirrorfree digital cameras can be shrunk right down to barely fit the lens mount.

Not if they have to include IBIS as many people want. You can see what happened with Sony's mirrorless A series, and with more and more technology included I expect Sony to approach a 1DX form factor soon

 

[mirage]

Besides how much would it really cost Canon to develop such a camera? They aleady have have a line of APS-C sensors from the M line. The OS is already written. They can make up the cost by charging double what a M5 goes for. Bringing out such a camera doesn't have to spell the end of any other li

exactly! EOS R is "size M", which is fine for many users and uses and a good starting point for the new R-mount system.

Canon will expand the system and also offer size "L" "pro" models and hopefully also some in size "S".

i am looking for a very compact, mirrorfree system camera with FF sensor that is not "dumbed down to n00b entry level". Something akin to a BMW Mini Cooper in the world of cars, not a Kia Rio, please.

 

[justaCanonuser]

The RF looks like the EF system that ultimately made ALL others look like dinosaurs for 30 years.

I wouldn't say it that radically but I agree, the RF mount has a huge potential. On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses. In fact, it looks like both the old players in the camera market now got some strong cards in the ML FF game. More competition will drive technology, so all of us customers will profit.

 

[mirage]

Not if they have to include IBIS as many people want. You can see what happened with Sony's mirrorless A series, and with more and more technology included I expect Sony to approach a 1DX form factor soon

yes. but i think most of the recent Sony Alpha girth has to do with freaking 4k video heat issues. just another unwanted side- effect of "video in every camera".

maybe also from listening too much to the small but vocal group of folks with super-size hands using big, long tele-lenses all day long.

 

[justaCanonuser]

i am looking for a very compact, mirrorfree system camera with FF sensor that is not "dumbed down to n00b entry level". Something akin to a BMW Mini Cooper in the world of cars, not a Kia Rio, please.

No, Canon, please do not design a Mini Cooper like camera for the R series, leave the retro fake design approach for naive hipsters to Fuji. Please, Canon, stick with ergonomically well designed modern tools for photography that do not pretend to be a camera of the 1960s.

 

[mirage]

On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount

i think Canon chose "really right". Nikon Z mount very short flange distance faces more design challenges with some lens types, eg ultra-wide angle. But we shall see what lenses both companies come up with and how they compare.

 

[justaCanonuser]

i think Canon chose "really right". Nikon Z mount very short flange distance faces more design challenges with some lens types, eg ultra-wide angle. But we shall see what lenses both companies come up with and how they compare.

You're right, but I guess Nikon engineers considered that carefully. Wide-angle lenses were always Nikon's strength, whereas Canon's strength is on the tele side of live

 

[mirage]

No, Canon, please do not design a Mini Cooper like camera for the R series, leave the retro fake design approach for naive hipsters to Fuji. Please, Canon, stick with ergonomically well designed modern tools for photography that do not pretend to be a camera of the 1960s.

my BMW Mini Cooper analogy was meant only in terms of "small size, lots of performance", not in terms if styling. i don't care at all for retro design myself. Nor for Fuji cameras, hipsters or 1960s cameras.

personally i much prefer sleek, clean minimalist lines ... eg the looks of Zeiss ZX1 (not the camera itself though).

 

[mirage]

You're right, but I guess Nikon engineers considered that carefully. Wide-angle lenses were always Nikon's strength, whereas Canon's strength is on the tele side of live

agree on Nikon certainly having thought long and hard about Z mount parameters, but it appears top priority was given to "finally being able to create f/0.95 manual focus lenses".

"canon best in teles, nikon best in wide-angles" is definitely overcome.

Canon 10-24 for example bests Nikon 14-24 and Canon's 35 II, TS 17/4 are unmatched in Nikon land.

otoh Nikon's latest version 70-200/2.8 slightly beats Canon, and there is no canon equivalent to Nikon's 105/1.4. also Nikons' recent diffractive optics teles 300/4 PF and now 500/5.6 PF seem to be somewhat ahead Canon's current best efforts.

will be interesting to watch as RF and Z lens lineups expand.

even better would be (legally mandatesd) universal open standard lens mounts for (consumer) ILCs - one for APS-C, one for FF image circle.

 

[justaCanonuser]

my BMW Mini Cooper analogy was meant only in terms of "small size, lots of performance", not in terms if styling. i don't care at all for retro design myself. Nor for Fuji cameras, hipsters or 1960s cameras.

personally i much prefer sleek, clean minimalist lines ... eg the looks of Zeiss ZX1 (not the camera itself though).

I just made a joke, please do not take it personally, I understood correctly what you basically meant. In fact, I love old cameras and classic industrial design in general, but those products were mostly based on the form follows function rule. Retro design is based on fake in it's purest sense, it pretends to be something that it isn't. A Volkswagen New Beetle is a VW Golf with a front motor, but Porsche's classic VW Beetle was specifically designed for a car with a rear motor. It reflected the Zeitgeist and technology of the late 1930s, so it is an organic product. The New Beetle pretends not to be what it is - a Golf. Same with a Fuji X100, the internet is full of comments from people who really believe it is a rangefinder - obviously they never have used a real rangefinder.

Btw, Canon made one of the most beautiful classic cameras IMO: the "P" rangefinder had such a beautifully clean design. That said, I use one of my Canon 7 rangefinders if I go 35mm analogue, not that beautiful but better rangefinder system

 

[Del Paso]

I just made a joke, please do not take it personally, I understood correctly what you basically meant. In fact, I love old cameras and classic industrial design in general, but those products were mostly based on the form follows function rule. Retro design is based on fake in it's purest sense, it pretends to be something that it isn't. A Volkswagen New Beetle is a VW Golf with a front motor, but Porsche's classic VW Beetle was specifically designed for a car with a rear motor. It reflected the Zeitgeist and technology of the late 1930s, so it is an organic product. The New Beetle pretends not to be what it is - a Golf. Same with a Fuji X100, the internet is full of comments from people who really believe it is a rangefinder - obviously they never have used a real rangefinder.

Btw, Canon made one of the most beautiful classic cameras IMO: the "P" rangefinder had such a beautifully clean design. That said, I use one of my Canon 7 rangefinders if I go 35mm analogue, not that beautiful but better rangefinder system

Thanks for disliking the new beetle and the would- be Leica named Fuji X 100...

 

[BillB]

I wouldn't say it that radically but I agree, the RF mount has a huge potential. On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses. In fact, it looks like both the old players in the camera market now got some strong cards in the ML FF game. More competition will drive technology, so all of us customers will profit.

The tradeoff in flange distance would seem to be that Canon left itself a couple of extra mm inside the camera to play with, but we shall have to wait to see how much difference that might make, if any.

 

[CanonGrunt]

I can't wrap my head around this. I can't see the logic in an EOS R crop body when the EOS-M is a perfectly fine APS-C Canon mirrorless. Who would such a camera be for?

Is it for those who want more reach with their EF lenses? Is this for people who want a 7D mirrorless equivalent? Then why not make a better, more rugged M body and use the adapter. Is it for those who want to use EF-S lenses on a mirrorless? You can already do that on EOS R with an adapter.

There don't seem to be enough RF or EF-S lenses to justify demand for a cropped RF. It still seems like a mistake not to make M lenses adaptable to R. This is doubling down on that decision.

I’m willing to bet that Canon is seeing the M line not only be successful in its own right, but also eat into the powershot line a lot. Especially the G-series, the HS’, and other higher end powershots. The M5 with the 22mm is smaller than some of them even, and much more capable. I wouldn’t be suprised to the the powershot series camera options thinned out, and a bigger emphasis on the EOS-M as their entry level system. Most people on that level never upgrade to a full frame camera, so they probably won’t go for an R series ever. I think the M series will find itself filling out the bottom to mid level stuff for Canon. So it does make sense that the 7d ish version of mirrorless be in an R body due to the more professional body, lens options (most yet to come), and provide a crop option for those not wanting to take two systems with them, but like having two bodies on their journeys. I took my 7D with my 5D MK 3 more often than not. It will also give a more enticing price point to jump into the R series for newer shooters. I wouldn’t be suprised to see the 80D and below all on the M series, and the 7D and up all on the R.

 

[criscokkat]

Has anyone tested the R with EF-S lenses/crop mode to see if there are differences with focus tracking and/or shots per second?

I wonder if it would be possible to achieve 7D like performance by cropping down the sensor so that not as much of the data needs to be read, and less data needed to be processed? That would be an interesting option. Slide the sensor area down, potentially double the shots per second, but still be able to run full frame for static shots.

 

[nchoh]

On the downside, Canon's flange focal distance is a bit bigger than the competition: 20mm vs 18mm (Sony) vs 16mm of Nikon's new Z mount - which gives a lot of freedom to adapt lenses.

How is that a downside? Canon can extend the lens past the flange, but Sony and Nikon are restricted by the shorter flange distance.