Are These The Next Canon Cameras To Be Announced? [CR1]

Orangutan

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
Talys said:
bwud said:
... regression test to ensure nothing went wrong with the rest of the code - which it will so then you'll have to trouble shoot and repeat until regression testing passes.

People who aren't in the product/software development industry don't consider regression testing =X

As you add stuff, you need to make sure it doesn't break stuff that's already there and working, and as a product becomes more complex, this becomes more and more time consuming and complicated, both to test and fix.

And if you're an honorable company, you also have to support your product by developing correct, well-written documentation, and by training your human support staff. Every feature adds incrementally to the cost of the device, as does every support call for a poorly-implemented or poorly-documented feature.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
Orangutan said:
Every feature adds incrementally to the cost of the device,

exactly. As I've been saying all along re. "adding video recording feature to stills cameras". :)
 

Orangutan

EOS 5D Mark IV
Sep 25, 2010
2,140
3
fullstop said:
Orangutan said:
Every feature adds incrementally to the cost of the device,

exactly. As I've been saying all along re. "adding video recording feature to stills cameras". :)

This is 100% true; on the other hand, failure to add video recording to a modern stills camera will hammer sales (and provoke lots of WTF! from reviewers). As you correctly suggest, it's a cost-benefit analysis: adding video clearly adds cost, but also adds far more benefit by helping to maintain sales. Increased sales has the side-effect of reducing per-unit R&D costs, which can lead to some combination of reduced prices and increased profits.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
26,083
4,658
fullstop said:
Orangutan said:
Every feature adds incrementally to the cost of the device,

exactly. As I've been saying all along re. "adding video recording feature to stills cameras". :)

Exactly. You evidently think the cost of production solely drives the MSRP. You've been missing the point all along.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,204
1,524
melgross said:
Once you put a computer into a product, you’re compelled to just lump more features in. Look at the menus. Pages and pages of mostly useless features. But it costs almost nothing to add them, once it’s just software. So sure, companies add features that almost no one uses, or even knows about - just because...

And tethering just sounds like a cool thing to have.
But tethering is not "just a feature in menu". It's an extensive modification of all software parts responsible for hard realtime performance of a camera (which by itself is hard to write).

Without knowledge of Canon source code, I would guesstimate it for at least one man-year to write (and test) for one camera type, and at least one man-month to update it for a new camera model.

But I'm just a programmer, not a project manager, so my estimate is better to be multiplied by Pi.
 

slclick

PINHOLE
Dec 17, 2013
4,587
2,947
It seemed for a while, we had pretty decent conversations here about why some forumites wanted/needed mirrorless. Now we have regressed to the point where, folks just have GAS and can't give rational arguments and are debasing dslr's as if they do not allow the opportunity to take good images. Sorry, but if your images suck, it's you.
 

Durf

Picture Taker - Image Maker
slclick said:
It seemed for a while, we had pretty decent conversations here about why some forumites wanted/needed mirrorless. Now we have regressed to the point where, folks just have GAS and can't give rational arguments and are debasing dslr's as if they do not allow the opportunity to take good images. Sorry, but if your images suck, it's you.

Many are psychologically traumatized if you do not praise and worship the mirrorless camera....
 

jolyonralph

EOS R5 Mark II
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
931
London, UK
www.everyothershot.com
slclick said:
It seemed for a while, we had pretty decent conversations here about why some forumites wanted/needed mirrorless. Now we have regressed to the point where, folks just have GAS and can't give rational arguments and are debasing dslr's as if they do not allow the opportunity to take good images. Sorry, but if your images suck, it's you.

75% of my images are shot on a DSLR (5DSR), the rest on mirrorless (mixture of Sony and Canon)

There are many things the DSLR does a lot better right now, if I want to ensure fast autofocus, fast tracking of moving subjects or I simply need 50 megapixels (which isn't really anything to do with the mirror), then I go for the 5DSR.

There are plenty of other reasons for using the mirrorless. I'm pretty sure the mirrorless will reach and surpass the level of focus speed and tracking that existing DSLRs do pretty soon. They have the advantage of having the full image data available to the CPU for processing, so if you're tracking a bird in flight the system of the future knows it's a bird, it knows that the head needs to be kept in focus, and if a future system does what it should do, and your lens can keep up, every shot you take of that bird in flight will be in focus. We already have focus modes for mirrorless where the eyes are detected and kept in focus. You simply can't do that with a DSLR, unless you run it in live view mode, but guess what that is...

For now, mirrorless has some catching up to do, and there are still things a traditional DSLR does better. But mirrorless has the potential to not just catch up but overtake the DSLR on pretty much everything except battery life (can't fight physics)

I wonder in ten years time how many here will be using DSLRs still?
 

Isaacheus

EOS RP
Jun 22, 2017
215
27
New Zealand
jolyonralph said:
slclick said:
It seemed for a while, we had pretty decent conversations here about why some forumites wanted/needed mirrorless. Now we have regressed to the point where, folks just have GAS and can't give rational arguments and are debasing dslr's as if they do not allow the opportunity to take good images. Sorry, but if your images suck, it's you.

75% of my images are shot on a DSLR (5DSR), the rest on mirrorless (mixture of Sony and Canon)

There are many things the DSLR does a lot better right now, if I want to ensure fast autofocus, fast tracking of moving subjects or I simply need 50 megapixels (which isn't really anything to do with the mirror), then I go for the 5DSR.

There are plenty of other reasons for using the mirrorless. I'm pretty sure the mirrorless will reach and surpass the level of focus speed and tracking that existing DSLRs do pretty soon. They have the advantage of having the full image data available to the CPU for processing, so if you're tracking a bird in flight the system of the future knows it's a bird, it knows that the head needs to be kept in focus, and if a future system does what it should do, and your lens can keep up, every shot you take of that bird in flight will be in focus. We already have focus modes for mirrorless where the eyes are detected and kept in focus. You simply can't do that with a DSLR, unless you run it in live view mode, but guess what that is...

For now, mirrorless has some catching up to do, and there are still things a traditional DSLR does better. But mirrorless has the potential to not just catch up but overtake the DSLR on pretty much everything except battery life (can't fight physics)

I wonder in ten years time how many here will be using DSLRs still?

Just out of curiosity, what mirrorless cameras are you using currently?

I agree with you; I think that mirror-less is getting close, but certainly not the miracle over dslr that some statements would make them out to be. I find that in my situation, the balance has tipped and the current mirror-less offerings (sony FF in this case) work better for what I want, although if the dslr bodies had a few features that the mirror-less offer, then it would really be about a dead heat between the two setups. I would have likely stayed with canon all round rather than using a mix
 

3kramd5

EOS R6
Mar 2, 2012
3,084
405
Isaacheus said:
although if the dslr bodies had a few features that the mirror-less offer, then it would really be about a dead heat between the two setups.

For those such as me who sometimes prefer EVF and other times prefer OVF, I think an SLR configured with an accessible EVF could be a compelling option. Using proximity sensors it could engage lockup mode when you put your eye to the EVF, and reflex mode when you put your eye to the OVF. (Alternately maybe there is a way to mechanically insert a screen in the optical path to use the same VF for both, but it would probably be prohibitively complicated.)

That would be a best of both worlds configuration, minus the ability to make a locally thinner camera body. For some, size is the holy grail, but IMO those folks are better served with smaller sensors and smaller lenses to cover them than by chasing an inch or so at the lens mount and pairing a full frame format with a relatively slow lens to keep the size down.
 

RGF

How you relate to the issue, is the issue.
Jul 13, 2012
2,820
38
to me the differences between mirrorless and dSLR weight (mirrorless wins, hands down) and functionality. The latter could be a tie but right now the clear winner for my type of photography (wildlife, big glass - mostly) is dSLR.

If Canon had a mirrorless that would accept current lens, and EVF that matched OVF (a challenge, I know), same/similar AF, DR, FPS (ML could win this due to lack of a mirror), then I would be interested.

The form of the camera is less important to me than its features. Size (and hence weights) is a double edged sword, I like feel of the 1D sized camera but not the weight of it.
 

Woody

EOS R
Jul 20, 2010
1,162
88
Canon Rumors said:
EC811 Canon EOS M5 Mark II
28.3MP APS-C mirorless camera
4K@30fps video and DPAF.
This camera features a new Canon APS-C sensor

I will be keen on this camera ONLY IF its dynamic range matches that in the latest Sony/Nikon APS-C sensors.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,204
1,524
jolyonralph said:
You simply can't do that with a DSLR, unless you run it in live view mode,
Of course, you can.

You can use a dedicated "AI vision" sensor at the bottom of the mirrorbox. Nikon already did something like that in F5 (a film camera).
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,109
407
Vancouver, BC
RGF said:
to me the differences between mirrorless and dSLR weight (mirrorless wins, hands down) and functionality. The latter could be a tie but right now the clear winner for my type of photography (wildlife, big glass - mostly) is dSLR.

If Canon had a mirrorless that would accept current lens, and EVF that matched OVF (a challenge, I know), same/similar AF, DR, FPS (ML could win this due to lack of a mirror), then I would be interested.

The form of the camera is less important to me than its features. Size (and hence weights) is a double edged sword, I like feel of the 1D sized camera but not the weight of it.

This describes me, precisely :)
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
3kramd5 said:
For those such as me who sometimes prefer EVF and other times prefer OVF, I think an SLR configured with an accessible EVF could be a compelling option. Using proximity sensors it could engage lockup mode when you put your eye to the EVF, and reflex mode when you put your eye to the OVF. (Alternately maybe there is a way to mechanically insert a screen in the optical path to use the same VF for both, but it would probably be prohibitively complicated.)

That would be a best of both worlds configuration, minus the ability to make a locally thinner camera body. For some, size is the holy grail, but IMO those folks are better served with smaller sensors and smaller lenses to cover them than by chasing an inch or so at the lens mount and pairing a full frame format with a relatively slow lens to keep the size down.

To me it is exactly the other way round. A big camera with mirror is "worst of both worlds".

A small mirrorless body would be best of both worlds to me. Most of the time I'd be using it in a small setup with compact f/4 zooms or even ultra-compact, moderately fast primes. And when needed, but only then, I can put battery grip, rigs, cages of any sort and size for any sort of purpose on it. It is so easy to make a camera physically bigger but impossible to make it physically smaller.

Size is not everything, but I will happily take smallest possible size, as it does not mean "sacrifice" in IQ and/or performance.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,350
552
fullstop said:
Size is not everything, but I will happily take smallest possible size, as it does not mean "sacrifice" in IQ and/or performance.

And that is what many mirrorless -obsessed forget. Make it physically as small as possible you end up with tortuous menus and little squishy buttons instead of easy-to-adjust dials and large click-stop buttons. Making adjustments with dials and solid-feel buttons is easy without taking the camera from my eye and that is the sort of 'performance' important to me and to many others. Not to mention in cold weather wearing gloves.
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,204
1,524
fullstop said:
To me it is exactly the other way round. A big camera with mirror is "worst of both worlds".

A small mirrorless body would be best of both worlds to me. Most of the time I'd be using it in a small setup with compact f/4 zooms or even ultra-compact, moderately fast primes. And when needed, but only then, I can put battery grip, rigs, cages of any sort and size for any sort of purpose on it. It is so easy to make a camera physically bigger but impossible to make it physically smaller.
The "worst of both worlds" is a camera that is is small enough to make its controls uncomfortable, but still not small enough to comfortably fit into your pocket.

And that's exactly what your "small mirrorless body" is.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
it does not need to fit in my pocket. As long as it fits into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 with a compact zoom or a prime lens i am fine. Dashpoint is attached to left front strap of my backpack. Works perfectly well - hands-free and camera always readily available when needed. And if camera + lens are light enough, you won't notice the extra weight on one side. :)

As to physical control points / ergonomic layout: not trivial to do "really right" on a smaller body, but possible. Innovative Canon should/will be able to get it done, if they really focus on it. Not to forget: touch LCD and smart display of info in viewfinder helps a lot towards that objective. :)
 

Kit.

EOS 5D Mark IV
Apr 25, 2011
2,204
1,524
fullstop said:
it does not need to fit in my pocket.
Then it doesn't need to be small.

Either it fits in my pocket, or it fits in my Tamrac Evolution 9.

Or it stays in the car.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,350
552
fullstop said:
it does not need to fit in my pocket. As long as it fits into a LowePro Dashpoint 30 with a compact zoom or a prime lens i am fine. Dashpoint is attached to left front strap of my backpack. Works perfectly well - hands-free and camera always readily available when needed. And if camera + lens are light enough, you won't notice the extra weight on one side. :)

As to physical control points / ergonomic layout: not trivial to do "really right" on a smaller body, but possible. Innovative Canon should/will be able to get it done, if they really focus on it. Not to forget: touch LCD and smart display of info in viewfinder helps a lot towards that objective. :)

'small' means different things to different people - give us dimensions.
So you want a FF camera with lens to fit in a Dashoint 30 - a bag that is too small to even take an Olympus EPL-7 as many would want it? And no second lanes?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAJ7XSx-6C4

Your comments get more ludicrous as you go on.