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

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.
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 21, 2010
30,936
12,642
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.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,494
1,865
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.
 
Upvote 0

slclick

EOS 3
Dec 17, 2013
4,634
3,040
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.
 
Upvote 0
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....
 
Upvote 0

jolyonralph

Game Boy Camera
CR Pro
Aug 25, 2015
1,423
944
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?
 
Upvote 0
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
 
Upvote 0
Mar 2, 2012
3,170
532
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.
 
Upvote 0

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.
 
Upvote 0

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,122
436
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 :)
 
Upvote 0
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.
 
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,366
570
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.
 
Upvote 0
Apr 25, 2011
2,494
1,865
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.
 
Upvote 0
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. :)
 
Upvote 0
Jul 28, 2015
3,366
570
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.
 
Upvote 0