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

[Durf]

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.

WOW! one could fit a gopro and a couple of batteries in that bag!

Awesome!

 

[Cory]

Really gave the M50 a good go, but went back to 100% DSLR for a few reasons. To make a short story shorter - simplicity won out and I'm now all DSLR all the time.
On a side note, and probably more my fault than anything else, but I did an event on Saturday and did a remarkable 4 minute interview with a superhero-of-epic-proportions Veteran and must have not turned on the mic. I'm a little beside myself and that may have not happened if I wasn't fiddling with 2 ****** cameras.
To say "******" is sugar-coating my real thoughts on this. I nearly threw up.

 

[Ian_of_glos]

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.

I agree completely, but luckily there are some very small, mirrorless cameras available that can easily slip into your pocket for those occasions when you do not want to carry around an interchangeable lens camera with a selection of lenses. The Sony RX100 looks particularly interesting and now that the price of the RX100 mk 3 has just fallen it makes it a very attractive option.
When image quality is more important than convenience many of us have already invested in a large selection of Canon DSLRs, lenses and other accessories that more than meet our needs.
The mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras fall somewhere in the middle - too large to fit in your pocket but not yet able to match a DSLR for durability or for the range of lenses and other accessories.

 

[melgross]

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.

As a programmer then, you should know that much of that development is valid for a number of different cameras, lowering the cost per product. While each camera is different, they share enough code to spread those costs around. And incremental features cost far less.

 

[Kit.]

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.

As a programmer then, you should know that much of that development is valid for a number of different cameras, lowering the cost per product. While each camera is different, they share enough code to spread those costs around. And incremental features cost far less.

That's what I said. Not less than one man-month to adapt the existing tethering implementation code for a new model in the line. Still ~10x cheaper than to develop it from scratch, still not cheap enough to put it into every camera line.

 

[Orangutan]

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.

As a programmer then, you should know that much of that development is valid for a number of different cameras, lowering the cost per product. While each camera is different, they share enough code to spread those costs around. And incremental features cost far less.

That's what I said. Not less than one man-month to adapt the existing tethering implementation code for a new model in the line. Still ~10x cheaper than to develop it from scratch, still not cheap enough to put it into every camera line.

Maybe a lot less than that -- possibly just hours, or even just the addition a few items to static array initialization. If you want to dig in you might look at the source code for this project (I have not).

http://digicamcontrol.com/cameras

 

[3kramd5]

A small mirrorless body would be best of both worlds to me.

Well, it would be the best of one world, not both , since to have any of the discriminating features you need a mirror. I understand you don’t like OVF and sensors purpose built for given functions, so obviously you wouldn’t be in the market for the configuration I described.

Here you go: small mirrorless body. It even takes interchangeable lenses.
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-Mirrorless-Camera-Body/dp/B01LWUQDHJ

. 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.

Yes, you can’t make a camera smaller. Similarly, adding size doesn’t add functionality.

While I’m not a video guy so have never done it, adding cages and ribs sounds like a pain. Personally, I’d rather own two cameras (one big, one small) than try to build one up on a case by case basis. I fact, I have cameras in three sizes: 1Dx, 5D3, and the mirrorless camera I’m typing this reply on. It fits in my pocket, but barely!

 

[Orangutan]

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.

Well, it would be the best of one world, not both.

This is the heart of the matter: with AvTvM/Fullstop, his world is all worlds.

 

[fullstop]

Sony RX-1R II will easily fit in a Lowepro Dashpoint 30.
Have not tried Sony A7 1st gen with 35/2.8, but it might just fit as well.

As I have repeatedly written, I would consider Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II or III) size or even a bit smaller a "SMALL" FF mirrorless camera size.

Or in other words, I am looking to buy a mirrorless cam that is the exact opposite of a Panasonic GH5:
* "big" FF sensor in a small shell
* optimized for stills, nothing "videotic"
* range-finder form factor preferred, instead of "mini DSLR"
* smart pop-up EVF [as on Sony RX-100 Mk. 6) instead of ugly "Quasimodo viewfinder hump"
* best available battery pack that will fit - instead of a whimpy LP-E12


Now, is this "precise enough" for you?

If not, I can happily supply a longer , precise list of "target specs". ECF v2.0 is one of them, instead of AF-selector nipple. Saves precious space on a small camera body.

 

[3kramd5]

That’s quite alright. Seemingly every post has new desirements (pop up EVF is new to me), and the crack development teams at Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Hasselblad, PhaseOne, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, etc. who monitor you as a spokesman for the market are getting stressed out by all the engineering changes. Plus they don’t want to marketingnerf their cameras just to make them small.

 

[Talys]

Sony RX-1R II will easily fit in a Lowepro Dashpoint 30.
Have not tried Sony A7 1st gen with 35/2.8, but it might just fit as well.

As I have repeatedly written, I would consider Sony A7 (1st gen, not Mk. II or III) size or even a bit smaller a "SMALL" FF mirrorless camera size.

Or in other words, I am looking to buy a mirrorless cam that is the exact opposite of a Panasonic GH5:
* "big" FF sensor in a small shell
* optimized for stills, nothing "videotic"
* range-finder form factor preferred, instead of "mini DSLR"
* smart pop-up EVF [as on Sony RX-100 Mk. 6) instead of ugly "Quasimodo viewfinder hump"
* best available battery pack that will fit - instead of a whimpy LP-E12


Now, is this "precise enough" for you?

If not, I can happily supply a longer , precise list of "target specs". ECF v2.0 is one of them, instead of AF-selector nipple. Saves precious space on a small camera body.

So, go buy it:

 

[fullstop]

too big, heavy and expensive. And no EVF. Leica M is essentially a mechanical camera with "electronic film" in it. I want an electronic camera with no mechanics in it.

 

[Durf]

too big, heavy and expensive. And no EVF. Leica M is essentially a mechanical camera with "electronic film" in it. I want an electronic camera with no mechanics in it.

You should consider switching over to Nikon....

 

[ahsanford]

too big, heavy and expensive. And no EVF. Leica M is essentially a mechanical camera with "electronic film" in it. I want an electronic camera with no mechanics in it.

That's not an M. It's a Q. It has an EVF.

But yes, it has a mechanical shutter and is not the lightweight little plastic thing you want.

- A

 

[fullstop]

Leica Q? And where is the EVF? ;-)

That Nikon D70 is ... too old.

 

[ahsanford]

Leica Q? And where is the EVF? ;-)

You could Google it, you know. :

- A

 

[fullstop]

ah yes make me google that leica POS. It has a viewfinder. And a bolted-on 28 mm lens. No lens mount. Fail.

And if I were to waste that amount of money on a fixed lens camera I'd definitely take the Sony RX-1R II over that Leica thing.

 

[puffo25]

Hi, I a am wondering if it is true that we have to wait at least 1 full year (or longer) before see the new high end Canon flagship top notch camera to replace the EOS 1 DX Mark II

According to this link http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-1d-x-mk3-info-rumours/ this should happen NOT before end of 2019....

Anyone has any info on this or possible some interesting early specs?

The current camera is great BUT Nikon seams a bit better in the darklight/low light conditions and so I hope the new Canon will focus improvement in that area.

Regards.
Andrea

 

[BillB]

ah yes make me google that leica POS. It has a viewfinder. And a bolted-on 28 mm lens. No lens mount. Fail.

And if I were to waste that amount of money on a fixed lens camera I'd definitely take the Sony RX-1R II over that Leica thing.

I would never buy a Q, but I do find the design tradeoffs intriguing. FF, small, light, great IQ, and no bump on the top. You can't swap lenses, but you can crop and zoom with your feet. What is the killer lens that you would want to be able to put on a Q anyway? It would add weight and bulk, just a question of how much. And I could never trust a popup viewfinder design. Compared to that, battery size is no big deal.

 

[fullstop]

ofc only my personal preference: but i do find cameras with a fixed lens a perversion, especially when it is a prime focal lens and not even a zoom.

"zoom with your feet" = sometimes possible, but often not.
"crop" = hardly ever as good as getting the desired framing "optically" at time of capture; to me really only a last stop measure in "focal length limited situations".

Which lens I would like to use on a small FF mirrorless cam? Any! By mounting them on lens mount.

My lens preferences are
* 3 "as compact as possible" constant f/4 zooms - e.g. EF-X 16-35, 24-70, 50-150 all IS STM of course
* plus a set of 3 ultra-compact primes eg. : EF-X 20/2.8 (my "landscape and indoors pancake"), EF-X 40/2.0 [my "walkaround pancake"], 85/2.4 IS STM [my "portrait ultra-compact"].

Done. Will not buy any other lenses, only rent on the rare occasions when I really need them.

PS: I like what Samyang has started with their new AF lenses. Their AF 24/2.8 is right down my alley in terms of size and price.