Canon’s EOS-1D X Mark II equivalent mirrorless is coming sooner than originally thought [CR1]

[unfocused]

My EOS R came with an adapter that allows me to use my EF lenses ranging from 11mm to 600mm. TS-E. 5x Macro. My flashes and radio triggers work, too. No hassle, and EF is a much more mature system than FE.

How is the functionality of EF on the EOS R?

The same as on a Canon DSLR.

I can change ISO by rotating a ring on my EF Adapter. I can't do that with a DSLR.

 

[AlanF]

.... including inexpensive ef-s lenses like 15-85 perfect for a travel or casual shots.

It's even better on an M5, like other EF-S lenses.

 

[3kramd5]

I can change ISO by rotating a ring on my EF Adapter. I can't do that with a DSLR.

Strictly speaking, that’s adapter functionality, not lens functionality

 

[Viggo]

Strictly speaking, that’s adapter functionality, not lens functionality

With RF lenses that’s a lens function

 

[Michael Clark]

How is the functionality of EF on the EOS R?

EF lenses are EOS system lenses.

RF lenses are EOS system lenses.

The RF communication protocol is built upon the same EOS protocol that EF cameras and lenses use. It's the equivalent of "USB3.1" compared to "USB2".
RF cameras and lenses have certain additional/expanded capabilities in terms of lens/body communication that EF cameras and lenses do not. But there is nothing that an EF lens can do on an EF body that it can not do on an RF body.

When using an EF lens on an RF camera via one of several EF-RF adapters from Canon, the EF lenses lose none of the functionality they have when used on EF bodies. NONE. On the other hand, they may not have certain functionality that RF lenses have on RF cameras. But that is functionality the EF system never had, so EF lenses do not lose anything when used on RF bodies.

Nothing.Nada.Zilch.Nought. Zip.Zero.

 

[TAF]

EF lenses are EOS system lenses.

RF lenses are EOS system lenses.

The RF communication protocol is built upon the same EOS protocol that EF cameras and lenses use. It's the equivalent of "USB3.1" compared to "USB2".
RF cameras and lenses have certain additional/expanded capabilities in terms of lens/body communication that EF cameras and lenses do not. But there is nothing that an EF lens can do on an EF body that it can not do on an RF body.

When using an EF lens on an RF camera via one of several EF-RF adapters from Canon, the EF lenses lose none of the functionality they have when used on EF bodies. NONE. On the other hand, they may not have certain functionality that RF lenses have on RF cameras. But that is functionality the EF system never had, so EF lenses do not lose anything when used on RF bodies.

Nothing.Nada.Zilch.Nought. Zip.Zero.

In fairness to the poster who asked the question, it is reasonable question given our previous experience where EF lenses did not appear to work as well on the 'M' sub-system with the Canon adapter as they do on a regular DSLR.

I have an 'M', and find the behavior with the adapter somewhat disappointing.

I am pleased Canon managed to nail it this time, so when the R body comes out with IBIS I will not hesitate (except for the cringe when I look at the price) to pick one up to start me down the full frame mirrorless road.

 

[scyrene]

I would rather see a later truly pro camera that puts the competition back to the stone age as the EOS system did 30+ years ago.

You're going to be disapointed then, this is not even remotely realistic (from any manufacturer). While I wasn't involved in photography back then, and so can't assess whether you're exaggerating, 2019 is not 1989, and no revolutionary developments are currently on the cards for consumer cameras.

It has taken this long for the competition to catch up to the EOS and now an incremental lame introduction just is not going to impress. It must be hyper fast, full frame 8K at 120p with no crop or line skipping as Nikon and Sony do to make the FF claim. In other words skip the lame 4K, that train has left the station, move on to a blow them away 8K that is not dumbed down and the still frame rate is second to none by a good margin. No rolling shutter issues either. Minimum stills at 50 MP for this camera and DR at 25 stops. Canon has all these capabilities now they just refuse to incorporate them into their regular camera lines.

Oh I see

 

[Kit.]

You're going to be disapointed then, this is not even remotely realistic (from any manufacturer). While I wasn't involved in photography back then, and so can't assess whether you're exaggerating, 2019 is not 1989, and no revolutionary developments are currently on the cards for consumer cameras.

I think it is possible, but it will come from an unexpected angle, such as the ability to use external GPUs.

 

[3kramd5]

I think it is possible, but it will come from an unexpected angle

Agreed. For me to call something a revolution it will have to change how we use/interact with something (in this case a camera). Improvements to what cameras already do are welcome, but evolutionary.

 

[scyrene]

I think it is possible, but it will come from an unexpected angle, such as the ability to use external GPUs.

I don't doubt future paradigmatic shifts are possible - even likely - but when and how is unknown and really beyond the scope of this discussion. But out of interest, what do you mean? More processing power? For computational imaging?

 

[Kit.]

Content-aware focusing/exposure/IS, for example. "Track a cat, keep the whole head in the DoF, pan the background if needed; ignore dogs".

 

[unfocused]

e

Content-aware focusing/exposure/IS, for example. "Track a cat, keep the whole head in the DoF, pan the background if needed; ignore dogs".

The ability to add cat ears, noses and whiskers to subjects might be even more popular.

 

[Kit.]

The ability to add cat ears, noses and whiskers to subjects might be even more popular.

Yeah, but that can be done in post.

The ability to decide "the thing we are tracking is a white cat, we should not overexpose it except for backlit halo" cannot.

 

[scyrene]

e

The ability to add cat ears, noses and whiskers to subjects might be even more popular.

Snapchat teaches us that it would be wildly popular, and almost unbearable.

 

[privatebydesign]

I can change ISO by rotating a ring on my EF Adapter. I can't do that with a DSLR.

You can with Nikon, I really like the three dial layout on some of the Nikons.

 

[Michael Clark]

In fairness to the poster who asked the question, it is reasonable question given our previous experience where EF lenses did not appear to work as well on the 'M' sub-system with the Canon adapter as they do on a regular DSLR.

I have an 'M', and find the behavior with the adapter somewhat disappointing.

I am pleased Canon managed to nail it this time, so when the R body comes out with IBIS I will not hesitate (except for the cringe when I look at the price) to pick one up to start me down the full frame mirrorless road.

The main issue with EOS M is the rate at which Canon is willing to allow the camera to supply power to the AF motor in the lens. This is not unique to EOS M bodies, though. Smaller EOS DSLRs with smaller batteries can also have the same issues. So could EOS RF mount cameras with smaller batteries.

But that is not anything that is inherent in the EOS M mount or EOS EF mount or EOS R mount. All three interfaces are capable of supplying more power than some bodies in all three mounts may be able to supply.

 

[Michael Clark]

You can with Nikon, I really like the three dial layout on some of the Nikons.

You can by rotating a dial on Nikon DSLRs. You can also map dials on other DSLRs to change ISO. But as far as I know, no Nikon DSLR has a control ring on the body.

 

[privatebydesign]

As always here it devolves from useful information, Nikon has a three dial/ring control interface on some cameras, into a semantic contretemps on the difference between dial and ring.

With a Nikon D5 you can effortlessly change all three exposure controls, shutter speed/aperture/iso with your right hand (sucks if you are a leftie) Canon do not have that functionality and I have always wondered why. You don't need anything on a Nikon lens because it is easy to control all exposure controls with the right hand.

 

[3kramd5]

As always here it devolves from useful information, Nikon has a three dial/ring control interface on some cameras, into a semantic contretemps on the difference between dial and ring.

With a Nikon D5 you can effortlessly change all three exposure controls, shutter speed/aperture/iso with your right hand (sucks if you are a leftie) Canon do not have that functionality and I have always wondered why. You don't need anything on a Nikon lens because it is easy to control all exposure controls with the right hand.

I’ve always found Nikon’s and Sony’s location of the third dial spinny control thing awkward. My thumb more naturally sits near the center of the body by the other rear dial spinny control thing. I programmed the Set button to toggle ISO control, so I can control shutter, aperture, and ISO without moving my fingers or thumb from where they want to be.

Granted this is likely in part due to how infrequently I use Nikon cameras. If I were used to it, it might not feel awkward. But I would like perhaps a control on the front of the grip down where my ring or middle fingers sit. That would be excellent; control all three parameters simultaneously without lifting my fingers.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

If I were used to it, it might not feel awkward.

Which is equally true of familiarity with Canon controls, of course.

Up to the D200 I was a Nikon shooter: the D200 had a similar arrangement to that of the D5, and although I liked it, I certainly don't miss it.

It was a solution looking for a problem to solve, like rather a lot of Nikon's bells and whistles...