Canon Announcements Coming August 14, 2015

[Random Orbits]

I think the reason the SL1 was so unexpectedly popular, and why the SL2 will be so popular, is the target market is not a primary body. This shouldn't be the only DSLR you own. This solves a lot of complaints about people's primary DSLR while still letting them use all the expensive glass they own. For example, for someone who has a gripped DSLR, this provides something smaller. For someone who has a FF and wants extra reach, this provides a crop factor. For someone who wants something lighter, this provides about a 1.5lb weight savings. For someone with a FF camera that wants access to some of the ultralight weight EF-S travel lenses, like the 10-18 STM and the 18-135 STM. Or even for someone who has a wife who has smaller hands and wants something that will fit those hands better.


Yeah, in case you haven't figured it out I'm hoping this is the SL2.

I would have considered the SL1 as a second body except that it doesn't have AFMA. I agree that it is catering to those going for the smallest packages, and EF-S lenses make the most sense there.

 

[ahsanford]

I would have considered the SL1 as a second body except that it doesn't have AFMA. I agree that it is catering to those going for the smallest packages, and EF-S lenses make the most sense there.

Not to rain on people's hopes with the SL2, but the SL1 is a spec-sheet cellar dweller:

• 1/4000 shutter
• 4 fps
• 9 AF points
• No AFMA
• No top LCD
• No articulating screen

So the idea that rig explodes up-market into a 70D sort of spec list seems, well... as unreasonable as everyone's expectations of every next EOS-M model. :

A more reasonable SL2 ask would be to drop the new 24MP sensor from the T6i/s rigs into it. I wouldn't expect much more than that.

- A

 

[RGF]

Where is the replacement for ancient Ef 50mm macro? I wouldnt mind if that lens was dropped altogether from lens selection. Sadly Canon doesnt have a lens to compete with Nikons 60mm macro. While their Mp-e 65, and 100m L are the best macro lenses keeping me in Canon camp for ages to come.

the 200L macro is very long in the tooth. There was rumors about a T/S long macro.

But just think what they could charge if the lens came in white? They could charge another $500 per lens ;D
It is... but with the 180L taking razor sharp shots ...

 

[PhotographyFirst]

I would be interested in an SL2 for my landscape photography if it had some of the basic features found in the Rebel cameras.

- 24MP sensor
- Decent bracketing options
- Histograms
- Same or better battery life
- Touch screen

I've found that is pretty much all I need out of a landscape camera.

It would be cool if Canon made a full-frame SL style camera. It seems possible considering the old FF film cameras were even smaller than an SL1 in some cases and had full viewfinders.

 

[PureClassA]

I won't say it's impossible to make a FF DSLR smaller, but film cameras didn't need internal space for a sensor assembly thats probably 100 time thicker than a plane of film, and that film didn't require ADCs and sinlge or multiple CPUs to develop and write the image. They also didn't have near the sophistication of AF and metering systems as we do now.

Granted, you can certainly make more compact FF bodies, but there's only so "thin" you can get with a DSLR because the lens mount must be exactly far from the sensor plane, given the same series of lenses. And this is why we now have a growing segment of mirrorless cameras.

Could Canon slam a FF sensor into an SL body? Maybe. Might be a tad bigger. I'd think certainly you could have one inside a Rebel 660 (T6). The real question is, how much demand would there be for one. The Canon 6D is a really nice, (to me) compact size) for more serious shooting. In the grand scheme of things, casual hobbyists in general aren't going to spend $1400 on a FF body anyway. I also think making a camera too small can be harmful in terms of ergonomics. I used to have a t2i and remember (although I really liked it) it felt too diminutive with bigger bodied lenses. I don't have big hands, but a 6D and 5D3 feel a lot more comfortable to operate, especially over long periods of time because it fits a normal sized hand better with buttons and switches easier to maneuver. Again, for me.

ALL THAT SAID, I would take a good look at an SL1-type FF body if that ever happened, but I suspect my hands would still prefer a 6D size, which if they wanted to, they could probably make that camera even a bit smaller.

I would be interested in an SL2 for my landscape photography if it had some of the basic features found in the Rebel cameras.

- 24MP sensor
- Decent bracketing options
- Histograms
- Same or better battery life
- Touch screen

I've found that is pretty much all I need out of a landscape camera.

It would be cool if Canon made a full-frame SL style camera. It seems possible considering the old FF film cameras were even smaller than an SL1 in some cases and had full viewfinders.

 

[Luds34]

Yeah, in case you haven't figured it out I'm hoping this is the SL2.

I'll consider the SL2 if they nail it: DPAF, touch screen with touch to focus, really good video with 4K no moire. I doubt it though, it will be better than the SL1, but I'll be really surprised if Canon doesn't hold back a lot of things. But, maybe Sony's innovations will shake them into being more aggressive.

4K video on a near entry-level body seems perfectly logical, and we all love that awesome DPAF on our EOS-M3 rigs.

Kidding. You are 100% right. The SL2 will get neither of those things.

- A

Haha, I tend to agree with others, it is a nice wish list. IF it did have DPAF and at least the 19 point AF system, I could see letting my 70D go and using an SL2 as my crop (secondary) body. I thought/found DPAF to be a cool feature but one I thought I would rarely use. While I do not use it terribly often, it comes in very handy for when I need to hold the body at an awkward angle or away from the body (reaching across a table) to take photos, as long as one has a smaller lens like a prime or something.

Of course it all comes down to price. IF Canon shocked us with a very full featured SL2 I'm sure it would come in at a price tag more on the heftier side.

 

[ahsanford]

I won't say it's impossible to make a FF DSLR smaller, but...

[truncated]

ALL THAT SAID, I would take a good look at an SL1-type FF body if that ever happened, but I suspect my hands would still prefer a 6D size, which if they wanted to, they could probably make that camera even a bit smaller.

It all depends on the FL of glass you are using:

If you shoot over (say) 135mm, you'll likely want a FF-sized body to hang on to that glass. And by the time you are up to that size of lens, any major upside of a thinner body is lost.

If you shoot more pedestrian/standard FLs, this is where mirrorless shines for total body+lens size reduction. I'm not a mirrorless proponent so much as a realist that it will replace 95% of SLRs eventually (more than a decade away, but it will happen).

Consider the attached pic for the two groups above. Just replace the SL1 for the A7 and you get my meaning -- at some point, a small body isn't doing you any favors.

I love the thought of tiny rig with stellar FF IQ, but I'd only use that with tiny lenses in the 24 - 85mm range.

- A

 

[preppyak]

As has been mentioned in another thread, it is well past time for the 70D (now over 2 years old!) to be replaced.

Look for an 80D, perhaps?

Actually, the 60D lasted for about 3 years, so, itd make sense if the 80D is a camera for next year (probably spring 2016).

Looking at the timeline, the only DSLR's that make any sense are a new 1DX, a 5DIV, or a refresh of the 100D. I think the latter is the most likely, because they can give it the sensor of the 750/760D and some minor other updates.

 

[Etienne]

I won't say it's impossible to make a FF DSLR smaller, but...

[truncated]

ALL THAT SAID, I would take a good look at an SL1-type FF body if that ever happened, but I suspect my hands would still prefer a 6D size, which if they wanted to, they could probably make that camera even a bit smaller.

It all depends on the FL of glass you are using:

If you shoot over (say) 135mm, you'll likely want a FF-sized body to hang on to that glass. And by the time you are up to that size of lens, any major upside of a thinner body is lost.

If you shoot more pedestrian/standard FLs, this is where mirrorless shines for total body+lens size reduction. I'm not a mirrorless proponent so much as a realist that it will replace 95% of SLRs eventually (more than a decade away, but it will happen).

Consider the attached pic for the two groups above. Just replace the SL1 for the A7 and you get my meaning -- at some point, a small body isn't doing you any favors.

I love the thought of tiny rig with stellar FF IQ, but I'd only use that with tiny lenses in the 24 - 85mm range.

- A

That Sony 35mm f/1.8 is for APS-C. The Sony FF 35mm is f/2.8, not comparable to Canon's stellar 35mm f/2 IS. But this package would be great on the A7r II :

Batis 25mm f/2.0 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1140832-REG/zeiss_2103_750_25mm_f_2_0_batis_wide.html

Sony 55mm f/1.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1008124-REG/sony_sel55f18z_sonnar_t_fe_55mm.html

Batis 85mm f/1.8 http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1140833-REG/zeiss_2103_751_85mm_f_1_8_batis_short.html

Plus the Sony 16-35 f/4 is not too shabby

 

[tpatana]

I'd be happy for affordable long tele, like 500/4.0 at $1k.

Nice try. An 125mm large Aperture alone costs that much

That's still easier than most items on my bucket list.

$1,000 for the 500f4 is an order of magnitude less expensive than the current lens, it's literally at least $9,000 off, or a 90% discount.

If you buy a lot of stuff at business closeout auctions I guess it can be done, but Canon isn't going out of business.

I wasn't really serious about the lens part...

 

[ahsanford]

As has been mentioned in another thread, it is well past time for the 70D (now over 2 years old!) to be replaced.

Look for an 80D, perhaps?

Actually, the 60D lasted for about 3 years, so, itd make sense if the 80D is a camera for next year (probably spring 2016).

Looking at the timeline, the only DSLR's that make any sense are a new 1DX, a 5DIV, or a refresh of the 100D. I think the latter is the most likely, because they can give it the sensor of the 750/760D and some minor other updates.

In my mind, the 5D4 would not be on the list. Canon wants FF users to migrate to the high MP rigs to spur a need for higher quality lenses. Offering a logical next step after the 5D3 -- say a 28 MP / 6 fps / strong high ISO performer -- would steal a lot of the 5DS's general thunder.

I know the 5DS is shaping up to be more of a 'good light' studio/tripod rig and not the very good all-rounder the 5D4 will likely be, but a near-term 5D4 announcement would put more general photographers in the wait-for-testing and compare mode, i.e. if there is another plausible near-term product, early adoption dollars won't be flowing.

I think they'll wait until the 5DS initial buzz/rush passes and then come back with an announcement. Early next year makes more sense.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

Agreed, and that was kinda my point. In fact, if you shoot larger L glass or longer focal lengths (bigger lenses too), the balance of lens to camera gets too front heavy. Smaller bodies don't just become moot, they can actually become a problem. The 5D3 in my hands is perfect. As is the 6D. I love what the A7S can do, but there's no way on Earth I'm taking that as a walk around camera. It's way too small and feels totally wrong to me. I think Sony was wise to make the new bodies bigger, but it's still a boxy thing I don't like the feel of. The 5D3 is about the most perfectly engineered body that has ever been for professional use.

I won't say it's impossible to make a FF DSLR smaller, but...

[truncated]

ALL THAT SAID, I would take a good look at an SL1-type FF body if that ever happened, but I suspect my hands would still prefer a 6D size, which if they wanted to, they could probably make that camera even a bit smaller.

It all depends on the FL of glass you are using:

If you shoot over (say) 135mm, you'll likely want a FF-sized body to hang on to that glass. And by the time you are up to that size of lens, any major upside of a thinner body is lost.

If you shoot more pedestrian/standard FLs, this is where mirrorless shines for total body+lens size reduction. I'm not a mirrorless proponent so much as a realist that it will replace 95% of SLRs eventually (more than a decade away, but it will happen).

Consider the attached pic for the two groups above. Just replace the SL1 for the A7 and you get my meaning -- at some point, a small body isn't doing you any favors.

I love the thought of tiny rig with stellar FF IQ, but I'd only use that with tiny lenses in the 24 - 85mm range.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

Agreed, and that was kinda my point. In fact, if you shoot larger L glass or longer focal lengths (bigger lenses too), the balance of lens to camera gets too front heavy. Smaller bodies don't just become moot, they can actually become a problem. The 5D3 in my hands is perfect. As is the 6D. I love what the A7S can do, but there's no way on Earth I'm taking that as a walk around camera. It's way too small and feels totally wrong to me. I think Sony was wise to make the new bodies bigger, but it's still a boxy thing I don't like the feel of. The 5D3 is about the most perfectly engineered body that has ever been for professional use.

Whereas Fuji and Olympus are clearly courting mirrorless enthusiasts with a svelte little design and tiny native lenses, Sony has tacked hard to the 'pro' side of things with the A7 brand -- they want to pull pros from their mirrors into their platform, so the ergonomic creature comforts and more rugged / faster lens options need to be there. So it's entirely logical why Sony is bulking up their newer A7 rigs.

For those wondering why Canon is only dipping their pinky toes into the mirrorless pool and not being brave, this is my theory: they are waiting for the mirrorless market to define itself more clearly. It may only be a market for street shooters and enthusiasts right now (which says keep it small, keep the glass reasonably priced), but if pros do in fact migrate to the A7, Canon will need to protect the biz from that migration with a similar product. That means an FF mirrorless mount and a painful, painful migration to smaller native lenses -- you can't compete with an adaptor forever, no matter how much EF glass you have...

- A

 

[Proscribo]

Whereas Fuji and Olympus are clearly courting mirrorless enthusiasts with a svelte little design and tiny native lenses, Sony has tacked hard to the 'pro' side of things with the A7 brand -- they want to pull pros from their mirrors into their platform, so the ergonomic creature comforts and more rugged / faster lens options need to be there. So it's entirely logical why Sony is bulking up their newer A7 rigs.

Kinda... no. Why sony has no small native lenses (small as in mft and fuji small) is because they cannot do that, they can't break the rules of physics. FF sensor means a larger lens, simple as that. But of course the shorter flange distance allows mirrorless to have smaller wide angle lenses but not really much else.

 

[heart+eyes]

After watching the Mayflower Concepts PMA presentation

Great analysis and presentation on one theory why the digital camera market is collapsing (not smartphones, not market saturation). Re-thinking photography and imaging--and making it easy and fun is a wild idea. Let's hope Canon, et al. are paying attention.

 

[ahsanford]

Whereas Fuji and Olympus are clearly courting mirrorless enthusiasts with a svelte little design and tiny native lenses, Sony has tacked hard to the 'pro' side of things with the A7 brand -- they want to pull pros from their mirrors into their platform, so the ergonomic creature comforts and more rugged / faster lens options need to be there. So it's entirely logical why Sony is bulking up their newer A7 rigs.

Kinda... no. Why sony has no small native lenses (small as in mft and fuji small) is because they cannot do that, they can't break the rules of physics. FF sensor means a larger lens, simple as that. But of course the shorter flange distance allows mirrorless to have smaller wide angle lenses but not really much else.

100% agree, the lenses need to be large for an FF sensor, but I'm talking about the body size here.

Sony stopped trying to look small/thin like a Fuji rig (or their older APS-C NEX rigs) with this last gen of A7. Their FF mirrorless Mk II bodies are getting bigger -- partly due to all the things they are cramming in there, but also to provide a chunkier platform to wield bigger, heavier glass. They are absolutely courting professionals who care far less about size and weight than more casual shooters.

- A

 

[super_newbie_pro]

Maybe the new Canon EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS ? ( http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26336.0 ) ?

For the camera, if its not the 6D II, i hope we will have more information for september. It could be bad if Canon (and for us) miss Christmas for this model

 

[PureClassA]

There also the ego factor. At some level, Professionals don't want to show up to a high flying, high priced job, they charge thousands of dollars to shoot (think wedding) with what looks like a little compact camera. Forget results, forget skill... there's still a desire to have all those most critical skills and results, but they also want to "look the part" a 5Dx Body or D8xx body fits the profile of what people expect to see pros shooting. I know some in here will tell me it doesn't matter to them or that I'm crazy... but it's a fact. And short of a little Sony Alpha body delivering miraculously better images than a full size pro canon or Nikon (and they don't) that won't change. I think if Sony REALLY wanted to get into the Pro portrait/wedding market, they'd put that A7R2 sensor in a real DSLR pro body, but I suspect they have some agreement with Nikon not to as long as Nikon has a contract to buy their tech. (I don't think landscape people care as much about the look)

Whereas Fuji and Olympus are clearly courting mirrorless enthusiasts with a svelte little design and tiny native lenses, Sony has tacked hard to the 'pro' side of things with the A7 brand -- they want to pull pros from their mirrors into their platform, so the ergonomic creature comforts and more rugged / faster lens options need to be there. So it's entirely logical why Sony is bulking up their newer A7 rigs.

Kinda... no. Why sony has no small native lenses (small as in mft and fuji small) is because they cannot do that, they can't break the rules of physics. FF sensor means a larger lens, simple as that. But of course the shorter flange distance allows mirrorless to have smaller wide angle lenses but not really much else.

100% agree, the lenses need to be large for an FF sensor, but I'm talking about the body size here.

Sony stopped trying to look small/thin like a Fuji rig (or their older APS-C NEX rigs) with this last gen of A7. Their FF mirrorless Mk II bodies are getting bigger -- partly due to all the things they are cramming in there, but also to provide a chunkier platform to wield bigger, heavier glass. They are absolutely courting professionals who care far less about size and weight than more casual shooters.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

There also the ego factor. At some level, Professionals don't want to show up to a high flying, high priced job, they charge thousands of dollars to shoot (think wedding) with what looks like a little compact camera. Forget results, forget skill... there's still a desire to have all those most critical skills and results, but they also want to "look the part" a 5Dx Body or D8xx body fits the profile of what people expect to see pros shooting. I know some in here are tell me it doesn't matter to them or that I'm crazy... but it's a fact. And short of a little Sony Alpha body delivering miraculously better images than a full size pro canon or Nikon (and they don't) that won't change. I think if Sony REALLY wanted to get into the Pro portrait/wedding market, they're put that A7R2 sensor in a real DSLR pro body, but I suspect they have some agreement with Nikon not to as long as Nikon has a contract to buy their tech. (I don't think landscape people care as much about the look)

A lot of good points there.

I think that busy working photographers are much more concerned about product support and the size of the compatible product ecosystem, if the camera is tune-able in every little way, etc.

And I agree that landscapers are far far far less concerned about a lot of supporting considerations. They are much more likely to fight through lens adaptors, liveview, manual focusing etc. to get access to a killer sensor. That's why I see landscapers the most likely to dabble with A7 rigs as a second body.

But full migration of working pros to the A7 fold will take time. Many have been lured by Sony's sensors and the perception of a smaller rig, but it comes with some painful realities as well. Many have to jury-rig third party flashes and triggers to work with that platform, and their collection of native lenses pales in comparison to Canon and Nikon. Add in the typical 'mirrorless-isn't-there-yet' comments re: battery life, AF tracking, ergonomics, etc. and you can imagine this transition taking a while -- it could be 10-20 years for most people. Heck, I don't ever seen sports/wildlife/birders ever giving up their OVFs. So Rebels, XXD, 7D, and 5D shooters might flip over to mirrorless eventually, but there may always be an 'antiquated' mirror-slapper on the 1D line.

But give Sony credit. They are systematically attacking all the reasons not to buy one. The prices aren't insane, they are throwing the house at AF improvements (adaptored Canon lenses focusing nearly as fast as native?!), and that backside illuminated A7R II sensor will be interesting to read reviews about.

- A

 

[PureClassA]

Yes. Landscape and Wedding are two completely different monsters when it comes to problem solving. You can (arguably) almost always re-shoot a landscape. You can NEVER re-shoot a wedding. Thus, the demands for top notch service (CPS), hallmark reliability & durability, and ergonomics (including menu navigation) is paramount. With landscapes you can afford to be patient and fiddle with metabones and sloppy Sony menus. They make great sensors that benefit the landscaper and warrant patience. With weddings and other similar work, you'd better be Johnny-On-The-Spot and come with backup gear just in case. The thought of fooling with adapters and Sony ergonomics on the fly in a situation like that makes me nervous just thinking about it.

It's all about what you do and what you need to do it right. I think Sony still has a long way to go before they can think about cracking the portrait and wedding market to any significant degree. They will need their own CPS and they will need to build real pro-grade cameras that feel like what pro-shooters are accustomed to and WANT to use.