Assuming its release is near if Canon UK have uploaded a brochure on it?
Shoot a bit of astro myself, not sure I shoot enough for a dedicated body though.
Could it also be "A" for Canon EOS R apsc? or "A" for action (speed focused?)
I honestly don't understand Canon's model naming, from a business stand point why are there so many models? For example why not consolidate into three for four for both APSC and FF with one mount like sony? What does Rp stand for? What does R stand for?
If you want sports get an a9, if you want studio get a a7r, if you want low light get an a7s, if you're not sure and just want to try both get an a7. Where as in canon you have the m mount cameras, the rf mount cameras, the ef mount cameras, cameras that efs lenses can only work on, etc...
I'm not sure inexpensive comes into play here what with the need for the tele, and all of it's accouterments. Plus, and this seems like a huge plus...monochrome? If that's the way to keep costs down then ok.
I’m super amateur at Astro, but what would be different in the end result with something like the EOS Ra?
I'm not surprised about the trailing, if I'm honest. I use a 5D IV for astro occasionally, and I've found that when I have proper focus, the rule of 500 is not enough. I would commonly use a 14mm f/2.8 open for 30 seconds on a 6D and be satisfied with the results (albeit maybe with less than perfect focus), but I've found that with the same lens on the 5D IV I am hesitant to even go for 25 seconds - much better results at 20 seconds when focus is bang on. I'm pretty confident that I don't have any movement anywhere, but 30 second exposures have noticeable trails when really looking. Maybe 30mp on a sharp lens is just a bit too long for the rule of 500.
By the rule of 500 you should be able to get 14 seconds from a 35mm lens, and I should be able to get >30 seconds on the 14. In practice, however, it seems that from my experience maybe the rule of 350 is more accurate.
I have used it only for Landscape Astrophotography at 1.8. I like it! My other lens is Canon 14mm 2.8L II which is nice too. Both have some coma but it is not extreme. Beware I do not beieve Sigma has a lot of resistance to flare (but this does not apply for moonless skies. It's OK then).How do you like that Sigma 14/1.8? I've been eyeballing that for a while now as an upgrade to my trusty (but light weight) Rokinon 14/2.8.
That would be nice, but I expect this camera makes more sense with normal and tele lenses anyway, to get those pretty nebulae. Ultra-wide field H-alpha imaging is a very narrow niche indeed. For non-H-alpha astrophotogtraphy, the regular R works as well (or poorly, depending on glass and photographer).This will be totally awesome IF Canon ever decides to make a serious effort (or even a modest effort) to control coma and astigmatism in their WA/UWA lens designs.
From the above mentioned leaflet I can see that even though I dabble at astrophotography, this will not be useful to me, as I do a lot more nature and landscape shooting and they say, "shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended." The hydrogen-alpha wavelength is good for extended objects such as nebulae, but you really need to stick your camera on a telescope to get satisfactory magnification of the nebulae. So I think this is not for fellows who stick their camera on a tripod. Instead, it will be for those who mount it on the back of a telescope, which is fairly niche.
- The EOS Ra is a version of the EOS R designed for astrophotography. This camera has approximately four times
the transmittance of hydrogen-alpha light (656 nm) as the EOS R.Photographs of subjects that reflect a lot of infrared light will thereforeappear redder than they actually are. Also, as it may not be possible to obtain an appropriate color balance or uneven colors may result,shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended.
Colours aren't too important for night/astro shooting. So apart from mounting it on a telescope, it can be useful for nightscapes. Still a very niche usage. I don't know if they had AA filter removed, AA would probably be totally unnecessary for astro.
So Canon is saying that the market is clamoring for a specialized astro mirrorless which makes it worth their putting their efforts on it now rather than a 7D like mirrorless? Never would have thought it with the Olympics coming up, but I'm not on top of the market trends in mirrorless cameras!
Most stars are point sources of light that without an AA filter would only be recorded by a single sensel. Both the intensity and the resulting color after demosaicing would be affected by which color filter is over that single sensel. Some folks have theorized that the reason some cameras are known as "star eaters" is because without an AA filter the camera's NR routine mis-identifies those single pixels with significant signal surrounded by dozens of pixels with no significant signal to be noise.
Now THIS is the sort of thing I like to see here, something that turned on a big lightbulb. It was most, if you'll pardon the expression, illuminating. Yes, you'd have a star like Sirius hitting (say) a red pixel and looking red, and who knows, getting edited out as noise (perhaps not, because it's so bright--but other stars, yes), but if not..."When did Sirius become a red giant?"