M6II (same sensor as 90D) I guess can be a good lightweight landscape camera, but I'm not sure about astrophotography even if they fix banding. I'll wait for thorough reviews on M6II, but probably will wait for high-res full frame R. In 5DIV, banding only shows in my extreme night shots, so not a huge issue, but very annoying. The shot above was at ISO 3200 where there's no banding and I find it very bizarre. It only shows at ISOs < 3200.
Canon will release the EOS Ra astrophotography camera
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
M6II (same sensor as 90D) I guess can be a good lightweight landscape camera, but I'm not sure about astrophotography even if they fix banding. I'll wait for thorough reviews on M6II, but probably will wait for high-res full frame R. In 5DIV, banding only shows in my extreme night shots, so not a huge issue, but very annoying. The shot above was at ISO 3200 where there's no banding and I find it very bizarre. It only shows at ISOs < 3200.
I'm using an 80D for Astro and since I have a tracker now I'm not seeing my self upgrading to FF any time soon. 2 times the signal is of course always nice, but at more than 2 times the price I can't justify it.
But the comment about the 90D was more about interest in what we can expect from the upcoming models. Obviously the 90D / M6II use a newer generation of sensors, delivering superior read out speed, slightly better DR and apparently better banding characteristics. I can't see Canon pulling another 6D II on us. When they release their next RF camera, it will have at least the same generation of tech as these APS-C sensors. So seeing that initial test show they don't suffer from banding could be encouraging.
At the time of my post, there was only one note on this from a Fred Miranda forum post discussion which was re-posted a few other places. As always, I'd recommend holding off judgement until someone like photonstophotos publishes some results since those early ones often come from the images released by reviewers and not a controlled environment. In all fairness, it looks like the 90D was posted there yesterday at 8pm (after I made my comment), so yes - judge all you want now!
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 90D for the lazy or unfamiliar
Also, it looks like the original assessment from the Fred Miranda post was not accurate and was much more generous on high ISO DR (which is why I choose wait until the results are finally posted to pass my judgement). It's up to the you/the buyer how much that matters to you/them.
As I understand it, the FM post was accurate because it measured read noise and not photographic dynamic range. Because PDR takes more than just read noise into account and also is not a linear measurement, big differences in read noise would not translate to big differences in DR.
Compare Photons to Photos read noise measurements to see how much bigger the differences between these models look versus the miniscule differences in PDR.
Last edited:
Which really drives home how any remaining improvements in read noise have deeply diminishing returns at high ISOs, where the total noise contribution is almost completely dominated by photon shot noise.
DPReview categorically states that the M6II is officially the replacement:
DPReview TV: Canon EOS M6 Mark II Review
Mind you that DPReview made the video at the Canon event here in Atlanta.
Which is a pretty dirty pool to have them make an announcement that Canon should have made themselves.
We both are in agreement it's wait and see with Canon and whatever works for the individual user.
As for the vexing DR:
A stop is half/twice the brightness depending which way one goes. So basically it's dimmer by almost half. ISO performance usually is inverse to dynamic range and detail (usually in the bright areas). So now more noise creeps in in order to make up that brightness ground in post or change in ISO. There's no dual or multigain, unlike the a6500. So the upshot is Canon has effectively traded off some marginal degree of DR increase for more noise if one wants to match the brightness. The enthusiasts and semi-pros are left with a 32mp with one native lens that actually can match the tweaked sensor that traded more noise for higher DR.
So what then for the consumers? And that's the problem for Canon. Too little, too late.
I think the biggest issues are 1) a communications issue, 2) marketing indecisiveness, and 3) a high probability they have a serious technical issue with their sensor design and have effectively hit some major barriers, like the 4/3rds sensor.
Could you please provide a source for that statement? Because without some reference that appears to be total BS to me.
Dynamic Range is limited by how much noise there is in the deep shadows. With the near perfect efficiency of modern sensors, that noise is basically just shot noise with a tiny bit of noise from the electronics added. Lower that noise and you both improve DR and low light performance (which is what you mean with ISO performance, right?). May I please ask you to point out the error in that thought and elaborate on how an increase in DR is responsible for a decrease in low light performance?
You are arguing over minutiae about which the majority of camera buyers don’t give a damn.
People on this forum and others have been making the same arguments you’re making for a decade. During that decade Canon has not lost any market share.
What melodramatic bull. All lenses will perform 'better' in front of a better sensor. The very modest 15-45 will give higher IQ on the M6 II than on the M6, as will the 32mm f1.4, why is that a surprise? A prime that cost 3-4 times more than a kit zoom gives higher IQ on either/both cameras, why is that a surprise?
I suppose they could have been trying to say that someone pixel peeping at a 32MP picture will REALLY notice any shortcomings (softness in particular) of the lens itself, whereas it might be harder on a 24MP sensor of the same size and distance.
But if that's what they were trying to say, they should have said so. They made it sound like the higher res sensor actually creates a lack of quality that wasn't there before--no, at most it will simply show that the lens has the limits it has always had; it will just be obvious now.
At least, that's my intuition--if I'm off base I'd like to know.
Refuted? No. Clarified? Yes. Will photos using your old circa 1990s era lenses look better on the new 83mp camera? Yes. However, if you really care about getting the maximum resolution you can will you get the latest RF primes? Yes. That’s what the equations always cited say.
Yes, someone early in the thread made reference to solar pictures. Maybe you are referring to that bit of humor if you saw it.
st jack photography
..a shuttered lens, backwards viewing backwards..
Figures. Leave it to Canon to release a completely unwanted niche body camera when most of us need a pro studio mirrorless, and/or a pro sport mirrorless STAT. You can expect this crap "a" camera to be basically a 6dm2 sensor with a bit more red-shift, woopty doo. The camera will still be 10 years behind the 810a, and all those 28-year old EF glass designs mean little. Most of them look like poop on my ancient, very dusty 5DSr at any rate.
I try again and again to fall in love with Canon again like I did in 1987 and again when the 5D dropped, but I just can't any more, when I see them making the decisions they have made ever since the RF mount came to be.....
I do encourage them to keep trying, but after using a SONY rx1rm2, I have already ordered a SONY a7rm4 and a ton of ZEISS glass. I am betting on that Zeiss-Sony glass holding its value better than my tragic EF L collection that is now obsolete, no thanks to Canon and their miserably abject failure to innovate.
They need young engineers leading them, but I'll bet it is A SINGLE VERY OLD MAN keeping them from taking chances, clutching at old ideas the photography field has since moved on from some years ago.
I try again and again to fall in love with Canon again like I did in 1987 and again when the 5D dropped, but I just can't any more, when I see them making the decisions they have made ever since the RF mount came to be.....
I do encourage them to keep trying, but after using a SONY rx1rm2, I have already ordered a SONY a7rm4 and a ton of ZEISS glass. I am betting on that Zeiss-Sony glass holding its value better than my tragic EF L collection that is now obsolete, no thanks to Canon and their miserably abject failure to innovate.
They need young engineers leading them, but I'll bet it is A SINGLE VERY OLD MAN keeping them from taking chances, clutching at old ideas the photography field has since moved on from some years ago.
Careful there, you almost write like Harry.
Based on your content, your also pretty close to his... special outlook on what's going on with cameras. Except you seem to lack the humor.
This camera is a simple way for Canon to enrich the RF lineup. You got it wrong though, this will be a variation of the R, not the RP. It clearly isn't taking away any significant chunks of development force from the studio camera you say you crave. It is just a simple modification to a camera that's already out there. If Canon figures spending the money to get it to market is worth it compared to how many people have a need for this, let them launch it. This camera is certainly not completely unwanted. The Astro folks are very ambitious and dedicated to their craft. As a market, that probably makes them interesting even if they are not that numerous.
And quoting differences in technology in 'year ahead / behind' seems really problematic to me. People say such things as if technology was still changing rapidly and being years apart is making one option basically invalid.
When you say ‘most of us’ you mean you. Sorry, Canon doesn’t give a crap about you, personally. The realization that in the broader scheme of things you mean less to a company than whale excrement at the bottom of the ocean is hard for some people to deal with, but do your best, mmmmkay?
It’s the EOS R sensor, which is essentially the 5DIV’s and on par with the best sensors available (unless you’re one of those measurebaters who think 1/3-stop of DR is the sine qua non of existence). But hey, you go right on living in your fantasy world where your ‘facts’ are correct.
Actually, most of us need EOS RP with a price below the $1k mark.
Myself included.
Clearly you haven't read the rest of this thread; there are people here who want it. Therefore it cannot be "unwanted."
Oh, I forgot. You're the entire universe.
WOW!
It’s nice to see someone posting here who knows everything!
Have you considered that the number of people who have shown interest in this camera means that there is an interest in this camera?
Have you considered that this camera is almost certainly an R or an RP that has a filter removed and a few tweaks to the software?
Did you know that from when the design team starts, until the camera is released, is typically 4 to 5 years and that all the teams for those future cameras are well on their way?
Did you know that when a camera is released, a few members of the team keep working on that camera for support issues? It is probably these people who made the Ra!
Did you know that your EF glass has INCREASED functionality on an R camera. Did you know that increased functionality is not the same as obsolete?
Did you know......
Similar threads
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
- Contains 1 staff post(s)
