Here are the full Canon EOS R specifications

[Jethro]

I'm still interested in the 'strategy announcement' part of it. Where Canon is going with mirrorless, where they see the EF / EF-S / EF-M mounts going, whether there is an actual calendar for lens (or even other FFM bodies) released. I know it isn't their usual way to do this, but it seems like this is a big thing for them - they could give out more information than expected.

Also, getting a fuller idea of the specs (eg the EVF) will surely answer a lot of questions.

 

[ken]

I'm still interested in the 'strategy announcement' part of it. Where Canon is going with mirrorless, where they see the EF / EF-S / EF-M mounts going, whether there is an actual calendar for lens (or even other FFM bodies) released. I know it isn't their usual way to do this, but it seems like this is a big thing for them - they could give out more information than expected.

Also, getting a fuller idea of the specs (eg the EVF) will surely answer a lot of questions.

The price alone will speak volumes. Is this what Canon considers a prosumer model, or is this their idea of a pro mirrorless model? (I hope it's prosumer. If so, the stars are aligning for me.)

 

[Talys]

Fails all the following criteria:

• Not EF
• No IS
• It's a big pickle jar (as long and heavier than the 50 Art)
• Probably going to be focus by wire?
  
• Might be externally focusing

In short, this RF 50mm f/1.2L USM might be the razor sharp 50 f/1.2L II USM without nutty AF everyone wants (the 'Canon response to the Sigma Art' like the 35L II was), but it's not for me. When I'm shooting a 50 prime, it's principally for candids, street, walkabout, etc. and I want a more discreet instrument that leads to a lighter / smaller construct to pack and carry. I love small 50s and would like a modern one that doesn't have a stripped down feature set and STM focusing like the new nifty 50. In no uncertain terms, I want the sequel to the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM.

Annnnnnnnd I've taken the bait. I'm OT now. Apologies. #sorrynotsorry

- A

Sok, I'm with you. I am not really excited about this lens either, primarily because I don't want a huge 50; I don't want a Canon 50 Art+ any more than a Canon A7R3+.

 

[Talys]

I'm still interested in the 'strategy announcement' part of it. Where Canon is going with mirrorless, where they see the EF / EF-S / EF-M mounts going, whether there is an actual calendar for lens (or even other FFM bodies) released. I know it isn't their usual way to do this, but it seems like this is a big thing for them - they could give out more information than expected.

Also, getting a fuller idea of the specs (eg the EVF) will surely answer a lot of questions.

I suspect the EVF will be quite good. Hopefully, it's a step up from the M50, which is already quite usable.

 

[herion]

Well, our discussion started out on the body thread with fast light lenses being unobtainable. But yes, we are now on a tangent.

Let's really go at it and discuss Canon's feature (or lack thereof) of super-luminal lens processing - you get a picture on the SD card BEFORE you mount the lens, aim the camera and hit the shutter button...

... and perfectly focused...

 

[Adelino]

I'm still interested in the 'strategy announcement' part of it. Where Canon is going with mirrorless, where they see the EF / EF-S / EF-M mounts going, whether there is an actual calendar for lens (or even other FFM bodies) released. I know it isn't their usual way to do this, but it seems like this is a big thing for them - they could give out more information than expected.

Also, getting a fuller idea of the specs (eg the EVF) will surely answer a lot of questions.

I have a feeling we will get less information than what we would like.

 

[Adelino]

The price alone will speak volumes. Is this what Canon considers a prosumer model, or is this their idea of a pro mirrorless model? (I hope it's prosumer. If so, the stars are aligning for me.)

Even better would be if they view this as a beginning RF model, like the the original M. Then we could really go up from there (and expect a great price) Probably will not happen though.

 

[BillB]

Sok, I'm with you. I am not really excited about this lens either, primarily because I don't want a huge 50; I don't want a Canon 50 Art+ any more than a Canon A7R3+.

On the other hand a 35mm f1.8 IS....

 

[retroreflection]

In defense of ibis, a lens IS system cannot correct for rotational vibration.

In defense of Canon, everything plus the kitchen sink spec lists are expensive. I also think ibis makes extraction of sensor heat more challenging (either detach from a heat sink, or increase the power of the five axis actuators). I think the bulk of Sony's "superiority" in video is due to Sony's willingness to roast their electronics. Canon doesn't reduce the lifetime of their electronics just to post big specs.

 

[ahsanford]

I'm still interested in the 'strategy announcement' part of it. Where Canon is going with mirrorless, where they see the EF / EF-S / EF-M mounts going, whether there is an actual calendar for lens (or even other FFM bodies) released. I know it isn't their usual way to do this, but it seems like this is a big thing for them - they could give out more information than expected.

I'd expect the following: all-but-overt statements that EF is not going away. We'll get a constant refrain that EF works brilliantly with this new system and in fact EF lenses are extended in their usefulness on a mirrorless body.

What absolutely won't be said:

1) EF is going away. Would cause a riot if they did.

2) That a Full EF body is happening. Would cause a ton of folks to sit on their credit cards and wait out this release.

- A

 

[Deleted member 379512]

I'd expect the following: all-but-overt statements that EF is not going away. We'll get a constant refrain that EF works brilliantly with this new system and in fact EF lenses are extended in their usefulness on a mirrorless body.

What absolutely won't be said:

1) EF is going away. Would cause a riot if they did.

2) That a Full EF body is happening. Would cause a ton of folks to sit on their credit cards and wait out this release.

- A

I would kinda like to see the reaction to number 1, in a morbidly interestedway. Not that I'd actually like that outcome personally.

I've held onto a number of ef lenses, so how Canon move into the ff mirror less world will really decide whether I say half and half, or if I start moving to a single system when I need to replace a camera next

 

[Jaysheldon]

Let's hope this is the $1900 model, and then for the $2990 model they'll add:

42Mpix+
15+fps
dual slot (and hopefully CF)
IBIS

The $2990 model will have the same specs, but one extra feature: IBIS <g>

 

[David Littleboy]

I don't see what equivalent bokeh has to do with it, but I will say this again.

M43 50mm f/1.2 has shallower DOF at the same distance as FF 50mm f/1.2. Please see my previous calculations. Does that mean it has more blur?

When the photo is taken at twice the distance with M43 the DOF is exactly the same. Is the blur the same?

So that is what the calculator says about DOF.

No, no, no, no, no.

The point of photography is to actually take actual photographs, so it is only what happens in the final print/image that matters.

To compare, you have to compare apples to apples. Same camera to subject distance, same effective focal length, same pixel count, same print (or screen image) size. Even same viewing distance. Otherwise you are taking _different_ photographs, and the comparison is meaningless.

E.g. 35mm on APS-C to 50mm on FF
E.g. 50mm on APS-C to 85mm on FF.

At that point, you are taking (essentially) the same photo.

At which time there are _two_ differences (at the same f stop): the amount of light hitting each pixel and the DoF/bokeh. To match those, you have to open up the APS-C lens one whole stop.

At which point (other than lens resolution performance and availability of one-stop faster lenses) you get exactly the same photo. (Or would if the multiplier were 1.4 instead of 1.6. But for all practical purposes that difference is small.)

This is why a 35/1.4 on APS-C is equivalent to a 50/2.0 lens on FF. It really is. In every photographically significant way.

(APS-C cameras use a different definition of ISO: one with twice the noise of FF cameras (i.e. one-half the dynamic range: smaller pixel = smaller well depth.).)

In real life, the one f-stop loss of sensor sensitivity/bokeh isn't much of a big deal, and APS-C is a lot of fun. And you have to work really hard to get much advantage from FF.

 

[sunnyboy]

Canon screw up! My advise is to stop buying of EF lens and sell away all your EF lens asap. The future is RF.

 

[Jethro]

The price alone will speak volumes. Is this what Canon considers a prosumer model, or is this their idea of a pro mirrorless model? (I hope it's prosumer. If so, the stars are aligning for me.)

It looks like your gear-set is not dissimilar to mine, so I think we have a similar decision to make about a future body.

 

[3kramd5]

(APS-C cameras use a different definition of ISO: one with twice the noise of FF cameras (i.e. one-half the dynamic range: smaller pixel = smaller well depth.).)

Most camera manufacturers use saturation-based speed, not noise.

 

[Jethro]

I'd expect the following: all-but-overt statements that EF is not going away. We'll get a constant refrain that EF works brilliantly with this new system and in fact EF lenses are extended in their usefulness on a mirrorless body.

What absolutely won't be said:

1) EF is going away. Would cause a riot if they did.

2) That a Full EF body is happening. Would cause a ton of folks to sit on their credit cards and wait out this release.

- A

I don't know - releasing L lenses for the new mount is a big step - especially if this is 'only' the prosumer version. Surely L lenses presupposes a pro version Real Soon Now?

Assuming tis afternoon (Australian time!) is the c. $1,900 version, then I could still see them flagging a pro version. I know that might stop some sales, but if they don't address it then presumably this (and other sites) are just going to spend their time speculating on the pro version anyway? If the first drop is, in any case, lower spec'd (in some ways) than the Z7, there would also be the incentive to say that something better is coming.

 

[ahsanford]

I don't know - releasing L lenses for the new mount is a big step - especially if this is 'only' the prosumer version. Surely L lenses presupposes a pro version Real Soon Now?

Sure, but even a pro-level mirrorless isn't the end of EF. Canon wants to sell both SLRs and mirrorless at the same time.

Canon loves multiple premium price points. Folks with a lot of money might buy one of each.

- A

 

[Ozarker]

No, no, no, no, no.

The point of photography is to actually take actual photographs, so it is only what happens in the final print/image that matters.

To compare, you have to compare apples to apples. Same camera to subject distance, same effective focal length, same pixel count, same print (or screen image) size. Even same viewing distance. Otherwise you are taking _different_ photographs, and the comparison is meaningless.

E.g. 35mm on APS-C to 50mm on FF
E.g. 50mm on APS-C to 85mm on FF.

At that point, you are taking (essentially) the same photo.

At which time there are _two_ differences (at the same f stop): the amount of light hitting each pixel and the DoF/bokeh. To match those, you have to open up the APS-C lens one whole stop.

At which point (other than lens resolution performance and availability of one-stop faster lenses) you get exactly the same photo. (Or would if the multiplier were 1.4 instead of 1.6. But for all practical purposes that difference is small.)

This is why a 35/1.4 on APS-C is equivalent to a 50/2.0 lens on FF. It really is. In every photographically significant way.

(APS-C cameras use a different definition of ISO: one with twice the noise of FF cameras (i.e. one-half the dynamic range: smaller pixel = smaller well depth.).)

In real life, the one f-stop loss of sensor sensitivity/bokeh isn't much of a big deal, and APS-C is a lot of fun. And you have to work really hard to get much advantage from FF.

In question is not equivalency of photo appearance. In question is lens speed. Lens speed. Lens speed. Lens speed! Not DOF. Not noise. Not creaminess of bokeh. Not distance to subject. (BTW: DOF is shallower on M43 at the same diastance as FF. Not anything else. An M4/3 lens f/2 will shoot at the same exact shutter speed as an f/2 lens on FF. In other words, an f/2 lens is an f/2 lens no matter what it is mounted on. Lens speed is completely independent of body or sensor size. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with crop or FF. Will the photos look the same? Obviously not. Exposure is the same. You must have missed the beginning.

And what does it matter if I shoot a 50mm FF at 3" and then the M4/3 at 6 feet to get the same framing? DOF is exactly the same at that point! So is exposure! Good Lord!

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Not all nighttime landscapes are astro. Cityscapes come to mind as well. I remember Chris Gampat at Phoblographer rave about shooting an Olympus and with an UWA lens held the shutter open for something absurd -- up to 15 seconds -- and net sharp shots with the IBIS of that system. That's bonkers.

I find absurd 5+ second hand held shots a bit of a parlour trick. But lets admit that it's a neat parlour trick, and I'm stuck in dark cave-like interiors or nighttime city walkabouts sans flash all the time. I have lens IS on all four of my wider lenses I might use in those siutations (16-35 f/4L IS, 24-70 f/4L IS, 28 f/2.8 IS, 35 f/2 IS), but if IBIS + Lens IS can add to greater effect (esp. on wider FLs), color me interested with IBIS.

- A

IS or IBIS only compensate micro-shaking within some margin, when you shoot handheld for long enough (> 0.5 sec or so) you inevitably move your hands/body more than IS can compensate. Leaning against a wall etc. may help but I don't believe in the long exposures shot handheld, even at 16-24mm. That is, I've tried it myself and wasn't happy with the results. Better increase ISO, the additional noise is better than the motion blur.

But that's about long exposures at night. I wouldn't mind to have IBIS in general. It'd be very useful indeed.