Here are the full Canon EOS R specifications

[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.

 

[ahsanford]

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

If that future lacks any (natively) small lenses and mandates focus by wire, the future can wait.

(Eager to see what this system offers, don't get me wrong. But if I hear another 'the end times for EF are nigh'...)

- A

 

[Quarkcharmed]

BTW: DOF is shallower on M43 at the same diastance as FF.

DoF is exactly the same in all lenses with the same focal length and aperture, no matter the sensor size. Exactly the same, not shallower, not deeper.

 

[Ozarker]

DoF is exactly the same in all lenses with the same focal length and aperture, no matter the sensor size. Exactly the same, not shallower, not deeper.

Not true. M4/3 is shallower (by half) at the same distance to subject as FF for the same distance from the subject, focal length and aperture.:

5D Mark III / Circle of confusion = 0.03
Distance to subject: 15'
50mm f/2 lens
DOF = 3.34'

Olympus E-M5 / Circle of confusion = 0.015 / Crop factor = 2
Distance to subject: 15'
50mm f/2 lens
DOF = 1.66

"When you put photographs from two cameras next to each other to compare them, you are typically looking at these images at the same size. However, the image sensors that generated these two images may be very different in size. For example: the iPhone has a sensor that is less that one seventh the size of a 35mm full-frame DSLR in each of its dimensions. This means that the physical image that was projected onto the image plane of the iPhone was magnified by a factor more than seven times more than the DSLR’s image so that it could be displayed at the same size in the side-by-side comparison in this post.
This magnification magnifies everything – also imperfections and blurring in the projected image. This means that, at the same distance from your subject, at the same physical focal length and aperture setting, a camera with a smaller sensor will have shallower depth of field than the one with a larger sensor. The images will have the same perspective, but different fields of view (framing), so it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. However, the result is real, and goes contrary to common knowledge and what one might have expected!" https://photographylife.com/sensor-size-perspective-and-depth-of-field

They are, however, the same DOF with the same framing when one doubles the distance of the M4/3 camera to the subject. To get the same DOF and framing as FF, I would have to move out to 30' with the M4/3 camera.

The math does not lie.

 

[fullstop]

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.
.

they could, they really should for their own sake, but they won't.

there will be a lot of the usual soft, squishy marketing babble, bare of any substantial, clear, solid information on Canon's product strategy for their different mount systems: EF, EF-S, EF-M, RF

there will also be no clear, official lens roadmap with timeframes for RF, otherwise it would have leaked by now (nikon z roadmap was out days before their official launch, along with Z6/Z7 product info and pictures).

there will be some Canon middle management muppets talking nicely and very vaguely about "innovation", "historic achievements" and "the future of photography", bla bla bla

there will also be no true grit journalists present grilling Canon muppets with real, not pre-approved questions re. strategy or missing features like IBIS. (there are no true grit journalists any more. only political correctness devoteees).

price: EOS R is a mirrorfree 6D II with 5D IV sensor, and Canon will price it as such = 2499 USD and higher in Euro and yet higher in Brexit Pounds.

episode 99 in the "innovative Canon" series.

 

[Jethro]

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

Sure, I didn't mean that - just that (if) this afternoon's announcement isn't a pro body, that one MUST be coming.

 

[Fleetie]

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...

Well, yes, but the new Endochronic Focusing feature will only operate if you keep topping up the camera's RTT cavity (accessed by screw cap) topped up with Resublimated ThioTimoline crystals.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Not true. M4/3 is shallower (by half) at the same distance to subject as FF for the same distance from the subject, focal length and aperture.:

5D Mark III / Circle of confusion = 0.03
Distance to subject: 15'
50mm f/2 lens
DOF = 3.34'

Olympus E-M5 / Circle of confusion = 0.015 / Crop factor = 2
Distance to subject: 15'
50mm f/2 lens
DOF = 1.66

"When you put photographs from two cameras next to each other to compare them, you are typically looking at these images at the same size. However, the image sensors that generated these two images may be very different in size. For example: the iPhone has a sensor that is less that one seventh the size of a 35mm full-frame DSLR in each of its dimensions. This means that the physical image that was projected onto the image plane of the iPhone was magnified by a factor more than seven times more than the DSLR’s image so that it could be displayed at the same size in the side-by-side comparison in this post.
This magnification magnifies everything – also imperfections and blurring in the projected image. This means that, at the same distance from your subject, at the same physical focal length and aperture setting, a camera with a smaller sensor will have shallower depth of field than the one with a larger sensor. The images will have the same perspective, but different fields of view (framing), so it is a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. However, the result is real, and goes contrary to common knowledge and what one might have expected!" https://photographylife.com/sensor-size-perspective-and-depth-of-field

They are, however, the same DOF with the same framing when one doubles the distance of the M4/3 camera to the subject. To get the same DOF and framing as FF, I would have to move out to 30' with the M4/3 camera.

The math does not lie.

Yes it does make sense however it implies we scale the images to make the subject the same size visually (or angles of view). The math is in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

 

[Ozarker]

Yes it does make sense however it implies we scale the images to make the subject the same size visually (or angles of view). The math is in here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

DOF is not the same for the same focal length, same f stop at same distance. It isn't. Scale the image or whatever you like, DOF is half as deep on M43. I don't want to argue. I wish the whole discussion would end. The original discussion had to do with lens speed. I do not want to carry this any further. My DOF calculator says DOF is half as deep for the same focal length, same f stop and same distance. That's it. Scaling the image in Photoshop does not change DOF. Only moving closer or further away or sensor size or f stop changes DOF.

 

[Quarkcharmed]

Scaling the image in Photoshop does not change DOF.

It doesn't change DoF of the original image from the sensor. But when you scale the image down, you make some blurred points sharp enough, therefore you increase perceptual DoF.
Note that the circle of confusion depends on the target print size. So when you scale it up and down, you change CoC and therefore DoF

 

[Kit.]

I don't see what equivalent bokeh has to do with it,

What do people need fast lenses for?

1. For shallow DoF, and/or
2. For pleasant bokeh, and/or
3. For decreased photon shot noise in dark conditions, and/or
4. To signal their own wealth to others.

For the first three goals, a M43 lens is equivalent to a 2 stops slower FF lens. For the 4th goal, a M43 lens doesn't qualify.

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?

First of all, it means a completely different scene, showing 4 times more area.

If you crop and enlarge the FF 50mm f/1.2 image so that it shows the same scene - and the same DoF - as the M43 50mm f/1.2 lens at the same distance, it would be equivalent (pixel pitch notwithstanding) to a FF 50mm f/1.2 plus a 2x teleconverter - a 100/2.4 lens.

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

The image is again not the same. If the distance is different, the perspective is different.

They are both still f/1.2. So I still have no idea what this has to do with the f stop of the lens.

Crop lenses of some f-stop are not practically equivalent to FF lenses of the same f-stop. They are practically equivalent to slower lenses.

I understand the IRIS is smaller on M43. I do. But they still shoot at the same exact speed in the same light. My gosh.

Lenses don't shoot. Photographers do. With a larger iris and a larger sensor, a photographer can afford to select a faster shutter speed.

"a FF .95 is physically impossible to make as an ordinary lens." So?

As cropped lenses are not equivalent to uncropped lenses, cropped sentences are not equivalent to uncropped sentences.

In question is not equivalency of photo appearance. In question is lens speed. Lens speed. Lens speed. Lens speed!

No. "Lens speed" was supposed to be an answer. But it didn't work, because the M43 lens speed is not practically equivalent to the same FF lens speed.

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!

So, it doesn't matter to you that portraits taken at 3" are ugly due to their comical perspective? You don't care about the actual picture, all you care about is "DOF" and "exposure"?

 

[Kit.]

The original discussion had to do with lens speed.

No, it wasn't. The original discussion was about lack of fast and light lenses for the FF. You made a mistake pointing to M43 lenses as if they were equivalent. They are not.

 

[Mikehit]

DoF is exactly the same in all lenses with the same focal length and aperture, no matter the sensor size. Exactly the same, not shallower, not deeper.

But you put a wider lens on the M43 to get the same framing (or change your distance).
Why on earth would you put the same focal length lens on a camera and not change position?

If you are focal length limited and find yourself using a 400mm lens on the MFT and on FF, then the image of the subject is the same physical size on both sensors. So if you want the same size lin(for example) in an A4 print the magnification from both sensors is identical. That is the ONLY situation where your claim is correct.

 

[dolina]

Let me know how a more mature system makes your hands feel at the end of a day of shooting with big f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes.

- A

Consider the context of my statement. I am comparing a Sony full frame mirrorless system to a Canon full frame mirrorless system. The hand feel would be similar.

 

[ahsanford]

Consider the context of my statement. I am comparing a Sony full frame mirrorless system to a Canon full frame mirrorless system. The hand feel would be similar.

Sorry, no.

1) Vitally, the grip is both deeper and further from the mount than the Sony. It's not as comfy as a 5D I'm sure, but the EOS R should only have a fraction of the cramped finger problem that the A7 line has.

2) The grip is taller. No more dangling pinky nonsense for many of us.

We can hem and haw about specs, but on the basic form side of things, Canon has done a solid job as always. I think Canon got the basic shape / grip much better on the first try than Sony did in three.

I want a chunky grip mirrorless someday, but for a smaller body, this was thoughtfully done.

- A

 

[GaryBlakePhoto]

Hey y'all,
CR's coverage of this has been wonderful all week so I thought I'd join.

The R seems like it's great, but I'm holding off for a professional version and third party lenses built for the system.

Honestly, I think the death of DSLRs are upon us.
Mirrorless just allows for too many advancements not to use it as the primary vehicle.
A 1/32000 shutter like in the A9. Almost total AF coverage. Magnified previews to check focus while shooting.

Give me an R-PRO with dual cards, Eye AF in Servo, and no weird FPS or 4K compromises and I'm in like flynn.

 

[GaryBlakePhoto]

Also, what's up with samples?
I'd love to look at some full res ISO6400 to see what the deal is.

 

[Ozarker]

No, it wasn't. The original discussion was about lack of fast and light lenses for the FF. You made a mistake pointing to M43 lenses as if they were equivalent. They are not.

Here we go. The M43 lenses rated at f/2 or whatever are the same speed as FF lenses at f/2 or whatever. That's it. That was my point and that fast and light mirrorless lenses are not unobtainable. Again, Canon 50mm f/1.4. Wow. Get lost, dude. No mistakes here. Your mistake is dragging this on, and on, and on. You were wrong.

 

[Ozarker]

What do people need fast lenses for?

1. For shallow DoF, and/or
2. For pleasant bokeh, and/or
3. For decreased photon shot noise in dark conditions, and/or
4. To signal their own wealth to others.

For the first three goals, a M43 lens is equivalent to a 2 stops slower FF lens. For the 4th goal, a M43 lens doesn't qualify.


First of all, it means a completely different scene, showing 4 times more area.

If you crop and enlarge the FF 50mm f/1.2 image so that it shows the same scene - and the same DoF - as the M43 50mm f/1.2 lens at the same distance, it would be equivalent (pixel pitch notwithstanding) to a FF 50mm f/1.2 plus a 2x teleconverter - a 100/2.4 lens.


The image is again not the same. If the distance is different, the perspective is different.


Crop lenses of some f-stop are not practically equivalent to FF lenses of the same f-stop. They are practically equivalent to slower lenses.


Lenses don't shoot. Photographers do. With a larger iris and a larger sensor, a photographer can afford to select a faster shutter speed.


As cropped lenses are not equivalent to uncropped lenses, cropped sentences are not equivalent to uncropped sentences.


No. "Lens speed" was supposed to be an answer. But it didn't work, because the M43 lens speed is not practically equivalent to the same FF lens speed.


So, it doesn't matter to you that portraits taken at 3" are ugly due to their comical perspective? You don't care about the actual picture, all you care about is "DOF" and "exposure"?

3' is just an example. Just figurative. To make things easy for the discussion. Don't you get the point? Nope. Lens speed being equal, dude. Why do you Jones for this so bad? You are wrong. Give it a rest. #5 People need fast lenses for low light conditions independent of Bokeh (Shutter speed!!!!). You forgot that one. An f/2 lens is an f/2 lens no matter what the sensor size. Period. Same shutter speed all else being equal. Duh! Small, fast, and light is not unobtainable for FF either. Good Lord. Your #4? "4. To signal their own wealth to others." Maybe for some, but I am very far from wealthy. I just manage money well.

 

[Ozarker]

Sorry, no.

1) Vitally, the grip is both deeper and further from the mount than the Sony. It's not as comfy as a 5D I'm sure, but the EOS R should only have a fraction of the cramped finger problem that the A7 line has.

2) The grip is taller. No more dangling pinky nonsense for many of us.

We can hem and haw about specs, but on the basic form side of things, Canon has done a solid job as always. I think Canon got the basic shape / grip much better on the first try than Sony did in three.

I want a chunky grip mirrorless someday, but for a smaller body, this was thoughtfully done.

- A


View attachment 180181

As usual, the graphics master. Looks far better with Canon to me. Thanks for the terrific work!