Upvote
0
Here are the full Canon EOS R specifications
- Thread starter Richard CR
- Start date
And that's why your post was about Sony being superior in your opinion? But yeah, I might be drunk.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
Just had a thought...
I wonder if Canon will eventually release a MILC that will be able to natively mount both RF AND EF lenses...noticed the adapter seems to be called the "EF-EOS R" adapter instead of simply the "EF-RF" adapter. If so, maybe that was the plan from the get-go, but Nikon's "Z" announcement forced their hand earlier than expected...
I wonder if Canon will eventually release a MILC that will be able to natively mount both RF AND EF lenses...noticed the adapter seems to be called the "EF-EOS R" adapter instead of simply the "EF-RF" adapter. If so, maybe that was the plan from the get-go, but Nikon's "Z" announcement forced their hand earlier than expected...
Upvote
0
To be clear, I'm talking about Sony, because I've never tried other mirrorless cameras for enough time to form a meaningful opinion.
On the Sony,the PDAF and CD mode performance is hugely different, but switchover from one to the other is not just as simple as f8, which I could live with. For example, continuous autofocus is PDAF if available, but one shot (AFS) is always contrast detect. That means even in sunlight with a f1.4 lens wide open, AF hunts. That is compounded by feature availability - some things like cross AF selection (where it is very accurate) only works in CD as does grabbing the MF ring when in AF mode.
Raw performance is also an issue. When there is less light, like a room lit with a 60W bulb, AF is much better with DPAF and infinitely better with dedicated off sensor PDAF AF. Plus, the cheapest DSLR can focus in a dim roomin an instant, and very accurately, with an AF illuminator from a cheap flash, but hybrid AF struggles like crazy.
DPAF isn't totally competitive with off sensor PDAF as available light decreases, but at least the experience is similar and at least for me, it feels snappy and confident.
Upvote
0
In ON TOPIC news...
Announcement will be in less than 10 hours:
- A
Announcement will be in less than 10 hours:
- Los Angeles, USA 12:00 AM
- Toronto, Canada 3:00 AM
- London, England 8:00 AM
- New Delhi, India 12:30 PM
- Hong Kong 3:00 PM
- Sydney, Australia 5:00 PM
- A
Upvote
0
Once Nikon came out with it, I figured it was only logical that Canon would since both of Canon's biggest competitors have it. I didn't try to read some crazy patent tea leaves, I just figured that from a competitive standpoint, it would be logical that Canon would come out with IBIS once Nikon announced that they were going to include it. Otherwise, Canon would appear to be very behind the curve with respect to a major feature on their new camera. And, sadly, that appears that it's the case.I still love the way their cameras function and perform. They do what they were made to do very well. It's just that sadly they aren't made to do as much as the competition seems to be lately.
Fair enough. I'm sorry you're disappointed. Maybe they'll bring out an IBIS body eventually - most people hope so. I don't doubt it's important for some styles of shooting. I'm a big fan of IS, and the more we have, the better. But good in-lens IS, which Canon has in many key lenses, good technique, and where appropriate use of tripods still make a non-IBIS body perfectly usable in most situations, and it's best to be upbeat
Upvote
0
I believe that's a dead end:
- Same mount (throat) diameter for EF + RF precludes the ability to nest one mount inside the other on a future mirrorless body.
- I don't know if anyone has looked at this, but surely Canon didn't identically clone EF for the mounting geometry, i.e. EF on RF or vice versa should go 'clunk' and not mount or stop mounting in a clearly penis-eyed manner as a poka-yoke, correct?
Then there's the whole flange distance problem, where an RF lens wants a short flange distance and the EF lens wants to the longer flange distance. Even if Canon made a bats--- crazy 'hybrid EF/RF lens' to overcome that, i.e. a lens with enough internal space to fundamentally move entire elements/groups to work with either flange distance, the physical mount is still different and will go clunk.
He's dead, Jim. Unless I'm missing something important.
- A
Upvote
0
But the pictures are not equivalent. On a FF, you are getting twice as large background smoothness*) and a noticeably larger nose.
Not my post.
I know, but its equivalent (in the sense of producing the same bokeh and the same enlarged nose) you will unlikely meet in M43. And the M43 equivalent of a FF .95 is physically impossible to make as an ordinary lens (it would break the laws of thermodynamics).
If you don't need that bokeh with that nose (or the light sensitivity that comes with them, or the DR that comes with a much more expensive sensor), M43 is actually a pretty decent format.
At this stage, a couple of extra pages won't really hurt.Pick your battles, people. This is a new body thread!
Edit:
(*) sorry, time to sleep, so cannot put my thoughts clearly. The bokeh effects in the image will be of the same apparent size, but due to compacted perspective, they will make background structures less recognizable.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, I want
[deep breath, engage fast speech mode]
a sequel to the EF 50 f/1.4 USM in the form of a EF 35 f/2 IS USM but that is sharp and faster than f/2 in an internally focusing body with Ring USM and hopefully it's not too big like a pickle jar and comes with a compass and this thing which tells time
[exhale]
But Canon has taken 25 years to refresh this thing and I may just get an (EF) 50L refurb to get me by.
- A
Upvote
0
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.
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. 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.
"a FF .95 is physically impossible to make as an ordinary lens." So? Those were hypothetical examples. Anyway, photo below is a FF lens: Canon FD 50mm f/0.95.
I collect old lenses, that's the only reason I know about this beast.
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
What exactly do you want it for.No, I want
[deep breath, engage fast speech mode]
a sequel to the EF 50 f/1.4 USM in the form of a EF 35 f/2 IS USM but that is sharp and faster than f/2 in an internally focusing body with Ring USM and hopefully it's not too big like a pickle jar and comes with a compass and this thing which tells time
[exhale]
But Canon has taken 25 years to refresh this thing and I may just get an (EF) 50L refurb to get me by.
View attachment 180169
- A
Have you a particular type of picture in mind.
I know what you are asking for is pretty reasonable but is there no current work around for you?
I assume you've tried them all 40 2.8 50 1.4 50 1.2
Do you think the mirrorless will provide the lens you need? ie: it will come with a 50mm 1.4 at some point
Upvote
0
Your prime is included!
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
Annnnnnnnd I've taken the bait. I'm OT now. Apologies. #sorrynotsorry
- A
Upvote
0
Appreciate the interest, but I'm shutting this down. We're OT as it is with the equivalence sidebar.
This is an EOS R spec thread. We should get back on topic.
- A
Upvote
0
Fails all the following criteria:
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.
- 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
Annnnnnnnd I've taken the bait. I'm OT now. Apologies. #sorrynotsorry
- A
Are we sure the new 50mm isn't IS? Some people saw a potential second switch in the images? I agree it's unlikely though...
The lens might be bigger, but the lens + body might be slightly smaller...
I don't think Canon listens to forums but I think this is an exception and they are trolling you personally at this point
Upvote
0
Gee, it's a bit like the night before Christmas, isn't it!In ON TOPIC news...
Announcement will be in less than 10 hours:
- Los Angeles, USA 12:00 AM
- Toronto, Canada 3:00 AM
- London, England 8:00 AM
- New Delhi, India 12:30 PM
- Hong Kong 3:00 PM
- Sydney, Australia 5:00 PM
View attachment 180166
- A
Upvote
0
