I don't see the point to go back in sensor tech with a new camera first and I imagine that tech would be more similar with latest dslr 90D Canon introduced back then and propably better in many sections.
Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
That's a good point about going backwards with the MP with the R10 compared to the 90D. The 90D did get a few 7D like features with the Joystick, I think they done that because they already decided they were not going to release a 7D mk III. I think the R10 may go back to around 80D level again to differentiate itself enough from the R7.
Hang on. Those white balance multipliers are massively different. Are you sure you took those multipliers from files that were taken in the same lighting condition with the same white balance setting on each camera? Even completely different sensors would not have white balance multipliers vary so widely in the same lighting conditions. But different lighting would explain the variance.
Take two shots with your 80D. One with tungsten light balance setting and one with shade white balance. Then compare the white balance multipliers with each other.
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
"No way crucial.." to you.
No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
Shutter shock/slap is a real thing that really impacts pictures, especially on small, light bodies like the later M series and denser, small pixel pitch ASPC sensors. It's been the same problem on the M3, M50, and the M62. I negated the issue on my original M1 with a korean made Phottix large metal grip. No such item is available for the m50 at all. I have the m62 in a smallrig cage for the same effect.
Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.
If there's anyone out there that knows the challenges of small mirrorless without IS, trust that it's me. The last few M bodies I have had have been the most unreliable (and broken) cameras ever for me. I have used them on zero shoots because I just can't trust them.**
** I was able to successfully use the m62 with a EF 24-105 attached for a assignment. Worked great for a few hours, however it's never been able to repeat that success. AF fails + shutter slap all over the place. Trust me, it stinks
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
The difference in color from the old T2i is closer to the M1 (original), and MUCH better than the flat colors of the m50 and m62. I own all of them all of them, and I'm extremely bothered by the desaturated color profiles of the m62 especially.
ashmadux
Art Director, Visual Artist, Freelance Photography
Simple. Those are very old cameras, and I'm looking to upgrade - in the same small aspc form factor.
New bodies should have it as a standard feature. The sensor quality is debatable, however the lack of IBIS is killer when shutter slap is also a factor.
It is nice to have IS. Agree. But it is not a 'real problem'."No way crucial.." to you.
No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
Shutter shock/slap is a real thing that really impacts pictures, especially on small, light bodies like the later M series and denser, small pixel pitch ASPC sensors. It's been the same problem on the M3, M50, and the M62. I negated the issue on my original M1 with a korean made Phottix large metal grip. No such item is available for the m50 at all. I have the m62 in a smallrig cage for the same effect.
Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.
If there's anyone out there that knows the challenges of small mirrorless without IS, trust that it's me. The last few M bodies I have had have been the most unreliable (and broken) cameras ever for me. I have used them on zero shoots because I just can't trust them.**
** I was able to successfully use the m62 with a EF 24-105 attached for a assignment. Worked great for a few hours, however it's never been able to repeat that success. AF fails + shutter slap all over the place. Trust me, it stinks
Calling myself out on this one. The T6i predates the 80D by a year.
It's not just Canon:
The Nikon Z50 doesn't have IBIS.
The Sony ZV-E10 doesn't have IBIS
I can respect that as an achievement, but by definition you've made yourself an outlier.
Much rather have BSI stacked sensor than IBIS as this would make a significant difference for low light performance and faster read outs reducing rolling shutter and improving buffering, etc.
The IS in my EF100-400 ii and the RF100-500 is perfectly adequate without IBIS
The IS in my EF100-400 ii and the RF100-500 is perfectly adequate without IBIS
One option with the R7 that interests me is the use of a speed booster EF-RF adapter allowing for an almost full frame performance with EF glass when low light performance is needed more than reach.
Canon's own Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R 0.71x which would mean my EF400 f/2.8 would be equivalent FOV to 460mm lens with a crop factor of only 1.15:1 instead of 1.62:1
Potentially Metabones or Viltrox (or even Canon) may make an EF-RF 0.62x giving a full frame 1:1 equivalence .
Canon's own Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R 0.71x which would mean my EF400 f/2.8 would be equivalent FOV to 460mm lens with a crop factor of only 1.15:1 instead of 1.62:1
Potentially Metabones or Viltrox (or even Canon) may make an EF-RF 0.62x giving a full frame 1:1 equivalence .
True. But in case you are being sarcastic, here are the obvious other choices: Use a higher shutter, use a tripod, use higher Iso, and use a wider aperture. You will get by!
Those white balance multipliers are what DXOMark measured for a standard CIE 5000K light source. They use the same standard light source when measuring all cameras, and the numbers they publish are what you have to have to get a neutral white with that light source. My own experience with the cameras I have on hand mirrors that. The different 24MP class APS-C sensors from Canon do indeed have different white balance multipliers per camera line.
While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?
At one time, these were all called "crutches" by some people who learned without them and felt they were unnecessary if you knew what you were doing.
Some people are perfectly happy setting up a tripod or adjusting their shutter, aperture, and ISO. Others are willing to let the technology help them get the shot. Neither way is wrong, neither way makes you a "better" photographer, and neither way guarantees better pictures.
Nope, IBIS only offers you the ability to lower your shutter speed, you can still take the image at higher ISOs without IBIS. If that shot it THAT important to you then buy a body with IBIS."No way crucial.." to you.
No need to debate IS. The tech available and mature. Its should be in all mirrorless bodies. I'm sure I'm more demanding about my files considering I have successfully used M bodies for professional gigs because I know what I'm doing and have a decade of experience using them locally and across the world.
Shutter shock/slap is a real thing that really impacts pictures, especially on small, light bodies like the later M series and denser, small pixel pitch ASPC sensors. It's been the same problem on the M3, M50, and the M62. I negated the issue on my original M1 with a korean made Phottix large metal grip. No such item is available for the m50 at all. I have the m62 in a smallrig cage for the same effect.
Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.
If there's anyone out there that knows the challenges of small mirrorless without IS, trust that it's me. The last few M bodies I have had have been the most unreliable (and broken) cameras ever for me. I have used them on zero shoots because I just can't trust them.**
** I was able to successfully use the m62 with a EF 24-105 attached for a assignment. Worked great for a few hours, however it's never been able to repeat that success. AF fails + shutter slap all over the place. Trust me, it stinks
That's not a sound argument, because many, if not most Canon lenses already have IS, which usually does the bulk of the work for stabilisation on IBIS bodies, the IBIS typically adds something like one or two stops on top of that, and IBIS is less effective at stabilising longer focal length lenses. It's not like lens stabilisation has been absent for the last decade or two or more and IBIS makes that big a difference!
IBIS is not necessary to everyone, it makes stuff all difference if you're shooting off a tripod, or shoot at very high shutter speeds.
Just because a new features is available on camera bodies, doesn't mean it is useful in every scenario, is desirable, or should be used. It depends on what you use your camera for. IBIS will make certain situations worse.
From https://www.fenchel-janisch.com/camera-stabilization-ibis-when-to-use-it-when-not-to/
Turn IBIS off:
- Wide-angle (under 28mm full-frame): Wobble effect visible in the corners and delayed reaction when panning or tilting with IBIS on.
- Car mounts: If the car is visible it will lead to a weird effect that shows unwanted motion of the IBIS.
- Tripod: Every touch/motion of the fluid head can lead to a wobble effect. Panning with tele-photo lenses won’t be smooth with IBIS on.
- Long exposure photography (on tripod): Just like OIS can lead to blurry results it’s the same with IBIS. Turn off when timelapsing.
Not I apparently, or at least I didn't used to. The best pictures I have taken were shot before my cameras had any of those things.
Similar threads
