Here is what Canon is announcing next, including the EOS R7, EOS R10 and RF-S lenses [CR3]

[sanj]

"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

It is nice to have IS. Agree. But it is not a 'real problem'.

 

[jordanisaak]

The 80D predates the M50 and, as far as I know, all the other 24mp APS-C Canon cameras. So yes, its sensor was newly developed at the time.

Calling myself out on this one. The T6i predates the 80D by a year.

 

[John Wilde]

Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.

It's not just Canon:

The Nikon Z50 doesn't have IBIS.
The Sony ZV-E10 doesn't have IBIS

 

[Skux]

It is nice to have IS. Agree. But it is not a 'real problem'.

Yeah just hold the camera steady lol

 

[Otara]

"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.

I can respect that as an achievement, but by definition you've made yourself an outlier.

 

[Chig]

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

 

[Chig]

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 .

 

[sanj]

Yeah just hold the camera steady lol

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!

 

[adrian_bacon]

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.

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.

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

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!

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.

 

[jordanisaak]

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.

OK, thanks for the explanation.

 

[Jasonmc89]

"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

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.

 

[LogicExtremist]

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.

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.

If you were to say that IBIS is important to you, for whatever your reasoning is, then you'd have a very sound argument!

 

[stevelee]

While you're at it, who needs autofocus, autoexposure, TTL flash metering, digital post-processing, or high ISOs, to name a few?

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.

 

[LogicExtremist]

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.

Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses!

 

[mdcmdcmdc]

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.

Makes me wonder what the people with the insatiable and never-ending need for more and more camera tech features think of those photographers out there taking awesome photos with film cameras and manual lenses!

Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.

My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.

I learned photography on a Canon AV-1 in the early 1980's. It had in-camera metering, but that was it. No AF, no TTL flash metering, and none of the other technologies we take for granted today. "High ISO" in those days was 400 (and we called it ASA, not ISO). 640 was available, but those films were always balanced for tungsten light (because, who needed that much speed outdoors?). It would be years before daylight balanced 1000+ speed films were widely available.

Today, I use AF, I use TTL flash metering, I use digital post-processing, and I use optical IS with long lenses hand-held (beats carrying a monopod, which I also did for a long time). I'm still uncomfortable using ISOs above 6400, but some old biases are hard to let go of. But those are my choices. What technologies you choose to use or not use are your choices. I personally don't have a need for IBIS but that's my choice based on my photography and the fact that, yes, the longer zooms I use all have optical stabilization. If I used fast primes, which generally don't have OIS, I might feel differently about it, but I don't.

I don't use my ILC for video either. I don't need 4K60p or FHD120p or CLOG3 or any of those. Nor do I use in-camera HDR and I rarely use in-camera JPEG.

But none of that gives me, or anybody else, the right to belittle another forum user for saying they want any of those features in their next body.

What I feel I "need" for my photography, and what gives me the most gratification and enjoyment from it, isn't the same as what somebody else might feel they need. And that's OK.

 

[Hector1970]

Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.

My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.

I learned photography on a Canon AV-1 in the early 1980's. It had in-camera metering, but that was it. No AF, no TTL flash metering, and none of the other technologies we take for granted today. "High ISO" in those days was 400 (and we called it ASA, not ISO). 640 was available, but those films were always balanced for tungsten light (because, who needed that much speed outdoors?). It would be years before daylight balanced 1000+ speed films were widely available.

Today, I use AF, I use TTL flash metering, I use digital post-processing, and I use optical IS with long lenses hand-held (beats carrying a monopod, which I also did for a long time). I'm still uncomfortable using ISOs above 6400, but some old biases are hard to let go of. But those are my choices. What technologies you choose to use or not use are your choices. I personally don't have a need for IBIS but that's my choice based on my photography and the fact that, yes, the longer zooms I use all have optical stabilization. If I used fast primes, which generally don't have OIS, I might feel differently about it, but I don't.

I don't use my ILC for video either. I don't need 4K60p or FHD120p or CLOG3 or any of those. Nor do I use in-camera HDR and I rarely use in-camera JPEG.

But none of that gives me, or anybody else, the right to belittle another forum user for saying they want any of those features in their next body.

What I feel I "need" for my photography, and what gives me the most gratification and enjoyment from it, isn't the same as what somebody else might feel they need. And that's OK.

A well written clarification. Nice to see

 

[LogicExtremist]

Whoa. Settle down boys. Show me anything in my previous post that implied judgement of people who choose any level of automation, or none at all.

My intent was just the opposite, actually. While I categorically disagree with people who judge others for their choices of equipment or technique, I don't disagree with people for their choices. If my previous post implied otherwise, it was an unintended poor choice of words.

I learned photography on a Canon AV-1 in the early 1980's. It had in-camera metering, but that was it. No AF, no TTL flash metering, and none of the other technologies we take for granted today. "High ISO" in those days was 400 (and we called it ASA, not ISO). 640 was available, but those films were always balanced for tungsten light (because, who needed that much speed outdoors?). It would be years before daylight balanced 1000+ speed films were widely available.

Today, I use AF, I use TTL flash metering, I use digital post-processing, and I use optical IS with long lenses hand-held (beats carrying a monopod, which I also did for a long time). I'm still uncomfortable using ISOs above 6400, but some old biases are hard to let go of. But those are my choices. What technologies you choose to use or not use are your choices. I personally don't have a need for IBIS but that's my choice based on my photography and the fact that, yes, the longer zooms I use all have optical stabilization. If I used fast primes, which generally don't have OIS, I might feel differently about it, but I don't.

I don't use my ILC for video either. I don't need 4K60p or FHD120p or CLOG3 or any of those. Nor do I use in-camera HDR and I rarely use in-camera JPEG.

But none of that gives me, or anybody else, the right to belittle another forum user for saying they want any of those features in their next body.

What I feel I "need" for my photography, and what gives me the most gratification and enjoyment from it, isn't the same as what somebody else might feel they need. And that's OK.

Maybe you didn't express it clearly, thanks for clarifying! I read it as a bit of an exaggerated statement conflating the need for IBIS with other technologies such as AF, so I placed some perspective around what i thought you said. My comment was a general statement about modern photography and wasn't aimed at you, but maybe my comment was not that clear either.

Just like you, I also don't have a need for IBIS based on the type of photography I do, nor do I use my ILC for video. I tend to set my flash to manual for the way I use it.

If people are into photography to take photos and develop their photography skills, they can appreciate photography with all manner of equipment. On the other hand, if they're into photography for the sake and love of technology, well, then they'll only be satisfied with the latest gear.

 

[Blue Zurich]

Ok, 1/2 way through the month, even more in Oz!

 

[Dragon]

Lack of IS is a real problem. And unfortunately canon's segmentation shenanigans has decided that this is a pro-body feature only.

IBIS will not go in cheap cameras because it is expensive to implement, not simply because Canon is trying to segment the lines. Sony has made very similar decisions and Minolta (which Sony bought) invented IBIS. If you want a cheap camera, you will get a mix of features that that will give you the best pictures you can get for that price. More money, more features. Further, IBIS is of little use with long telephoto lenses and "reach" has been the mantra of the vast majority of those hoping for such (a) camera(s). Folks with an R5 who want more reach will likely go for the R7. Folks with an RP, R, or even R6 may well settle for the R10, but we have yet to see the physical and control differences, so a little early to call accurately. The primary clue that neither of these is a Rebel or M50 replacement is the sparse lens offering. My bet is that the 18-45 is a cheap FF UW and that leaves the 18-150 (likely a ported over M lens) as the only true APS-c choice. That, and a future port of the M 11-22 makes sense if both cameras are meant to be "reach" bodies with ancillary stand-alone utility, but it makes no sense for a general-purpose entry level body. This may all change over the next year or two, but Canon will watch and listen for a while before the next move.