New mid-level DSLR and EOS M5 Mark II the next ILC’s from Canon? [CR1]

[3kramd5]

An extending f/4 version would be better. Along with an RF 1.4x TC.

The ‘Really Right’TM version would be a very high resolution sensor using a lens with a wide focal length (prime) paired with a fixed narrow aperture.

No need to focus; most everything is within DOF.
No need to zoom, just crop digitally.

Solid statist’s fantasy.

 

[dtaylor]

how about you try that again without quoting me out of context.

How about you learn how to take a joke?

and btw, lensrentals found the engineering and weathersealing,etc of the Sony 400mm G just as good as the new Canon 400mm III.

What good does that do if the body leaks like a submarine with a screen door?

 

[dtaylor]

Yet a lot of folks go for the Tamron with VC precisely because it works better for them if they shoot handheld almost all of the time. Your assumption that because you chose absolute lens performance when the camera is mounted on a tripod → everyone else will as well is about like Nikon's assumption that no pros were interested in AF back in 1985-90.

Where did I make that assumption? I clearly was talking about my decision and acknowledged that it was a close call, i.e. other people's decisions would be different.

Choosing between them rests on whether or not you can keep shutter speeds sufficiently high in your common use scenarios. For my common use scenarios with this zoom range that's not a problem.

 

[stevelee]

You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units.

No, it is a contracting market. You can gain market share while your sales continue to go down.

 

[Kit.]

Entirely possible. and probably something Canon should do.
Looking at where Canon is as far as global shutters and where Sony Electronics is, Sony is around two full generations ahead of even Canon's patent applications.

I won't be a fan of global shutters until a rolling shutter sensor can reach native ISO 25 or lower with the same color filters and without loss of quantum efficiency. For reasonable money.

 

[malarcky]

Yeah I saw that a lot in like the 2000s, when every time Canon released a non-IS lens, every single review would be forehead-slapping, OMG why didn't Canon think to make this IS? As if Canon would forget that IS was even possible, and it's something you could bolt on to anything as simply as putting feet on the focusing scale.

(The answer clearly is that on many lenses it'd be impossible, or make the lens twice the weight and/or size and impossible to sell.)




This too is surely happening at times. As a lifelong software engineer I just cannot see a reason the R lacks two memory slots or a larger battery, other than they're dumbing it down a bit to make room above for a "pro" model with higher margin.

The main reason that I promote as far as backup protection is concerned is the ability to use a wireless format to copy the captures in real time to a backup device. I can't see it being too difficult to have a simple Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connection to a compatible wireless thumbdrive or wireless dongle that can easily be written to just by being in the vicinity of the camera body. That would solve the problem of having to add the bulk and extra room necessary to make the camera capable of a trusted backup, without having the extra card slot. A confirmation window in the display would allow the user to see if the backup connection is working or not, and you could easily take extra precautionary steps to make sure that the copying is successful in real time. I don't want to contradict myself, and be hypocritical as to the next part of my reply by simply assuming this wireless feature would be easily accomplished by the engineers, as I know for a fact that it can, and has been done already. They just need to perfect the technology and make it a universal feature with the ISO community.

As far as the first part of your reply, I am with you on that example. There is a group of folks who act as though the engineers can just snap their fingers to get certain features added to a camera body without knowing anything at all about the background of the process involved in that addition. It just seems that everyone has a penchant for "Off the cuff" engineering solutions with absolutely no knowledge of what's involved in adding these most wanted features. I see it all the time with trusted reviewers even. Some are more consistent than others, but when a reviewer starts to demote a new camera body's overall score because they figure that the manufacturer left out "Something so simple".

A lot of fuss has been made about 4K technology (mostly the lack thereof) in the modern DSLR discussions, and I see that being a problem that Canon made for themselves with the advent of the video capabilities in the 5D MkII. It was a great feature, there's no doubt about it, but the sudden craze to expect top notch video codecs to be implemented into ALL of the new models sullied the pool of comments for every single camera that didn't offer some kind of cutting edge video capabilities with every single model. Some people are to the point where they will literally destroy the review of a new DSLR, just because it doesn't have bleeding edge 4K video capabilities. I am of the school that believes in buying a DSLR to take still captures, and I am not invested in the video capabilities. I would like to see a "Stills only" model where I don't have to pay for technology that I am not interested in at all, as that is what a DSLR is supposed to be for.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

An extending f/4 version would be better. Along with an RF 1.4x TC.

I'm sure the f/4 lenses will be coming. Heck I'm wondering when the 24-240 will come and how good it will be in daylight...

 

[Don Haines]

I'm sure the f/4 lenses will be coming. Heck I'm wondering when the 24-240 will come and how good it will be in daylight...

Im sure that when the R is mature we will have the ultra fast lenses, the midrange lenses, and the kit lenses that are F6.3...

But yes, I really want to see the 24-240 when it comes out. With an RP, that could make a kick-ass walkabout camera!

 

[Hector1970]

Right. If you're a White House reporter or do sports or what have you--you don't move around much--then the size doesn't matter. If you're a travel photographer or wedding photographer, especially a petite one, then having a smaller, somewhat lighter bag is going to be a win though. Even if it's as long at 200mm, it's not going to be at 200mm in your bag or backpack.

I'd find smaller to pack very attractive. I wouldn't mind if it zooms out to the same size. A clever design by Canon. It looks chunky so probably hasn't lost weight but the size is nice.

 

[Hector1970]

Im sure that when the R is mature we will have the ultra fast lenses, the midrange lenses, and the kit lenses that are F6.3...

But yes, I really want to see the 24-240 when it comes out. With an RP, that could make a kick-ass walkabout camera!

As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.

 

[Hector1970]

No, it is a contracting market. You can gain market share while your sales continue to go down.

Completely agree and that's the current situation. Slowing the rate of loss of sales is improving your market share currently.
When companies can't get volumes they try to widen margins.
I suspect Canon is good with margins.

 

[Don Haines]

As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.

I did a lot of hikes with a 60D and an 18-200. It was a good all-in-one combo. The 18-200 is fairly dated, just about every superzoom DSLR lens out there now beats it, so I am confident that the 24-240 would be significantly better. I think that the combo of that lens on a RP is going to be a best selling combo for Canon.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.

Not that long ago I was crossing my fingers for an updated 28-300L in the 100-400Lii body. A 24-200 IS USM would have been great too. On the R it's probably better, but I'm still torn on the body.

But I could pair it with the RF35 for night. Hmm.

 

[Pape]

The ‘Really Right’TM version would be a very high resolution sensor using a lens with a wide focal length (prime) paired with a fixed narrow aperture.

No need to focus; most everything is within DOF.
No need to zoom, just crop digitally.

Solid statist’s fantasy.

Phone cameras are going to that direction To work it needs incredible fast focus stacking too ,F needs to be 1 cause diffraction.
To achieve that need burst speed like 4000 fps and focus what can move as fast.
If thinking you got 1,6 gigapixel full frame sensor and 25 mm lens ,you can crop from that 25mpixel picture what got 200mm lens field. 1,6gigapixel got diffraction limited on f1,2
I wonder if house sized computer could make 4000fps with 1,6gigapixel
10 year and phone camera can do that?

 

[Kit.]

I don't follow, can you go into more detail?

In order to support the same full well depths, a global shutter sensor needs to have twice as large capacitance per unit area as a rolling shutter one does.

 

[QuisUtDeus]

Street Price Clearance: M5 + 15-45 + Adapter $549, 18-150 $749 | Canon Camera and Lens Deals - Canon Price Watch

www.cpricewatch.com

This might be additional supporting evidence for a new M5: clearance deals on the current version.

 

[masterpix]

For what it worth, I don't see that the XXD's and the 7D's can be merged into one body in a way not sacrifice too many options of each of the bodies, the articulate screen of the 80D and the control buttons of the 7D. The light weight of the 80D to the strength and durability of the 7D and so on. Canon will do good if they keep both lines separate until they will, eventually, will be replaced by a mirror-less models (due to the fact that mirror-less, by definition, are simpler bodies - no penta-prism or flipping mirrors).

I am still wondering when Canon will announce the new 7Dmk3.

 

[3kramd5]

they will, eventually, will be replaced by a mirror-less models (due to the fact that mirror-less, by definition, are simpler bodies - no penta-prism or flipping mirrors)

They’re mechanically simpler, and electrically more complex.

 

[rrcphoto]

In order to support the same full well depths, a global shutter sensor needs to have twice as large capacitance per unit area as a rolling shutter one does.

basically yes, the global shutter sensor needs to store the value of each pixel into memory. to be somewhat efficient, you need to go stacked. BSI such as Sony's latest global shutter sensor also helps. for a normal FSI non stacked global shutter, none of them will have the same full well capacity as a non global shutter sensor. you lose your FWC by at least half.

Sony came out with a novel way of doing it, but unlikely it will ever reach production. each pixel had an ADC attached to it via a stacked sensor, and the digital values stored in memory for each pixel. allowing for full well capacity being the same as a non global shutter.

 

[c.d.embrey]

For me, the RP with an EF-S lens on an adapter, would make a great crop camera. No interest in either an M or a 7D3. YMMV.