Opinion: The difficulty facing Canon (and everyone else)

[Old Sarge]

I see comments like this frequently, and I wonder if people who make them have a requirement for APS-C sensors (e.g. they also shoot birds with a 400mm lens). Consider the following two points:

• The FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, in terms of field of view and depth of field for the same subject framing.
• While exposure is determined by light per unit area (i.e., f/2.8 is the same regardless of sensor size), image noise is proportional to total light gathered, so the larger full frame sensor will have noise levels equivalent to 1.3-stops lower ISO on APS-C (e.g., ISO 1600 on FF looks like ISO 640 on APS-C).

Taken together, what that means is that an EF/RF 24-105mm f/4 lens on a FF camera is wider, longer and faster than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera.

The RF 24-105/4L on an R8 is a smaller and much lighter (400 g / 14 oz) package than the EF-S 17-55/2.8 on the 7DII, and the MILC price is actually slightly lower than the DSLR price if considering launch pricing (largely because the 17-55/2.8 launched at $1160), but even comparing what someone would have paid for the DSLR kit when the 7DII came out (~$2400), the MILC setup today is not much more ($2750) and you get a better kit. The R8 has a faster frame rate and better AF performance, and the IQ of the RF 24-105/4L is better than that of the EF-S 17-55/2.8.

The bottom line is that Canon has given you something even better than what you're asking for, for not much more money. Why haven't you bought it why?

As usual, you make a lot of sense. I have never had a full frame digitgal camera. I like my 7DMKII, enough to have two of them as a matter of fact. And have enjoyed the EF-S 17-55 2.8 I bought several years ago. I have a R7 which I'm really enjoying, mostly with EF glass or the RF 100-400, which is super light weight. But your R8/24-105/4L sounds tempting. I may need to quit reading your messages for a while...or put more money into my GAS fund.,

 

[neuroanatomist]

But your R8/24-105/4L sounds tempting. I may need to quit reading your messages for a while...or put more money into my GAS fund.,

If you go that route, I’d suggest putting aside a little extra for the RP/R8 grip extension, or using a camera plate that mimics it (like the RRS L-bracket I have, it’s the one for the RP and I had to get it used). For me, at least, it helps a lot with an L lens mounted.

 

[P-visie]

I see comments like this frequently, and I wonder if people who make them have a requirement for APS-C sensors (e.g. they also shoot birds with a 400mm lens). Consider the following two points:

• The FF equivalent of the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is a hypothetical 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, in terms of field of view and depth of field for the same subject framing.
• While exposure is determined by light per unit area (i.e., f/2.8 is the same regardless of sensor size), image noise is proportional to total light gathered, so the larger full frame sensor will have noise levels equivalent to 1.3-stops lower ISO on APS-C (e.g., ISO 1600 on FF looks like ISO 640 on APS-C).

Taken together, what that means is that an EF/RF 24-105mm f/4 lens on a FF camera is wider, longer and faster than the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 lens on an APS-C camera.

The RF 24-105/4L on an R8 is a smaller and much lighter (400 g / 14 oz) package than the EF-S 17-55/2.8 on the 7DII, and the MILC price is actually slightly lower than the DSLR price if considering launch pricing (largely because the 17-55/2.8 launched at $1160), but even comparing what someone would have paid for the DSLR kit when the 7DII came out (~$2400), the MILC setup today is not much more ($2750) and you get a better kit. The R8 has a faster frame rate and better AF performance, and the IQ of the RF 24-105/4L is better than that of the EF-S 17-55/2.8.

The bottom line is that Canon has given you something even better than what you're asking for, for not much more money. Why haven't you bought it why?

And the R8 has a much better high(-er) ISO performance than the 7D Mk2 (check and compare at DPReview‘s R8 review (link)).

 

[AlanF]

And the R8 has a much better high(-er) ISO performance than the 7D Mk2 (check and compare at DPReview‘s R8 review (link)).

@neuroanatomist emphasized in his post that an FF will have a 1.3 stops advantage in noise over a crop at high iso - it's not just the R8 vs the 7 MkII, it's any FF vs any APSC camera.

 

[Sporgon]

If you go that route, I’d suggest putting aside a little extra for the RP/R8 grip extension, or using a camera plate that mimics it (like the RRS L-bracket I have, it’s the one for the RP and I had to get it used). For me, at least, it helps a lot with an L lens mounted.

I’d second that comment; the grip extension makes the RP / R8 much more comfortable and balanced with anything other than tiny, lightweight lenses.

 

[Walrus]

I’d second that comment; the grip extension makes the RP / R8 much more comfortable and balanced with anything other than tiny, lightweight lenses.

I confirm it, too; the extra grip on the RP makes it pretty perfect to handle with long lenses, but even with short ones the benefits are pretty clear.

 

[koenkooi]

I confirm it, too; the extra grip on the RP makes it pretty perfect to handle with long lenses, but even with short ones the benefits are pretty clear.

Same experience here, but for the RF28mm and RF24-50mm I keep the grip off.

 

[Walrus]

Same experience here, but for the RF28mm and RF24-50mm I keep the grip off.

Without the grip I'm not comfortable holding it in my hands (which are not particularly big btw) even with just the body cap alone, the camera is a tad too short for me (...and even 2/3 extra mm in the EG-E1 thickness would have been well received from my side); but I admit I'm a little biased, since I use battery grips from day one (I already had one in my film Eos33, so I could use AA batteries instead of some exotic, and expensive, battery that camera was natively using), so holding a camera with a "just a std bare grip" is alien to my muscle memory. But again, that's me, I always liked thick and deep grips.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Without the grip I'm not comfortable holding it in my hands (which are not particularly big btw) even with just the body cap alone, the camera is a tad too short for me (...and even 2/3 extra mm in the EG-E1 thickness would have been well received from my side); but I admit I'm a little biased, since I use battery grips from day one (I already had one in my film Eos33, so I could use AA batteries instead of some exotic, and expensive, battery that camera was natively using), so holding a camera with a "just a std bare grip" is alien to my muscle memory. But again, that's me, I always liked thick and deep grips.

Same. I've also had battery grips on all my bodies starting with my first, a Rebel T1i/500D. After getting the 1D X, I won't use anything but an integrated grip body as my primary camera, I find them much more comfortable to hold than a body with the add-on grip.

 

[Sporgon]

It’s a shame Canon couldn’t (or wouldn’t) use the same detachable grip system they used on the original EOS 1 film series. Here the battery grip replaced the whole of the hand grip that held the normal battery, fitting tightly into a cone within the camera body, and then a base screw tightening the whole unit, making for a seamless integrated vertical grip camera with no flex between the body and the grip.
The current design does allow for an undesired amount of flex, and I feel this most when mounted on a tripod.
I’ve got one grip for my 5DS cameras but virtually never use it, it just feels numb.

 

[grantmasterflash]

You've just described my dilemma. *I* don't think smart phones are good enough nor do I like the user experience but I also have an EOS-M6II sitting on my desk and I carried it around for a year trying to make it work. It was the smallest kit I could get for my carry-on bag. It was still a hassle and I stopped taking it with me.

I bought a G5XII and I take it everywhere. There are times where I wish I had the M6II but 90% of the time the G5XII works great. It's *my* good enough camera even though I curse it sometimes due to small issues I want changed.

My wife uses her phone to take photos and from a usability standpoint it can't compete with my G5XII. I can reach in my pocket, grab the camera, be turning it on, point, zoom and half-pressing to auto focus by the time she's unlocked her phone and is attempting to start her camera app. I've taken multiple photos and put it away by the time she has taken her first photo. The G5XII is not perfect, it really needs DPAF, a faster shutter, easier dials, default to center auto-focus, a better EVF etc... I have a long list. However, it's still eons ahead of a phone in usability, it fits in my pocket and I use my phone charger with it meaning that my total added weight to my bag is 350 grams.

What *I* want from Canon is for them to make an ILC based around something like the G5X. It might sound weird but I want to have auto-zoom, auto-focus lenses that I can change for the type of shooting I do, I want it tiny and I want a 1" stacked sensor. I don't even care to have 40 lenses to choose from like on a full size ILC, it wouldn't be for professional photography. Maybe one wide zoom, a fast zoom like the G5XII lens, a long zoom and a couple of fast primes just for fun - may 6 lenses. The sensor isn't as good as APS-C or FF but I've done back to back tests and within a certain range the photos are very similar. It's when I get into low light situations or narrow DOF does the APS-C or FF walk away. Still 90% of the photos I take work perfectly fine on the G5XII.

I may never replace the M6II as I'm not a professional photographer nor do I want to pretend that I am. I would pay just about anything for an extension of the G5XII though.

 

[jam05]

Some good points thanks Richard. I lived in HK for 5 years (till 2022) but always found ways to get past any luggage checks. In fact it was a post on CR which I used (not in Asia) with an airline when they said they wanted to put my camera bag in the hold. “that’s fine, but the equipment is worth more than 10K and any damage or loss is your responsibility not mine”.

However certainly Canon and other manufacturers should lobby the airlines to offer a solution. I’m sure many photographers would pay an extra fee (if reasonable) just to have a secure option. It’s ironic that if I want to take my bike with me, I can, and it’s not that expensive (certainly cheaper than renting for a week). If Canon et al doesn’t then the rumour sites should band together to do it!

And certainly offering smaller but good lenses would be great - Canon won’t likely won’t, but allow Sigma et al fills these gaps. I get their need to satisfy their shareholders…

The article over at peta from Sigma CEO was interesting around lens development. Certainly it seems to be still, despite recent innovations, a lengthy process. Maybe they need to look to see if AI can shorten the process to allow them to release quicker.

And most definitely provide a roadmap, especially if they’re controlling which 3rd parties can release what lenses.

Still, I feel an equally large risk they face is around the software - something they’re not that invested in (not just Canon). You rightly highlight that mobile workflow is very good. It is, and we all use it. But the camera companies still seem to ignore it and still practise, iirc, features missing on different bodies. I doubt, but happy to be corrected, how many people would upgrade their body just to get a few new software features. Yet the manufacturers still seem to think it will encourage us to do so. Offer paid upgrades. If they feel better AF on a R5 mk II will compel me to upgrade from the current body, well it won’t. Better sensor, better digic, better cooling. Better comms. Sure, combined they all might. Of course others here may have a different perspective but I think the camera manufacturers should separate the hardware and the software. I’m fine to pay a reasonable fee to get better AF and some features from the R7 or R6 II

They should look at adding hardware and software to our cameras that make it easy to get photos to other people or sites. Aside from the AF, I don’t think they need to necessarily add computational to the camera unless they’re going to improve battery life considerably. Using your phone however is certainly an option, but only if they get higher speed connectivity. Either way, simply improving the usability and the features in software would keep people in the eco-system.

Yes it means we won’t buy bodies perhaps as often, but perhaps that is the new reality they need to face. Professionals upgrade if there’s a “business case”, enthusiasts (unless they have deep pockets) need something compelling. In between providing those compelling reasons, entice them with software which you can iterate annually and offer it as a subscription or upgrade.

Just my 5c

Exactly my sentiment. Im done purchasing "high end cameras" My R5 + R5c is good ennough for me. A stacked sensor R5 may entice me to rent and/or trade. But Im done with $3k cameras for a very long time.

 

[SnowMiku]

I agree that we have reached a point where lots of technology in general is good enough for the majority and we are now facing diminishing returns. My PC that I built with some parts around 10 years old is still good enough for me until something breaks. I also don't plan on upgrading my 90D, 6D and M5 while they are working.

It depends on where you go if you see DSLR/Mirrorless cameras, for example you will see quite a few if you go out to a birding group. It also doesn't help that lots of sporting/music events ban DSLR/Mirrorless cameras, if they didn't ban them I would be bringing a camera to every event I go to, I don't really understand why these events don't want decent photos/videos from hobbyists. On social media I see peoples videos from their smart phones from these events and all of them look almost the same. When I do go to an event that allows cameras sometimes people think I'm the official photographer.

I wonder if RF-S will get all of the good EF-M lenses such as the EF-M 32mm F/1.4? Or will Canon prefer that you buy an RP/R8 and the RF 50mm f/1.8 instead?

 

[cayenne]

Looks like nice stuff thanks for pointing out to me!

But personally I really HATE leather, in any form possible...camera straps, clothes belts, car seats, etc.
Years ago I bought a used car, a nice Alfa Romeo, which I'm still driving today; price, colour and conditions were perfect for me, but being the model with the most powerful engine available in the range, it had those leather seats I cannot withstand.
I purchased it because it was a great deal, but the day after I went on an Alfa Romeo forum, asking if someone was into trading au pair my leather seats with tissue seats (they would pay for the mech work, as I was giving them more expensive seats), and after a couple of weeks I found out a guy in my area willing to trade seats of my taste (there were different secondary colours to the seats, I wanted them red or full black...gray or blue were not of my liking), and we were both pretty happy.

Look around their site...they have NON-Leather alternatives for you.

HTH,
C

 

[EricN]

I agree that we have reached a point where lots of technology in general is good enough for the majority and we are now facing diminishing returns. My PC that I built with some parts around 10 years old is still good enough for me until something breaks. I also don't plan on upgrading my 90D, 6D and M5 while they are working.

It depends on where you go if you see DSLR/Mirrorless cameras, for example you will see quite a few if you go out to a birding group. It also doesn't help that lots of sporting/music events ban DSLR/Mirrorless cameras, if they didn't ban them I would be bringing a camera to every event I go to, I don't really understand why these events don't want decent photos/videos from hobbyists. On social media I see peoples videos from their smart phones from these events and all of them look almost the same. When I do go to an event that allows cameras sometimes people think I'm the official photographer.

I wonder if RF-S will get all of the good EF-M lenses such as the EF-M 32mm F/1.4? Or will Canon prefer that you buy an RP/R8 and the RF 50mm f/1.8 instead?

It seems to me that there would be a benefit to having photos and videos of better quality than phones shared on the internet. I think the can still almost never be as good as what's shot from the sidelines at a game, or on stage with audio recorded from the soundboard.

I'm wondering too. We'll see what happens with RF aps-c.

 

[koenkooi]

It seems to me that there would be a benefit to having photos and videos of better quality than phones shared on the internet. I think the can still almost never be as good as what's shot from the sidelines at a game, or on stage with audio recorded from the soundboard.

I'm wondering too. We'll see what happens with RF aps-c.

I keep hoping for an M6II or M200 sized RF body and RF-S versions of the EF-M 22mm, 11-22mm and 32mm.

 

[Walrus]

Look around their site...they have NON-Leather alternatives for you.

HTH,
C

Thanks again for now I'll do with the Blackrapid straps, they works fine for me; I took a look around the site, their stuff is super expensive for my pockets, and the shipping is much expensive, too ("There is one shipping rate available for 20126, Milano, Italy. Flat Rate International at $45.00 USD"). My two BR straps together cost practically the same of their shipping alone and in this very moment, even ordering a 10€ delivery pizza has to be considered with much care, there are not so many money around here.

 

[chasingrealness]

I am all about small and light. Smaller cameras with bigger software and better smartphone integration would really go a long way to making ILCs more necessary again.

Like we should be able to livestream from our phones using our ILC as a camera and our phone/AirPods as a microphone/monitor, for example.

Wireless connectivity for uploading photos to our phones for editing in Lightroom mobile should be much less onerous as well. It’s not the worst workflow but it could be much smoother.

And speaking of smartphones, if they already employ computational photography, why not allow owners to pair their phone and ILC together to co-analyze the environment and set multiple exposure zones within the same frame as we are shooting? Like why can’t we employ the computing power of our cameras and the software power of our phones to use an ILC camera sensor to accomplish images that give owners the best of both worlds?

Within the cameras themselves, I’d like to see a feature that tags key photos within a series of shots in which the subject is in focus to speed up selection in situations where I’m shooting photos at a high frame rate. If there was a “best of the day” feature that would allow exporting a whole album or highlight reel direct to social media, that would be huge for a lot of people.

When it comes to lenses, I love my fast primes and I am a sucker for that 1.2-2.8 aperture range. I would be willing to carry one such lens with me as I travel, but I’d want to have the option to zoom through the sensor to produce tack sharp images at different focal lengths that are between 20-60 megapixels. Perhaps the control ring could be used for that “sensor zoom” purpose?

At the end of the day, I just think that with the hardware technology available today, we could be getting so much more through software. I wouldn’t even mind a subscription SaaS.

Damn bro and here is Sony with the A7CR. Would love to see canon follow suit with smaller powerhouses.

 

[scyrene]

Think of the workflows. With a cellphone you can take a picture, and with a few swipes and taps you can post it to Insta with your favourite filter applied. With a dedicated camera, you take the picture, save it as raw, go home, upload the raw file to your desktop computer, demosaic and process with expensive software, and then post. The first workflow takes seconds; the second hours or days (or even weeks, when out on a longer trip).

Strictly speaking that isn't necessary nowadays. I do not have a computer any more and can post shots from my R6 in a couple of minutes if necessary - I transfer the jpeg (though raw is also possible) via Bluetooth to my phone, edit and then upload as usual. For more challenging/technical shots, I might process on the camera first for slightly better control over results but it's not much slower.

 

[koenkooi]

Strictly speaking that isn't necessary nowadays. I do not have a computer any more and can post shots from my R6 in a couple of minutes if necessary - I transfer the jpeg (though raw is also possible) via Bluetooth to my phone, edit and then upload as usual. For more challenging/technical shots, I might process on the camera first for slightly better control over results but it's not much slower.

With the M50 you pushed the 'wifi' button on the side of the camera and it would connect to a pre-configured network. Fire up camera connect or cascable on your phone and you'd have the photo on there pretty quickly.

The R8 makes it nearly impossible to connect to an existing network, so you have to connect your phone to the camera network (and killing your phones connectivity in the process), move over the photo while hoping your phone doesn't move off of the in-camera wifi more than once and then reconnect your phone to the regular wifi.