ReImagine: Canon EOS R5 and Canon EOS R6 live stream announced

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,164
925
Canon seemingly likes to start their new systems of with an initial weird phase and get serious after a while. At least that's the impression I get looking back at the M, M2 and M3 to how far the EF-M system has come with the M50 and M6 II recently.
It's as if they decide on their naming scheme after the first couple of models come out. Clearly they've decided to parallel their DSLR naming scheme here...but the R and RP were named before that was decided on.

I think there was a hurry (not a rush, but "do something good, but be expeditious please") to get something out; that's not a ding on the R and RP which are plenty capable. They didn't have time to develop something totally new, so they did the best with what they had on hand.

The EOS-M series was originally completely uncharted territory for them, and a change of marketing concept too; they're no longer "dumbing down" full frames for the masses, but starting out to make a line of crop sensor cameras, and I think ultimately we will see some very awesome products in that line. (The M6-II blows away the other cameras I've owned by a huge margin. I took it and a Lumix point-and shoot on a trip; two days in the same place. I brought the Lummox in with me the first day and was constantly struggling to remember how to use it. The second day with the M6-II going back and rehitting the best parts of the place was a positive joy.)
 

koenkooi

EOS R
Feb 25, 2015
1,171
963
Just stop. 9million dot evf is not even necessary and it will be a battery sucker
I wouldn't mind having a 3 megapixel EVF (I wish they would stop speaking in dots, but hey, it's a 3x bigger number), but it won't be a dealbreaker.
 

usern4cr

EOS RP
Sep 2, 2018
314
258
Kentucky, USA
I wouldn't mind having a 3 megapixel EVF (I wish they would stop speaking in dots, but hey, it's a 3x bigger number), but it won't be a dealbreaker.
Well, at least measuring the EVF in (single color) "dots" is (surprisingly) accurate. Have you ever wondered about why they call a sensor 20MPixels when there's only 20M (single color) "dots" being sensed? 20MDots would have been more accurate.

Remember 35mm format? At least it was 36mm on the longest side. So when somebody came up with the term 1" sensor, was the longest size 1"? Nope, just 0.52" - How do they come up with this stuff?

Now I wonder what those guys really have when they say it's 6" ? :ROFLMAO::LOL::ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

dichterDichter

I'm New Here
Jun 25, 2020
24
15
Remember 35mm format? At least it was 36mm on the longest side. So when somebody came up with the term 1" sensor, was the longest size 1"? Nope, just 0.52" - How do they come up with this stuff?

Now I wonder what those guys really have when they say it's 6" ? :ROFLMAO::LOL::ROFLMAO:
its intertesting where this comes from. no matter if this is correct, i have the feeling that like its the situation with the ff Sensor, if something is described in mm its the actual size. if its inch, im always checking.

off topic: the last time when i build something with pipes, its the same. historical use so they keep inch for different Pipe systems, meaning totally different things 1" for pipes is about 33mm instead of 25.4mm. inch can really just be something.
 

SteveC

R5
Sep 3, 2019
1,164
925
its intertesting where this comes from. no matter if this is correct, i have the feeling that like its the situation with the ff Sensor, if something is described in mm its the actual size. if its inch, im always checking.

off topic: the last time when i build something with pipes, its the same. historical use so they keep inch for different Pipe systems, meaning totally different things 1" for pipes is about 33mm instead of 25.4mm. inch can really just be something.
The inch-based sensor sizes apparently come from the diameter of the vacuum tube that sensors used to be in, in TV cameras. So that number is considerably bigger than the actual sensor size. what's worse is sometimes the number is actually the reciprocal of the size you'd get, by doing it this arcane way, which makes it two removes from anything real.
 

blackcoffee17

EOS RP
Sep 17, 2014
395
430
The inch-based sensor sizes apparently come from the diameter of the vacuum tube that sensors used to be in, in TV cameras. So that number is considerably bigger than the actual sensor size. what's worse is sometimes the number is actually the reciprocal of the size you'd get, by doing it this arcane way, which makes it two removes from anything real.
They should have ditched that system ages ago and just use Width x Height in mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dichterDichter

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,608
511
Davidson, NC
I can do better than that. As long as it's not around the time of the change forward or back, the time in Berlin is eight hours ahead of me. (We don't change at the same time as Europe, so it could be 7 or 9 hours around then.)
I was traveling in Italy in October, and then I took a cruise to Greek islands and such as well as ports back in Italy. We changed time zones back and forth several times between CEST and EEST. While we were at sea, summer time ended, so we were shifting between regular CST and EST. Fortunately, the nightly newsletter delivered to our cabin told us what time the ship would use the next day, normally the time used in the port we were heading to. I set my phone to manual date and time setting to deal with that. Just before we flew home, the US changed back to standard time. I think I just left my G5X II set to CEST the whole trip.
 

Aussie shooter

www.facebook.com/BrettGuyPhotography/
Dec 6, 2016
812
987
It's as if they decide on their naming scheme after the first couple of models come out. Clearly they've decided to parallel their DSLR naming scheme here...but the R and RP were named before that was decided on.

I think there was a hurry (not a rush, but "do something good, but be expeditious please") to get something out; that's not a ding on the R and RP which are plenty capable. They didn't have time to develop something totally new, so they did the best with what they had on hand.

The EOS-M series was originally completely uncharted territory for them, and a change of marketing concept too; they're no longer "dumbing down" full frames for the masses, but starting out to make a line of crop sensor cameras, and I think ultimately we will see some very awesome products in that line. (The M6-II blows away the other cameras I've owned by a huge margin. I took it and a Lumix point-and shoot on a trip; two days in the same place. I brought the Lummox in with me the first day and was constantly struggling to remember how to use it. The second day with the M6-II going back and rehitting the best parts of the place was a positive joy.)
I am not so sure about that. IF they had decided before any RF mount cameras were released that there would be no Aps-c RF bodies then they would have known that they will need a series of lower end 'entry level" bodies as well as the more capable bodies. In the EF lineup the 6d was and 'entry level FF' but in reality the cheaper Aps-c bodies were the 'entry level' DSLR bodies. And the reality is, to be able to provide a true entry level FF RF body then what will be needed is parts from older bodies that get stuck together to produce a cheap unit with minimal R&D costs They may stick with the RP moniker and just tack on the usual Mk2 Mk3 etc.