The EOS 80D Replacement to be a Big Leap Forward [CR2]

[Bennymiata]

I hope Canon starts using USB C connectors on their cameras.
Then you'll be able to charge it via this plug and output would be much faster and it will be easier to find leads to connect the camera to other devices.

 

[bwud]

I hope Canon starts using USB C connectors on their cameras.
Then you'll be able to charge it via this plug and output would be much faster and it will be easier to find leads to connect the camera to other devices.

Agreed. I use a 3.6amp wall socket to charge my A7Riii (two batteries) over USB-C. It’s quite quick, faster than the wall adapter in fact, and since the batteries don’t come out there’s no chance I’ll leave them behind.

 

[privatebydesign]

...Both are great cameras, but they are not what the GH5 is in terms of video quality that video shooters want. Yes, the GH5 is more expensive, but video guys are willing to pay for the additional features.

The GH5 is twice the price! In a price sensitive market any comparison between a $1,000 anything and it's $2,000 competition is ludicrous.

 

[unfocused]

But see how I defined compelling: 800mm with useful autofocus and without a 15,000 dollar expense. That’s conceivable with a high quality crop lens. It’s extremely unlikely with a high quality full frame lens.

for long tele lenses it makes no difference whether it is for APS-C or FF sensor (image circle). Lens will physically be same size - and cost the same.

I’m not concerned with size. I’m concerned with function. My 100-400 with 2X is essentially useless for moving subjects. Lenses covering smaller formats are typically less expensive.

No. As fullstop said. For long lenses there is no cost savings between full frame and crop.

 

[unfocused]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe most third party crop sensor lenses can be mounted on canon full frame bodies - although the lens will vignette at the edges, the image circle should cover the aps-c dimensions on the full frame sensor.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe most third party crop sensor lenses can be mounted on canon full frame bodies - although the lens will vignette at the edges, the image circle should cover the aps-c dimensions on the full frame sensor.

most have no issues, but, in some cases, the back of the lens hits the camera mirror at some focal lengths, so you have to research to be sure.

 

[mb66energy]

The Canon release circus stops me from buying ... not the worst thing because I spend more time to take photos and not time to learn new equipment!

I really enjoy to use their "underdog" of their SLR line, the SL2/200D and
longing for a 200Dx with
- a little bit more direct control (ring around mount?)
- some orientation sensor display to get horizons correct
- AFMA
- glare free display / anti smudge surface
- wireless flash compatibility (optical comm sufficient)
- maybe some environmental sealing

The very small and light 200D (in comparison to xxD line) with these refinements @800 EUR/$ would outspec/outperform any xxD camera for ME!

Add a
- f/1.4 EF 50mm IS USM with small footprint and very good IQ (instead of large footprint and excellent IQ at f/1.4)
- some EF-S 10mm f/4.0ish with small footprint
- f/2.0 EF 50 IS USM Macro, compact
I would be fine.

About FF lenses and APS-C: I really like the 70-200 f/4 IS USM on APS-C because it gives me good reach and flexibility at a constant f/4 max aperture. On 5D it worked but I missed the range from 200-320mm on APS-C in terms of FF equivalent FL.
And I revived the EF-S 10-22 which isn't the sharpest lens but delivers very good contrast producing clear images with great color and which shows only little flare/ghosting - essential for this focal length range.

 

[fullstop]

@bwud: now i understand what you are after.
i can find only one 400mm or more tele lens for APS-C image circle ("crop sensor") for Canon EF mount (and Nikon, not Sony): Tamron 18-400/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD. for an extreme superzoom it gets rather positive reviews.
https://dpreview.com/samples/9152094990/gallery-impressions-tamron-18-400-f3-5-6-3
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-18-400mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-hld-review-31259
at the long end performance does drop quite a bit, as is to be expected.

it seems to be usable on canon Ff cameras as well (ofc with limitations).
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4203828

the lens is very compact at D 79 x L 124mm, 72 filter thread and lightweight at 705 g. current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions. otoh, when these are used "in crop mode" or if image is cropped to APS-C size in post processing - angle of view on the long end would be equivalent to 960 mm vs. 640 for the tamron 18-400.

 

[-1]

the 90 D will be an 80D with slightly better bells and whistles. nothing more

For stills folks, I think you're right.

But some video folks would give their left nut for DPAF + 4K + tilty-flippy in a rig ~ $1200, even if it's crop. I think the 90D will be very attractive to video folks, even if lacks all the fine-print specifics some folks really want.

People on stills orientated forums often lose track of video sensor sizes. An APS crop is effectively the same size as Super 35, the $30,000 body only C700 is a Super 35 sized sensor.

The new Canon C700 FF is Full Frame 35mm US$ 33,000

Yes, and the C700 is Super 35 and $28,000, further, many of the Cine lenses have a Super 35 31.5mm diameter image circle, yep the $70,000 50-1000mm lens won't even cover a 35mm "FF" sensor.

I made a quickie search and a dud from London stood up and said "Cheerio!"... HTH:

http://www.danielhaggett.com/blog/136-lens-comparison-and-crop-factors

 

[unfocused]

...current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions...

A closer comparison would be to the Sigma 100-400 6.3 full frame lens. There is currently just a $50 difference between the two and most reviews rank the 100-400 as a sharper and better built lens, so your previous point that there is no savings at longer focal lengths between crop and full-frame still stands.

 

[fullstop]

...current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions...

A closer comparison would be to the Sigma 100-400 6.3 full frame lens. There is currently just a $50 difference between the two and most reviews rank the 100-400 as a sharper and better built lens, so your previous point that there is no savings at longer focal lengths between crop and full-frame still stands.

thanks, yes. I was surprised by that Tammy 18-400, had not noticed its launch. Not in the market for it ...

still intersting that Tamron manages 400mm f/6.3 in such a compact lens [relatively] - although in reality it is probably closer to f/7.9 at the long end. Unfortunately all manufacturers lie re. aperture an focal lengths on their lenses. ;-)

 

[bwud]

...current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions...

A closer comparison would be to the Sigma 100-400 6.3 full frame lens. There is currently just a $50 difference between the two and most reviews rank the 100-400 as a sharper and better built lens, so your previous point that there is no savings at longer focal lengths between crop and full-frame still stands.

Apples to apples comparisons are pretty hard to find.

I’ll take your word that there isn’t cost savings to be had with long lenses covering a smaller format, but ask: why do not the cost savings from short lenses translate? Is it simply a competition issue (ie there aren’t many long crop lenses)?

 

[fullstop]

I’ll take your word that there isn’t cost savings to be had with long lenses covering a smaller format, but ask: why do not the cost savings from short lenses translate? Is it simply a competition issue (ie there aren’t many long crop lenses)?

no, it is a physical/optical "issue".

To save me the wording and typing, I 'll just quote another forum users' answer: https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/56674

This is a combination of two factors:
For any lens, the front element needs to be at least (focal length)/(aperture) in size - e.g. for a 400mm f/2.8, the front element needs to be 142mm in diameter. That number is independent of sensor size.
For telephoto lenses, it's the big front element which makes up the majority of the weight and the cost (making a big element is much harder than making a small one).
The only advantage to making an APS-C telephoto lens would be that some of the elements in the body could be a bit smaller (as they need to project a smaller image circle), but that's not going to significantly affect either the weight, the size or the cost of the lens as it's the front element which constrains all that. Now, Canon, Nikon and everyone else almost certainly could design an APS-C telephoto lens - but given the advantages would be marginal over the full-frame lens, they just make the one lens so they don't need to duplicate the R&D effort.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

To translate Canonspeak: "Future proof" = "Compete with Sony"

Since when does Canon have worry about "competing" with a company it has been beating into the ground for sales since Day One?

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Well they better be true and proper leap forward this time round!

Thanks Sony.

For being no threat whatsoever.

(FTFY)

 

[Keith_Reeder]

If only Canon had been aware of this wild notion, "future proofing", when they decided on the 6D2...

Maybe it's more interested in just selling cameras - which the 6D Mk II seems to do pretty well...

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Where does that leave the venerable 7D Mark II? Looking very sorry indeed

So you think that an excellent camera stops being an excellent camera once a new camera comes out?

Nope. It will leave the 7D Mk II as a damn' good camera, that just happens to be a few years old now.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Let's not forget, though, that the EOS 10D followed the EOS D30 and EOS D60 (which I owned). Changing numbering schemes is not a new thing with Canon...

Yeah, but that was specifically to reflect the move from film to digital - it wasn't arbitrary.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I hope so. If true, they’ve finally taken to heart what I’ve been saying on this forum for years- disrupt yourselves before the competition does it for you. (One could say they have been a little late to this party.)

One could also way "what competition?" The fact that you've been saying this "for years" and it hasn't happened rather supports the idea that the "competition" isn't, in Canon's eyes.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Same. The 6DII was such a poor release it made me look at other brands. Canon can't continue with that approach.

Betcha.

And I bet you that they still sell heaps more cameras than the rest, too...