Three new stacked sensor cameras coming from Canon [CR2]

[cayenne]

<snip>

A caveat that may matter.... I have large hands... No issue palming a size 7 basketball sort of thing.

Well, you KNOW what they say about a man with BIG Hands and BIG Feet.....?




Yep....Big shoes and Big gloves....

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I would normally try to be polite, but when you see someone write something that is total BS, what can you really say?

So you really believe that Canon deliberatly didn't use stacked sensors in all those cameras becuase they knew that in a few years they would put stacked sensors in the mark II or mark II versions? Or could it possibly be that Canon did not want to sell the R for $4,000 or more, and the R5 for $5,000 or more or the R6 for $4000 or more...I think you get the idea. Also you seem to be forgetting that not all photographers care about rolling shutter 'cause they aren't shooting BIF or sports. And perhaps most obviously, you can use all those cameras (except the R) for BIF and sports, and experience both high FPS and no roilling shutter by using Elec. First Curtain or Mechanical shutter. Rolling Shutter is not an issue "we didn't know we had," it is a minor issue for a very small percentage of camera buyers, in all likelihood.

I sometime forget how rude, hostile and volatile some people are on this forum. Being polite is apart of what separates us from being animals. If you can't be civil...I suggest that you spend less time mocking on this forum and get a life.
The Rolling shutter issue may not be an issue to what ever field of photography you choose to indulge in. However, if the subject has wings that beat, a bat or racket that collides or a background that pans then it is a potential deal breaker depending on the speed and frequency of the movement. The consequential results (when they present) often result in an incurable and ruined photograph.
For your information, I happen to shoot wildlife, birds, macro and a lot of portraits, events and the odd wedding. I have been a professional photographer for well over 15 years and my first Canon SLR was an AE-1 Program. I have lenses that pre-date digital, in fact I have a 50mm f1.8 here on my desk that was apart of the EOS 650 kit when I bought that camera new. I have never owned a Sony or Nikon camera.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I don't know where you got that requirement from, but technically, 24 mm / 15 ms is 1.6 m/s.

Yes apologies, I have dyslexia sometimes I don't see my gramma or where my slashes are. I shoot better than I write.
I am new to mirrorless and I've found that even 15ms cam be a problem. I think that less than 3ms would be optimum, but the ideal would be a global shutter.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

???
How is a 45.7MP sensor the same as an (a1) 50.1MP sensor? They may be part of the same family/sensor generation, but they are definitely not the same sensor.

Here is the resolution of the Z8 sensor:
Actual: 52.37 Megapixel
Effective: 45.7 Megapixel (8256 x 5504)

 

[Kit.]

It's quite clear that Canon are drip feeding us technology intended to slowly fix issues we didn't know we had until we bought their latest camera. Canon were probably aware of the rolling shutter requirement to be in the 1-3 m/s zone...but still made the R, R5, R6, R6m2 and R8 knowing full well that in a few years...

I am new to mirrorless and I've found that even 15ms cam be a problem. I think that less than 3ms would be optimum, but the ideal would be a global shutter.

Is it OK that I don't mind shooting with my R5 for a couple of years already without global shutter (and without incurring production costs of such a contraption for a fullframe sensor) or shall I feel ashamed for being so undemanding?

 

[neuroanatomist]

I am new to mirrorless and I've found that even 15ms cam be a problem. I think that less than 3ms would be optimum, but the ideal would be a global shutter.

Why 3 ms? Did you have a rolling shutter problem on your DSLRs? Those are ~4 ms.

As for 15 ms being a problem, use mechanical shutter or EFCS. With mechanical shutter, you’re getting the same ~4 ms ‘readout’ as stacked sensors and DSLRs, and with the R5 you get that at 12 fps, compared to the 7 fps of the 5DIV.

In other words, the R5 offers far more capabilities than the 5DIV in that area (and others) – you get nearly double the frame rate with the same readout speed, or you can select nearly triple the frame rate and/or completely silent shooting with a slower readout.

Why do people like to invent things to complain about?

 

[chasingrealness]

Probably an unpopular opinion but I would love to see one of these stacked sensors put into a lightweight (but weather-sealed) RP-sized body. It took some getting used to, but having a capable full-frame camera that is so light and small has really been amazing as a traveling photographer. Personally, I don’t think that body gets enough credit. Even my R7 feels chunky to me now that I have shot on RP since it was first launched in 2019.

 

[clearwaterphotog]

Probably an unpopular opinion but I would love to see one of these stacked sensors put into a lightweight (but weather-sealed) RP-sized body. It took some getting used to, but having a capable full-frame camera that is so light and small has really been amazing as a traveling photographer. Personally, I don’t think that body gets enough credit. Even my R7 feels chunky to me now that I have shot on RP since it was first launched in 2019.

Compact is where it's at. One of the selling points of mirrorless cameras is the ability to make them smaller. I would also like to see some min-maxing of this attribute, obviously at the expense of ergos. The A7c is a fantastic size, but the popular sentiment seems to be that it's pretty uncomfortable to hold for longer periods of time, especially for anyone with medium size hands and up.

 

[neuroanatomist]

Compact is where it's at. One of the selling points of mirrorless cameras is the ability to make them smaller. I would also like to see some min-maxing of this attribute, obviously at the expense of ergos. The A7c is a fantastic size, but the popular sentiment seems to be that it's pretty uncomfortable to hold for longer periods of time, especially for anyone with medium size hands and up.

Outside of pancake lenses and small primes with good (but not excellent) IQ and not-very-fast apertures, FF lenses are big and heavy meaning a compact body will not be comfortable to hold for long periods. Period.

Sometimes the tradeoff is worth it – the R8 is a great camera for travel, but at least personally when I travel the camera is mostly in a shoulder bag, and sometimes when it comes out it’s on a tripod. The effects of the poor ergonomics are mitigated.

If you want a small body and small lenses to go with it meaning handholdable comfort, look to APS-C or m4/3.

 

[David - Sydney]

Outside of pancake lenses and small primes with good (but not excellent) IQ and not-very-fast apertures, FF lenses are big and heavy meaning a compact body will not be comfortable to hold for long periods. Period.

Sometimes the tradeoff is worth it – the R8 is a great camera for travel, but at least personally when I travel the camera is mostly in a shoulder bag, and sometimes when it comes out it’s on a tripod. The effects of the poor ergonomics are mitigated.

If you want a small body and small lenses to go with it meaning handholdable comfort, look to APS-C or m4/3.

"One of the selling points of mirrorless cameras is the ability to make them smaller" is true to an extent. No mirrorbox etc is a weight saving. The R5 vs 5Div and R3 vs 1 series bodies are smaller. Sony is (too) small IMHO but have been able to manage heat well with great battery life - at least by CIPA standards.
Relatively speaking, mirrorless has enabled some zooms to be collapsible meaning they are shorter than the DLSR equivalents.
Using new materials in more recent lenses have mean lighter versions as well.
Leica can be seen as an example of a small FF ecosystem and rangefinders are by definition mirrorless. I am not aware of poor optical performance in their lenses in general

 

[David - Sydney]

But as mentioned, I am just speculating. I have no info on what Canon will do. I would be thrilled if they do indeed release 3 new stacked sensors, and even more thrilled if one ends up in the next R5... but, economically speaking, that is a LOT of new sensors in a time when manufacturers need to rationalize part usage to reduce costs and increase profit. Again, just IMHO.

We are all just speculating and convincing ourselves that we are reasonably guessing. The volume/cost of a R1 sensor is not going to stop Canon making one. Canon has been able to demonstrate good profitability despite some vocal (but small in number) complaints about no 3rd party AF lenses for R mount.

Yes, they could they make more money but I think that they are managing a good balance of technological bodies and price points with 9 R mount bodies (R1 still to come) and 37 RF lenses/TCs + EF/EF-S 1st and 3rd party options. Still a couple of gaps of course but some good profit makers are still supply chain challenged.
Clearly, Canon isn't doing a lot of part re-usage so 3 stacked sensors wouldn't be excessive IMHO.

 

[AccipiterQ]

Mirror slap on the R7? I can put my hand on my heart and swear that my R7 has never had any mirror slap whatsoever.

Really?? Straight out of the box, I thought mine sounded cheap, like a 200 dollar camera or something...now I'm wondering if I got a bum copy.

 

[AccipiterQ]

I knew it ! Only Sony has real mirrorless cameras. The Canons are all fakes! Time to jump ship!

I meant mechanical shutter lol buuuut........CANON IS DOOMED

 

[David - Sydney]

I have found an updated R5 specification on Canon USA support site which confirms the 13 bit AD conversion from TDP (link), but nothing about other shooting modes.

I find it very strange that the 900+ page advanced user guide doesn't mention it anywhere as far as I can see but the abbreviated spec sheet has one mention about one use case.... and yet it seemed to be "common" knowledge about the bit depth changes

 

[neuroanatomist]

I find it very strange that the 900+ page advanced user guide doesn't mention it anywhere as far as I can see but the abbreviated spec sheet has one mention about one use case.... and yet it seemed to be "common" knowledge about the bit depth changes

It's in the EOS R5 specifications listed on many Canon sites, e.g. Canon Europe:



It's mentioned on TDP and DPR, presumably they can also read specification on a Canon website.

 

[EOS 4 Life]

Sony is (too) small IMHO but have been able to manage heat well

Not really.
They added the high heat tolerance that Canon has copied in the R3 and R5 but they are still plagued with overheating.
There is a reason that the FX30 and FX3 have built-in cooling same as the R5 C.
For whatever reason people do not talk about it as much.

 

[Del Paso]

Not really.
They added the high heat tolerance that Canon has copied in the R3 and R5 but they are still plagued with overheating.
There is a reason that the FX30 and FX3 have built-in cooling same as the R5 C.
For whatever reason people do not talk about it as much.

Censorship?

 

[roby17269]

We are all just speculating and convincing ourselves that we are reasonably guessing. The volume/cost of a R1 sensor is not going to stop Canon making one. Canon has been able to demonstrate good profitability despite some vocal (but small in number) complaints about no 3rd party AF lenses for R mount.

Yes we're all speculating here and nothing we write here or on other fora will change Canon's decisions. That's a given.

Yes, they could they make more money but I think that they are managing a good balance of technological bodies and price points with 9 R mount bodies (R1 still to come) and 37 RF lenses/TCs + EF/EF-S 1st and 3rd party options. Still a couple of gaps of course but some good profit makers are still supply chain challenged.

IMHO there are quite a bit more than a couple of gaps in Canon's RF lens lineup. Wide primes, TS lenses, long macro... and I am sure others can add to the list.

Clearly, Canon isn't doing a lot of part re-usage so 3 stacked sensors wouldn't be excessive IMHO.

Canon is doing some re-use. We have 9 current RF cameras, plus 3 retired / non-current (?) ones (R, RP, R6). For 4 of those 12 cameras Canon has introduced 3 new sensors (R5, R3, R6 II / R8), the rest has been re-usage of existing sensors. I agree with you that flagship cameras are a special case and the R1 may indeed warrant a custom sensor.
So I still think 3 new sensors is a lot. I guess depending on the timeframe of introductions...

But yes, I am speculating

 

[Walrus]

We have 9 current RF cameras, plus 3 retired / non-current (?) ones (R, RP, R6).

9 current RF cameras? Am I missing one? R3, R5, R6II, R8, R7, R10, R50, R100, they're 8 I think, plus the 3 "non current" you mentioned.

 

[OskarB]

9 current RF cameras? Am I missing one? R3, R5, R6II, R8, R7, R10, R50, R100, they're 8 I think, plus the 3 "non current" you mentioned.

R5C