What’s next from Canon in 2020?

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Mirrored 5DV with flip screen and better sensor would be very nice. Would I buy it when I see Canon is putting all efforts into the R line? I don't know. If they announce it right now, before the R5 release, I'd be confused. But if they ever announce it, it'll be long after the R5 release. And I'll have bought either R5 or R5s by then.
That is, the market for 5DV shrinks significantly after the R5 release.

Shrinks, yes.

Disappears, hardly.

Not every 5D Mark IV buyer is going to immediately jump to the R5. Perhaps not even half or one-quarter of them will.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Will you cite some examples, preferably with comparison images, so that I and surely others can see if we agree? Is the OOF rendering of the RF 85/1.2 L demonstrably worse than that of the EF 85/1.2 L II? Surely, we have all already seen how the two compare in sharpness.

I think so. The RF 85mm f/1.2 L is a bit more balanced than the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, but the OOF areas are still nowhere as smooth to my eye as the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II. But all of the YouTubers and other "influencers" are so obsessed on flat field performance that they don't care what the background looks like.
 
Last edited:

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
727
867
I think so. The RF 85mm f/1.2 L is a bit more balanced than the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, but the OOF areas are still nowhere as smooth to my eye as the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II. But all of the YouTubers and other "influencers" are so obsessed on flat field performance that they don't care what the background looks like.

I guess the other point then is that it's hard to compare or make claims about things that people aren't often testing.
 
Last edited:

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
727
867
I think so. The RF 85mm f/1.2 L is a bit more balanced than the EF 85mm f/1.4 L IS, but the OOF areas are still nowhere as smooth to my eye as the EF 85mm f/1.2 L II. But all of the YouTubers and other "influencers" are so obsessed on flat field performance that they don't care what the background looks like.

I remember a thread more than a year ago where some forumers were going on and on about the 35/1.4 L II and how the way the lens renders transitions from in-focus to OOF backgrounds was "bad" somehow, and I'm still mystified whenever I think about that. That's not to say that bokeh doesn't matter -- it does -- but personally, I think that the differences between good and bad bokeh are often extremely slight in premium glass. My Sigma ART 35/1.4, for instance, has wretched bokeh wide open especially on fine-textured subjects like grass, but that's an $800 lens, not an L lens starting at twice that much.

YuengLinger posted last year some comparison photos of the EF 85/1.2 L II vs. the EF 85/1.4 L IS vs. the RF 85/1.2 L and they all looked pretty damn nice, with the RF lens looking the smoothest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CanonFanBoy

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
I guess the other point then is that it's hard to compare or make claims about things that people aren't often testing.

As Roger Cicala (who perhaps has unwittingly contributed most to this obsession with flat test chart performance) has often said, everyone wants to be able to "measurebate" when looking at two lenses and only compare single number scores. One is a "winner" with a score of 78, while the other is a "loser" with a score of only 76. And although Roger has also written plenty of articles that point to how to select a lens for a specific task based on that lens' characteristics well beyond acutance at the edge of the field when the lens is focused for best performance at the center of the field, no one listens to that because it forces them to think for themselves instead of letting some number at DxOMark (for "lens megapixels", whatever the heck that is) do their thinking for them.
 
Last edited:

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Yep. They'll release 5DV if they have resources and think it'll be profitable. The R5 is better than a prospective 5DV in all regards, except some (small) percentage of customers who prefer OVF specifically. Before the R5 announcement, the 5DV rumour seemed to be plausible, currently it's not.
I'm not saying nobody needs 5DV. I'm saying(guessing) the market for it will be too small.

I'm guessing you are grossly underestimating the percentage of current 5-Series users who prefer OVFs.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
We were just theorising 'what if'. Hopefully it won't be worse. Moreover if we extrapolate the 1DXIII sensor performance, it should be better than 5DIV's.
But it's Canon. Full frame 6DII sensor isn't better than the very old 6D.

It's not the unmitigated disaster everyone a LOT of folks made it out to be, either. There's no practical real world difference between the two.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
I understand the want of a 5DV. What I believe is that with the announcement of the end of development of new EF lenses, they are sending a very clear signal that they are done with DSLRs (and the last Rebel was late). One way to look at it is this; Why would Canon not get consumers in to RF mount bodies sooner, especially when they can still use their EF lenses? Consumers are not going to stampede away from Canon in protest, when their glass is still usable. I guess it boils down to this question; Will you wait until next year for an unannounced, and uvrumored 5DV, when you can buy an R5 six months sooner?

The 5D Mark V is far from unrumored. A recent post here placed it at [CR2].
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
727
867
As Roger Cicala (who perhaps has unwittingly contributed most to this obsession with flat test chart performance) has often said, everyone wants to be able to "measurebate" when looking at two lenses and only compare single number scores. One is a "winner" with a score of 78, while the other is a "loser" with a score of only 76. And although Roger has also written plenty of articles that point to how to select a lens for a specific task based on that lens' characteristics well beyond acutance at the edge of the field when the lens is focused for best performance at the center of the field, no one listens to that because it forces them to think for themselves instead of letting some number at DxOMark (for "lens megapixels", whatever the heck that is) do their thinking for them.

Absolutely true. As far as test charts go, I find Christopher Frost's YouTube reviews the most enjoyable, and for my own evaluation of OOF characteristics and sharpness, I browse flickr and get a feeling for how lenses render. Scientific, no, but it does help me personally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Clark

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
727
867
It's not the unmitigated disaster everyone a LOT of folks made it out to be, either. There's no practical real world difference between the two.

My favorite thing about all the DR kerfuffle is that the dynamic range of the 6D II, 5D IV, and 1DX III are all functionally the same by ISO 1600. And when do I truly care about dynamic range performance? Well, since I mainly photograph people (indoors and out, sometimes in bad light), it's when I'm at or above ISO 1600, of course. So I really can't care.
DR vs ISO.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rule556

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Just think of the R6 as the FF variant with similar resolution, likely better high ISO, similar mechanical frame rate, but EVF instead of OVF.

And far less pixel density (per dollar or per frame rate, take your pick), which is the entire point of the 7D Mark II for many users.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LRPP

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
I keep parsing this over and over. I'm hung up on the "ultra" part of ultra-wide.

I've googled a bit and it seems to me that most photographers talk about wide-angle they are taking about lenses that are 24mm and up a bit.

But ULTRA wide to me would be below 24mm.

14mm and the like?

11mm?

Does anyone consider 24mm ULTRA wide?

Inquiring minds want to know.

20mm is generally considered Ultrawide on FF.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
My favorite thing about all the DR kerfuffle is that the dynamic range of the 6D II, 5D IV, and 1DX III are all functionally the same by ISO 1600. And when do I truly care about dynamic range performance? Well, since I mainly photograph people (indoors and out, sometimes in bad light), it's when I'm at or above ISO 1600, of course. So I really can't care. View attachment 188833

My comment was regarding the 6D vs the 6D Mark II.
 

navastronia

EOS RP + 5D Classic
Aug 31, 2018
727
867
My comment was regarding the 6D vs the 6D Mark II.

Yeah, and in expanding on that, I'm saying that by ISO 1600, it's irrelevant to compare dynamic range performance on most cameras, like the ones I described --- which includes the 6D mk. II, which gets dumped on all the time. At common usable ISOs, it keeps pace with the just-released 1DX mk. III.

Additionally, there is so little daylight between the 6D and 6D mk. II sensors, it makes me laugh how often people bring it up, as if they could tell, if presented with 2 photos, which one was taken on which body, even at low ISOs where there is *some* measurable difference.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
According to Mr. Nikon's (Thom Hogan) site, his dealer contacts indicate the D780 hit their shelves with a thud. No lineups or shortages. Are Nikon users buying Z models instead? Or just holding onto existing DSLRs? Time will tell.

The difference is that with Nikon the Z-series is the first mount in Nikon's history that finally sheds all of the disadvantages of hanging on to mechanical, rather than all-electronic, communication between camera and lens. Canon crossed that bridge in 1987, so it is a bit different in Canonland.
 

Michael Clark

Now we see through a glass, darkly...
Apr 5, 2016
3,810
2,177
Im not upset Im simply pointing out that 8K is impractical in most situations to view.

Impractical to view is not the same thing as impractical for capture before post processing. With 8K, cropping, panning/scanning, etc. are all on the table before outputting to 4K, 2K, or even FHD.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Sharlin