What’s next from Canon?

[Michael Clark]

Sorry, I was not clear about f/2 planar, I meant this one (EDIT: english version of lens description for convenience :

ZEISS Consumer Products

ZEISS Consumer Products combines the company's business with camera and cine lenses, binoculars, spotting scopes and hunting optics.

www.zeiss.com

which is a evolutionary developed Planar type lens and which is macro - the medium format f/2 110mm lens is no macro with 1:5 max. reproduction ratio.
And TDP comparison shows that the EF 100 L macro is a tad better in the center, but the ZEISS visibly better in the edges while comparing f/2.8 with f/2.0 on the same camera:

Zeiss Milvus 100mm f/2M Lens Image Quality

View the image quality delivered by the Zeiss 100mm f/2M Milvus Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.

www.the-digital-picture.com

Again, how much does it cost? (Hint: about 6-8X what a new EF 100mm f/2 does).

 

[Michael Clark]

Raw files do code color information because the positions of the pixels are coded in the raw files and connected to r, g and b filter"lets". Shurely you need the information about which pixel/ADC value is filtered by which color (red, green blue) to reconstruct color information and therefore you need some piece of software. So the Bayer pattern is some approach to have alle three color filters at the same time but not at the same pixels to make "one shot color photography" possible.

That these filters have a broader transmission spectrum is critical to produce an image of a yellow Natrium emission line which has to excite the red and green filtered photosites. But this has IMO nothing to do with Bayer patterns or X-Trans patterns and applies to Foveon sensors too.

There are still no direct relationships between the "red", "green", and "blue" filters in a bayer mask (or X-trans mask, or even a Foveon sensor) and the light emitted by "Red", "Green", and "Blue" subpixels in our RGB color systems. They're simply not the same colors, just as they are not the same colors as those used by our CMYK printing systems.

Yes, you need to know which photosites (a "pixel", properly, only exists in a color image that has values for all the colors used by a particular color reproduction system) are filtered by which colors. But the information gathered by each one is no different than the information gathered by a single grain in the emulsion of B&W film: How much light fell on it within the entire range of the electromagnetic spectrum to which it is chemically sensitive.

 

[Michael Clark]

If you can figure out the CPS point system, you are a true genius!

The R is amazing as a portrait body, and a wonderful complement to a pro body when shooting events. I don't think the EVF performance of the R would put it at the top of the list of most pros as their primary body for sports, dance, or any event that involves more than slow, predictable motion. Two card slots would offer peace of mind; better weather sealing would too; and a higher burst rate is, in 2020, a must. IBIS would be great, but as few pro bodies have it yet, I wouldn't include that in the expected features of a body that paid photographers rely upon to keep customers happy while consistently performing at near the top of what the industry offers.

But, in fact, a pro could take a photo with a smartphone. So, smartphones are pro cameras, if that is your standard.

Most of what the spec sheet warriors clammer about are things that experienced pros aren't too worried about. They're things that can help less experienced photographers avoid making mistakes they otherwise might make. One only needs a "WYSIWYG" EVF, for instance, if one doesn't understand how to interpret what a light meter (either internal or external) is telling you.

 

[Michael Clark]

I rarely spent more than five minute in there before I had kids. Now the "library" is a retreat. Turn on the exhaust fan, and it's like a white-noise sanctuary for as long as I can get away with it.

Wait until your kids have kids, or even when your kids' kids have kids. Then you'll be at a point in your life when you realize you've wasted more time in the past than you've probably got left to do things worth doing in the future. Why spend 7 minutes waiting for someone to communicate the same content in a video that you could have read in a couple of minutes if they weren't too lazy to put it in text?

 

[Michael Clark]

Canon still supports it, or at least did it this August.

Apparently, based on the CPS Repair list, Canon also supports lenses they've never even offered for sale.

 

[mb66energy]

There are still no direct relationships between the "red", "green", and "blue" filters in a bayer mask (or X-trans mask, or even a Foveon sensor) and the light emitted by "Red", "Green", and "Blue" subpixels in our RGB color systems. They're simply not the same colors, just as they are not the same colors as those used by our CMYK printing systems.

Yes, you need to know which photosites (a "pixel", properly, only exists in a color image that has values for all the colors used by a particular color reproduction system) are filtered by which colors. But the information gathered by each one is no different than the information gathered by a single grain in the emulsion of B&W film: How much light fell on it within the entire range of the electromagnetic spectrum to which it is chemically sensitive.

It took a little bit but now I understand your point:
Yes, that is true: You need the wider filter spectra for the sensor because you cannot detect yellow with monochromatic R, G and B filters on the sensor but you can produce the illusion of yellow with (nearly) monochromatic LEDs using a red and green LED.
The photosites themselves only see photons in a broad "color" (=wavelength) range.
So I fully agree!

 

[mb66energy]

Again, how much does it cost? (Hint: about 6-8X what a new EF 100mm f/2 does).

The EF- 2.0 100 is around 500 EUR, the Milvus 2.0 100 is around 1550 EUR.
Factoring in IS and AF + maybe a non-extending design I would expect ~2000 EUR for EF and ~2500 EUR for RF so the lower value of your estimate is close to my expectations.
But a hypothetical RF/EF 2.0 100 L IS Macro combines 2.0 100 non-macro AND 2.8 100 IS macro capabilties so it would replace a 1500 EUR dual lens set. In that case it isn't that much more money, substantially less size, a little bit weight reduction (compared to sum of the masses of both existing lenses) and last but not least: No hassle with changing lenses or decisions which lens to bring with you!

Finally it is a matter of interest in such a lens. While I really like that focal length as "standard" maybe the large majority has wide angles in mind when it comes to a "standard" lens so I am not the customer that counts

 

[Memdroid]

I agree what YuengLinger said that the R is a compliment to the DSLR. But Regarding the R if it is pro body or not, it can holds its own for sure. Other than the smaller body and slight change in ergonomics and shits and giggles features, it is EXACTLY like the 5dIV in liveview mode, which is a pro body as well. People are ignoring this and I believe some folks are misunderstanding "PRO" with "feature rich"...

Sure I would welcome a better body with loads of features. But downplaying the R because it does not have some is really childish to me.
So what is the deal exactly? From my personal experience:
IBIS? I don't really need it, my shots are not suffering from it, even down to 1/15 of a second on static objects, so I am not missing out on anything that I am aware of.
Dual card slots? As a photographer and countless gigs and personal use, I have never ever had a card failure and never shot redundant with any camera. Ever.
Build Quality? Mine drowned in pissing champagne and it is still alive and kicking with no issues. It can take some abuse and it is not so fragile as people (non-users) make it out to be.
FPS? More is always welcome, but as a photographer I learned to pick and time my shots early but it is no deal breaker either, other than the shutter lag, which could have been more responsive.
More MP? Absolutely! But since when is 30MP not enough?
AF? this is on point and very very good. It only sucks on back lit low light situations where it cannot lock on or goes rogue.
Better EVF? I would welcome that to behave more like a OVF but again, it is not holding me back, even at fast paced events.
Joystick? I hated this absence but the touch and drag works far better for me, combined with the improved eye AF and resetting the AF point to the center after each shot, I don't even worry about it anymore. In fact I feel slightly hindered and slowed down when I shoot back with my 1DX and 5D bodies with the joystick! Especially while framing. Crazy right?

 

[Michael Clark]

The EF- 2.0 100 is around 500 EUR, the Milvus 2.0 100 is around 1550 EUR.
Factoring in IS and AF + maybe a non-extending design I would expect ~2000 EUR for EF and ~2500 EUR for RF so the lower value of your estimate is close to my expectations.
But a hypothetical RF/EF 2.0 100 L IS Macro combines 2.0 100 non-macro AND 2.8 100 IS macro capabilties so it would replace a 1500 EUR dual lens set. In that case it isn't that much more money, substantially less size, a little bit weight reduction (compared to sum of the masses of both existing lenses) and last but not least: No hassle with changing lenses or decisions which lens to bring with you!

Finally it is a matter of interest in such a lens. While I really like that focal length as "standard" maybe the large majority has wide angles in mind when it comes to a "standard" lens so I am not the customer that counts

In the U.S. a new EF 100mm f/2 can be found from authorized Canon dealers for around $500 USD and refurbed direct from Canon for about $400. Gray market dealers advertise it for as low as $330. I was under the mistaken impression that the 100/2 was currently discounted similarly to the 85/1.8, which usually retails for $430 in the US and is on a Canon promotion right now at $269.

The Milvus is $1,800+ here.

 

[Kit.]

But Regarding the R if it is pro body or not, it can holds its own for sure. Other than the smaller body and slight change in ergonomics and shits and giggles features, it is EXACTLY like the 5dIV in liveview mode, which is a pro body as well.

I don't think 5D4 would be called a "pro body" if it were only usable in liveview mode.

5D4 viewfinder is vastly superior to R viewfinder for people who actually know how to focus and how to expose, in almost every shooting condition (the only exception I can think of now is extreme darkness).

Having the same top button layout on 5D and 1D series doesn't hurt either.

 

[Steven_nl]

I do agree that a feature rich body is something different then a Pro body. I am a pro shooter I do events and shoot on construction sites quite a lot. 1 cardslot is a dealbraker for me. Not sure if the R is as rugged as the 5DMarkIV.
I sure hope Canon will announce a Pro mirrorless body soon. It has taken them far to long.
2 cardslots, joystick, around 40mp, great dynamic range and low light all packed in a solid body. Paired with the RF 24-70 that would be amazing. They have their AF and eye AF sorted out so how hard can it be.

 

[barryreid]

If you are wanting pixel sharp images, surely you are using a tripod? Why not use the magnified AF with Live View?

I do, but find it much harder than using an EVF.

 

[Punio]

2 cardslots, joystick, around 40mp, great dynamic range and low light all packed in a solid body. Paired with the RF 24-70 that would be amazing. They have their AF and eye AF sorted out so how hard can it be.

I got the gist that Canon don't believe their sensor tech is up to par with their expectations for a Pro mirrorless. Hence why Canon could not reduce the huge 1.7x crop in 4K on the EOS R. Canon is a hardware company first I guess. I hope they figure it out soon, the specs you mentioned are the least of which are required in the next Canon mirrorless.