# Leaked: Canon EOS M50 Image & Specifications



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 20, 2018)

```
The first image and specifications for the Canon EOS M50 have leaked out.</p>
<p>I noticed a few things about this release that really caught my eye.</p>
<ol>
<li>A new RAW format? I wonder what .CR3 is going to bring us.</li>
<li>DIGIC 8 already? Canon must have made a breakthrough in processing speeds.</li>
<li>New generation sensor? The EOS M50 sensor is 24.1mp, the previous APS-C sensor from Canon is 24.2mp</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>EOS M50 Specifications:</strong> (Google Translated)</p>
<ul>
<li>24.1 Megapixels APS-C CMOS (New sensor? EOS M5 is 24.2mp)</li>
<li>Dual pixel CMOS AF</li>
<li>DIGIC 8</li>
<li>4K Video</li>
<li>Standard ISO: 100-25600 (extended ISO: 51200)</li>
<li>Continuous: Up to 10 frames / sec (at servo AF: up to 7.4 frames / sec)</li>
<li>EVF: 2.36 million dot organic EL</li>
<li>3 type 104 million dots Bali angle touch panel liquid crystal</li>
<li>Wi-Fi · Bluetooth · NFC installed</li>
<li>Supports the next-generation CR3 RAW format and the new C-RAW compression format
<ul>
<li>The C-RAW format is 40% smaller in file size than conventional RAW, and it corresponds to in – camera RAW</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li>Development and digital lens optimizer</li>
<li>The body is available in black or white</li>
<li>Preorders start on February 27, 2018</li>
<li>Pricing? We’ve been told it’s around the current EOS M6 prices.</li>
<li>This is not a camera above the EOS M5.</li>
</ul>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## criscokkat (Feb 20, 2018)

I wonder what the price will be and how the autofocus tracking is? This looks like a promising m equivalent to the 80D.


----------



## sniper_shooter (Feb 20, 2018)

Overseas means "some country outside of japan" here.


----------



## traveller (Feb 20, 2018)

Aren't these specifications a bit superior to the EOS M5? What's the catch (presumably, fewer control points, polycarbonate body and no weather 'sealing')? 

Still, if this is true and the price is reasonably lower than the EOS M5's current street price (i.e. not just $75), it would be a bit of a steal and a very positive sign that Canon is serious about both mirrorless and solidly competitive specifications across the range.


----------



## -pekr- (Feb 20, 2018)

Why not just the M5 mk II?


----------



## bsbeamer (Feb 20, 2018)

Will wait to see price and 4K specs, but looks like it may be at least partially on par with the Sony A6500. If there was an official EF>EF-M speedbooster (not just adapter) that complemented this, it could be a crowd pleaser for the short term.


----------



## C-A430 (Feb 20, 2018)

It seems M5 mark II is going to be a BEAST, but will probably go up in price too


----------



## bdbender4 (Feb 20, 2018)

Looks like a fine camera, but personally I don't care about 4K video or slightly enhanced servo stills shooting speed. Smaller RAW is nice, I guess, but mostly I shoot JPEG anyway. Not sure why the size of a raw file has any logical relation to the size of the camera?

So not sure why I would update from my M5. Wish it was weather resistant.

And where are the decent EF-M prime lenses (buzz buzz)? IMHO that's what the system really needs, and has needed for quite a while now.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 20, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> The first image and specifications for the Canon EOS M50 have leaked out.



it will be interesting to see the rest of the images, specifically of the back side and top.

it appears that canon has adjusted the ergonomics for this to be a video -> stills versus a stills-> video bolt on if you note the location of the record button.

with what appears to be lower level ergonomics this sits kind of under an M6 in terms of ergonomic functionality however with an included EVF and variable angle display for video.

of course the big news is possibly DIGIC 8 bringing hopefully efficient 4k video to Canon ILC's. it has to be more efficient than the 5D Mark IV etc simply because it's SD card.

My guess is that they released this to get the EF-M line up to include 4k after Fuji seems to be doing great things in that market, and more than one whisper said that Canon / Nikon are more worried about Fuji than Sony.

Why it's not the M5 Mark II? probably because it' *only* has really minor updates from the M5 outside of video and CR3 format, and no new sensor generation.

If a new sensor generation is coming out this year, it makes sense to hold off the M5 update, IMO.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 20, 2018)

bdbender4 said:


> Looks like a fine camera, but personally I don't care about 4K video or slightly enhanced servo stills shooting speed. Smaller RAW is nice, I guess, but mostly I shoot JPEG anyway. Not sure why the size of a raw file has any logical relation to the size of the camera?
> 
> So not sure why I would update from my M5. Wish it was weather resistant.
> 
> And where are the decent EF-M prime lenses (buzz buzz)? IMHO that's what the system really needs, and has needed for quite a while now.



This isn't above the EOS M5, it'll be priced around the current EOS M6 prices I think.

A new prime is coming in September for Photokina.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 20, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The first image and specifications for the Canon EOS M50 have leaked out.
> ...



I think this is a new sensor, 24.1mp vs 24.2.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 20, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> bdbender4 said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like a fine camera, but personally I don't care about 4K video or slightly enhanced servo stills shooting speed. Smaller RAW is nice, I guess, but mostly I shoot JPEG anyway. Not sure why the size of a raw file has any logical relation to the size of the camera?
> ...



If this spec'd camera is around $800, I think this is a promising sign going forward for Canon. Really interested to see how much of a change .CR3 and C-RAW is.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2018)

H. Jones said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > bdbender4 said:
> ...



I wonder if the CR3 format is to bring out the data from both sides of the dual-pixel design?


----------



## mclaren777 (Feb 20, 2018)

CR3 RAW format is the single most fascinating thing about this camera.


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2018)

The Digic 8 with a rate of about 240Mpixel/sec (24.1 X 10) brings the same rate of a Dual Digic 6. See 5Dsr with Dual Digic 6 having a rate of 50.1mp X 5fps ~ 250Mpixel/sec.

Encouraging for the processing speed of future cameras that may even have a Digic 8+, Dual Digic 8 or Dual Digic 8+ 

I mention these because I hope for a much faster 5DsRMkII (although if pushed to 60Mp I expect it to be around 6fps) and 5DMkV (OK that will take too long and maybe it will have a single Digic 9+ ;D ;D ;D )


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 20, 2018)

C-RAW ? Sure hope we are talking LOSSLESS compression ... otherwise ... NOT interested. 

other than that: Canon-ugly again.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2018)

mclaren777 said:


> CR3 RAW format is the single most fascinating thing about this camera.



I agree.

CR2 has been slowly evolving with minor changes forever.... To go to a new format must mean a big change, and the two things that come to mind is that it must be either be related to dual pixel technology, or it means that the RAW files have gone from 14 to 16 bit..... or possibly both!

If it is for 16 bits, then it would imply a significant jump in DR...... possibly through different gains on each half of a dual-pixel site....

most interesting, most interesting indeed!


----------



## syyeung1 (Feb 20, 2018)

Was going to get the GX85 due to the small size (especially tele). Will now at least put the decision on hold until this is released. If the M50 is not seriously crippled, this would be the camera to fully register Canon as a serious mirrorless player.


----------



## roxics (Feb 20, 2018)

Would be interested to know the 4K specs on this camera.
Is it shooting H.264 and if so at what bitrate or is it going the mjpeg route like all of Canon's still cameras have done so far?
Is it using the full sensor width or a crop? 
Mic and headphone jack or just mic jack?
Does this thing have a flip and twist screen on the back?


----------



## mb66energy (Feb 20, 2018)

If it has some manual focus helpers via the EVF a really interesting option to use my FD lenses and the 2.8 35 macro lens for the Canon bellows.
4k is not too interesting for me but if 30 fps 4k video with DIGIC 8 leads to a 120 fps mode for 2k and 240 fps mode for 1.3 k a really interesting camera (just dreaming).

AvTvM: Your remark about uglyness: If the goodies inside the camera deliver and it is at least ergonomically usable I will consider using it. And if noone is interested in stealing an ugly camera, uglyness is welcome.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 20, 2018)

roxics said:


> Is it shooting H.264 and if so at what bitrate or is it going the mjpeg route like all of Canon's still cameras have done so far?



It's a hobbyist body and also has a brand new processor so I really hope MJPEG is out of the question.


----------



## Talys (Feb 20, 2018)

Looks pretty sweet. I'll stay tuned to see how it's _inferior_ to M5. So far it just looks all around better than M5. Maybe lower resolution LCD panel like the one on an M6, to keep the price down?



tron said:


> The Digic 8 with a rate of about 240Mpixel/sec (24.1 X 10) brings the same rate of a Dual Digic 6. See 5Dsr with Dual Digic 6 having a rate of 50.1mp X 5fps ~ 250Mpixel/sec.
> 
> Encouraging for the processing speed of future cameras that may even have a Digic 8+, Dual Digic 8 or Dual Digic 8+



Since this is the only camera with it, though, we don't know what the ceiling for Digic 8 is. For all we know, it could be 340 megapixels per second, and Canon has just capped it, or with a better heat management system it could go higher, or whatever 




AvTvM said:


> other than that: Canon-ugly again.



Looks nice to me. Then again, I'm partial to Canon's physical designs. But who buys a camera _because it looks beautiful on the shelf?!_

The important thing is, how does it hold and do all of the controls feel natural.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > CR3 RAW format is the single most fascinating thing about this camera.
> ...



Anybody remember whether the CRW->CR2 version bump brought any user-visible changes? From what I know about the CR2 file format, it's a TIFF-like container format that can already easily store several different datasets, in various formats, eg. the 5D4 DPRAWs are just vanilla CR2 files but with an extra data record in the internal "directory". Bumping the bit depth to 16 bits shouldn't be a problem either. So I wonder.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 20, 2018)

roxics said:


> Does this thing have a flip and twist screen on the back?









Looking at the M50, M5, and SL2, I would say this definitely appears to have a flip and twist on the back, in comparison to the kind of screen the M5 had.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 20, 2018)

Talys said:


> Looks pretty sweet. I'll stay tuned to see how it's _inferior_ to M5. So far it just looks all around better than M5. Maybe lower resolution LCD panel like the one on an M6, to keep the price down?



Ergonomics and build quality, most probably, like I predicted a while ago. From the photo it's already apparent that not only one but TWO dials are missing from the top. I believe C modes are also gone. Even if some spec sheet numbers are improved compared to the M5, that's just due to newer tech and bodes well for the eventual successor of the M5.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2018)

H. Jones said:


> roxics said:
> 
> 
> > Does this thing have a flip and twist screen on the back?
> ...



After the M5 vlogger screen derision I can’t see any way a video centric M won’t have a full swivel screen.

Indeed if this has 4K it will become the #1 vlogging camera overnight. DPAF, 4K and a full swivel screen with Canon ergonomics, colors, and menus in a compact package with an APS sensor and full Canon lens integration. Probably the best selling MILC so far.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> H. Jones said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



That’s what hit me too. Maybe it’s 16 bit


----------



## traveller (Feb 20, 2018)

syyeung1 said:


> Was going to get the GX85 due to the small size (especially tele). Will now at least put the decision on hold until this is released. If the M50 is not seriously crippled, this would be the camera to fully register Canon as a serious mirrorless player.



I think a few more serious lenses are required before that description could be applied to Canon's mirrorless efforts. The rumoured fast EF-M 35mm is a good start, but a fast 15mm, 55mm and a longer macro lens would be what I'd consider the minimum to even approach a comprehensive lineup of primes (i.e. one that doesn't look weak alongside the efforts of m4/3rds and Fuji-X). An f/2.8 zoom trinity would also round off a 'serious' offering. Not that I think that Canon will actually make all this, after all they never did for EF-S.


----------



## H. Jones (Feb 20, 2018)

traveller said:


> syyeung1 said:
> 
> 
> > Was going to get the GX85 due to the small size (especially tele). Will now at least put the decision on hold until this is released. If the M50 is not seriously crippled, this would be the camera to fully register Canon as a serious mirrorless player.
> ...



To be fair, Canon could always make an EF-M version of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS if they wanted to and immediately satisfy that entire crowd, though the size would definitely be somewhat problematic for M series. 

That said, it never felt like Canon felt all that positively about the 17-55 f/2.8 when they could be selling crop-users the 24-70mm f/2.8L II or 16-35mm f/2.8L III. Maybe in the EF-M case it makes sense, as an adapter only makes the already large lenses larger.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 20, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> Why not just the M5 mk II?



Perhaps it is. A new numbering scheme to correspond to the other lines, leaving the single digit M for a future FF M model.


----------



## Canoneer (Feb 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > CR3 RAW format is the single most fascinating thing about this camera.
> ...



I hope it's 16-bit RAW. Canon have been lagging for years in DR compared to Sony and Nikon, and it's hard to imagine that their engineers simply couldn't come up with any solution - after all, they routinely rank #1 year after year in patent filing. The more reasonable answer is that they've had thoroughly tested and improved DR sensor tech for a while and just wanted to wait to integrate it with DPAF sensor architecture. 

A universal 16 bit RAW format for APS-C and full-frame cameras will be a serious leg up on the competition. If it's true, that means the guys at Canon must have figured out a way to practically eliminate read noise and dark current. The small full well capacity for a 24MP APS-C photodiode means that the SNR needs to be ridiculously high to discern 16 bits of detail.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2018)

traveller said:


> syyeung1 said:
> 
> 
> > Was going to get the GX85 due to the small size (especially tele). Will now at least put the decision on hold until this is released. If the M50 is not seriously crippled, this would be the camera to fully register Canon as a serious mirrorless player.
> ...



They're already #2 globally in MILCs, that seems pretty 'serious'. But I guess most people define 'serious player' as 'makes the stuff I personally want'.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 20, 2018)

dak723 said:


> -pekr- said:
> 
> 
> > Why not just the M5 mk II?
> ...



It's not, this is below the M5.


----------



## MayaTlab (Feb 20, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



Canon provided for years 14 bit files despite their sensors's DR being too limited to make it relevant until recently, so 16 bit files wouldn't be a good indication that DR has been increased.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 20, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



bit depth is stored in the CR2 and CR2 files handled 12 and 14 bit depth files already. it's highly unlikely they needed CR3 for 16 bit.


----------



## Etienne (Feb 20, 2018)

Canon is probably using this camera to beta test the DIGIC 8 and the CR3 file format... hence it is crippled to perform below the M5 / M6 cameras.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > CR3 RAW format is the single most fascinating thing about this camera.
> ...



C-RAW is probably lossy compressed raw. what is interesting of it is that it may already have DLO applied in camera to the RAW file versus JPEG as it now is.

that means you get all the godly improvements of DLO written to the RAW file before using it in lightroom,etc - which would be a great improvement.

that makes every EF-M lens able to write out a RAW file that is "L" grade lens in terms of aberrations. This would be a serious boon to canon raw files.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 20, 2018)

Etienne said:


> Canon is probably using this camera to beta test the DIGIC 8 and the CR3 file format...



sure because canon would absolutely need to beta test this out in the actual field by selling it to people.
:


----------



## ethanz (Feb 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> mclaren777 said:
> 
> 
> > CR3 RAW format is the single most fascinating thing about this camera.
> ...



Then the question is, will it be a firmware update for the 1dx2?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Canon is probably using this camera to beta test the DIGIC 8 and the CR3 file format...
> ...



Maybe they're just trying to innovate, like Sony.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 20, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Etienne said:
> ...




bahahaha


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 20, 2018)

tron said:


> The Digic 8 with a rate of about 240Mpixel/sec (24.1 X 10) brings the same rate of a Dual Digic 6. See 5Dsr with Dual Digic 6 having a rate of 50.1mp X 5fps ~ 250Mpixel/sec.



It warms my heart that Canon is offering a sub-$1000 crop rig with more stills throughput _than a 5D4_. Surely this new one will get spot metering at the linked AF point as well. 

I appreciate the march of progress over time will see lower trimline rigs surpass the specs of the premium models (M50 > M5, M6 right here as a good example), but Canon's inane 30 x 7 decision with the 5D4 will continue to be a head-scratcher for a very long time. 

But I'm OT. Apologies. 

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 20, 2018)

Etienne said:


> Canon is probably using this camera to beta test the DIGIC 8 and the CR3 file format... hence it is crippled to perform below the M5 / M6 cameras.


They put in new sensor tech and processors in rebels and xxd series cameras before.


----------



## swblackwood (Feb 20, 2018)

This sounds like a relatively big move on Canon's part. The Digic7 processor made its debut in the G7x ii and the M5 at the the tail end of 2016 going into 2017. The 5d iv was still Digic6! the life of Digic7 has been very short.

The quick advent of Digic8 may make it finally possible for Canon bodies to shoot 4K efficiently. Also the new CR3 format may herald better DR in stills. Of course, all of this is naked speculation on my part! ;D


----------



## transpo1 (Feb 20, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The first image and specifications for the Canon EOS M50 have leaked out.
> ...



Yup- including 4K is a must now, as some people have been saying for a LONG time  

Although the video quality of the X-H1 looks questionable to me at least in pre-production models, Fuji are moving in the right direction in the marketplace. 

If the 4K quality on this camera is good, it will be very tempting for those thinking about switching to Fuji.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 20, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



it's not a must on every camera. that's totally biased to what you prefer a camera to have.

they however, need choice.


----------



## Talys (Feb 20, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > Yup- including 4K is a must now
> ...



I think it's a great way to differentiate products and stratify an offering with different features/price points. Canon has proven that it's capable of making good profits while having a bazillion SKUs that are all tightly clustered in price, so why not?

I definitely do not think 4k has to be on every camera, though going forward, it will probably be on every Canon flagship.


----------



## Drew.bowser (Feb 20, 2018)

is this a CR3? Im in the market for a mirrorless 4k body (literally about to click buy on an adapted a6300) - This really changes my plans since I have a 5D4 and 7D2.


----------



## LDS (Feb 20, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> I wonder if the CR3 format is to bring out the data from both sides of the dual-pixel design?



IMHO they already do. If Z = X + Y, and you store Z and X, Y is simply Z - X. If most of the time you use just Z, it's faster to save it than recomputing it every time, and compute Y only when you need it. Unless Canon now can obtain more info from dual pixel design which cannot be stored as simply as above.

From what I understood, C-RAW looks a format where demosaicing (RAW "development") and some other processing ("digital lens optimizer") happens in-camera. It could save space without lossy compression, albeit you lose the original data and have to accept the camera processing algorithms - if so, still better than a JPEG or any other lossy algorithm.


----------



## exquisitor (Feb 20, 2018)

Drew.bowser said:


> is this a CR3? Im in the market for a mirrorless 4k body (literally about to click buy on an adapted a6300) - This really changes my plans since I have a 5D4 and 7D2.



I suppose, when it's leaked, than it is pretty sure thing. Taking in account the preorder date, we should expect the camera this week or Monday the latest.
Still CR guy sure knows better...


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2018)

LDS said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if the CR3 format is to bring out the data from both sides of the dual-pixel design?
> ...



I’m sure they have a good reason..... we won’t know until the release, so now is the time for wild speculation


----------



## x-vision (Feb 20, 2018)

Notice the ISO sensitivity: 100-25600 (51200 extended).
For comparison, the 80D has 100-16000 (25600 extended).

So, this new mirrorless has a full stop higher ISO than the 80D.

This could be due to better noise reduction from the newer (and presumably more powerful) Digic-8 processor.
But could it also mean a newer/better sensor ??


----------



## tron (Feb 20, 2018)

x-vision said:


> Notice the ISO sensitivity: 100-25600 (51200 extended).
> For comparison, the 80D has 100-16000 (25600 extended).
> 
> So, this new mirrorless has a full stop higher ISO than the 80D.
> ...


16000->25600 native is 2/3s of a stop. Even so a 2/3 stop improvement would be true only if the 25600 of the new camera was similar to the 16000 of the 80D. Or the difference could be just a noisier picture at 25600. Or somewhere in between like a 1/3 stop of improvement which is more realistic. Anyway we have to wait to see that.


----------



## HarryFilm (Feb 20, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



On a technical basis there is at least 32-bit processing on the ARM-based cores of the DIGIC-series of processors (which tend to have an ARM-based Coretex-R4 core) and at a MERE 25 MHz to 32 MHz clock speed for the earlier DIGICs, the amount of coding shenanigans that are/were needed to pull off Canon's fancy Stills and Video compression stunts is/was mind-boggling. I'm used to using 700 MHz to 1.5 GHz 64-bit processors on my embedded projects, so I can be lazy and quickly code for 32-bits per channel DSP-like downsampling to 16-bits per colour channel.

Some of the newer DIGIC cores may go up to 75 MHz or even 100+ Mhz or even up to 1.4 GHz, but I haven't checked yet so it is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that 16-bits per colour channel MAY be possible in any newer Canon camera.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2018)

Where's the codec, Harry? Where is Canon's new medium format camera that looks like a big 1D X II, Harry?


----------



## HarryFilm (Feb 20, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Where's the codec, Harry? Where is Canon's new medium format camera that looks like a big 1D X II, Harry?



Got my CODEC running on a 7D mark2 right now - Works great! Does 16-bit (kinda faked since the 7D ADC's don't actually go that high), 14-bit, 12-bit, 10-bit, 8-bit 4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 colour sampling at various bit-rates at various fps. 

I bricked the 7D a few times which means back to the test bench and a forced BIOS re-upload. Taking apart and putting back together a 7D takes about 4 hours each time! I had the same problem Magic Lantern did with their BIOS hook-in strategy.

I will get the 5D mk3/4 version up next and then publicly release the codec on GitHub for the mentioned cameras. The 1Dx series, C200, C300, C500, C700 will come later once I am sure I don't/can't brick our $10,000+ camera systems!

It's much cheaper to test/brick/destroy a 7D, 6D and 5D than a $40,000+ C700!

--- I should note that I actually DON'T MIND bricking the C700 since I can take apart that one for a forced BIOS re-upload A LOT EASIER than the 7D to 1D series!


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mclaren777 said:
> ...



Time will tell what is going on here, but the supposition is that there is also a new sensor.....

One possibility is that during AF the dual pixels work as normal, and for the exposure the gain of one side is changed by 3 or 4 stops, both sides are recorded, and the CR3 file can be used to create a final image with significantly higher DR. Also, it states that the C-Raw files are 40 percent smaller than the CR3 files and about the same size as the old RAW files....

I’m sure the speculation is much more exciting than what reality will deliver.... and it’s more fun


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 20, 2018)

Whoa, 16-bit stills will be first rolled out to out to a mid-level crop camera? Isn't this a heretofore only available in medium format sort of spec?

If so, why on earth would Canon first launch this in the middle of the crop portfolio? If/when this ever happens at Canon, it would be an exclusive 1-series level feature (perhaps a rebirth of the 1Ds3 'pure IQ, screw the throughput' sort of product), would it not? 

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 20, 2018)

x-vision said:


> Notice the ISO sensitivity: 100-25600 (51200 extended).
> For comparison, the 80D has 100-16000 (25600 extended).
> 
> So, this new mirrorless has a full stop higher ISO than the 80D.
> ...


80d has max iso 16000 with digic 6. Digic 7 bumped it to 25600. All latest rebels and sl2 are with iso 25600.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 20, 2018)

I wish it had a sensor like 5D MkIV in terms of DR (it's ok if it's 24.1Mp vs 30.1), the best Canon sensor so far. It'd be a killer as a lightweight landscape photo kit. 

Also, will it have a tilt screen, or better an articulated screen?

DR/sensor, GPS and WiFi are major factors for me


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 20, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Whoa, 16-bit stills will be first rolled out to out to a mid-level crop camera? Isn't this a heretofore only available in medium format sort of spec?
> 
> If so, why on earth would Canon first launch this in the middle of the crop portfolio? If/when this ever happens at Canon, it would be an exclusive 1-series level feature (perhaps a rebirth of the 1Ds3 'pure IQ, screw the throughput' sort of product), would it not?
> 
> - A



Lots of stuff gets introduced in lower end bodies.... the update cycle is quicker and the market is more competitive. Besides, do you really think that they would wait for the 1DX3 to introduce the next new feature?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 20, 2018)

HarryFilm said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Where's the codec, Harry? Where is Canon's new medium format camera that looks like a big 1D X II, Harry?
> ...



Oh, ok.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 21, 2018)

What I am more interested in is the ability to do great low ISO dynamic range AND nice mid-high ISO dynamic range at the same time.
So far, we have had APS-C sensors tweaked to do one OR the other, but not both at the same time.

{dxomark source of data} If we compare the 200D (whose sensor is a bit better than the 80D), with the 7D mark II... we see a low ISO dynamic range advantage for the 200D, but they are equal by ISO 800, with the 7D mark II taking the lead at ISO 1600 and upwards.

7D mark II has a tiny bit less noise from ISO 800 onwards (the difference getting greater the higher you go).
Similar situation with tonal range and color sensitivity... high ISO favors the 7D mark II, whilst the low ISO 100 setting (less sensitive on the 200D) gives it an advantage in all areas over the 7D mark II.

Long story short:
200D wins low ISO
7D mark II wins high ISO

Can we get both in the same camera? The Sony a6500 obliterates both these cameras across the entire range, both low, mid and high ISO.

Maybe this new Canon sensor will close the gap at least a little bit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> What I am more interested in is the ability to do great low ISO dynamic range AND nice mid-high ISO dynamic range at the same time.
> So far, we have had APS-C sensors tweaked to do one OR the other, but not both at the same time.
> 
> {dxomark source of data} If we compare the 200D (whose sensor is a bit better than the 80D), with the 7D mark II... we see a low ISO dynamic range advantage for the 200D, but they are equal by ISO 800, with the 7D mark II taking the lead at ISO 1600 and upwards.
> ...



No the 200D is better at low iso but they are the same above 800iso.

http://photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%20200D,Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 21, 2018)

It depends which source you use and how you interpret the data.
The one thing missing from the source you linked (but is taken into account in dxomark's graphs) is the fact that the 7D mark II is closer in sensitivity to the marked ISO rating. (7D mark II exposure will be brighter if all other factors are equal).
But even in the link you supplied, you can see the small advantage for the 7D mark II.

This can even be seen in a real world example on dpreview's studio shot comparison scene. When set to low light and both cameras set to ISO 3200 or above. Just look anywhere over in the darker left side, and you can see the 7D mark II is cleaner.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> It depends which source you use and how you interpret the data.
> The one thing missing from the source you linked (but is taken into account in dxomark's graphs) is the fact that the 7D mark II is closer in sensitivity to the marked ISO rating. (7D mark II exposure will be brighter if all other factors are equal).
> But even in the link you supplied, you can see the small advantage for the 7D mark II.
> 
> This can even be seen in a real world example on dpreview's studio shot comparison scene. When set to low light and both cameras set to ISO 3200 or above. Just look anywhere over in the darker left side, and you can see the 7D mark II is cleaner.



I trust my linked source more because his methodology is open and honest and repeatable, DXO calculations are black box with no open methodology and no repeatability.

I don’t trust much at DPReview either as the comparisons rely on Adobe basic processing and that is often very easy to best. The only way to make fair comparisons is to take open source raw data or work on a best possible processed file. I linked to the only one of either I know of.

P.S. At 3200iso there is 0.14 of a stop difference in DR, yes the 7D MkII is the better but, seriously, 0.14 of a stop!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 21, 2018)

Oh, ok.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 21, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> mistaspeedy said:
> 
> 
> > It depends which source you use and how you interpret the data.
> ...


SL2 noise pattern is also little better, I think. If you look at 100%, shadows look bad even at lower ISO levels for crop cameras.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Camera-Noise.aspx?Camera=1141&Test=0&ISO=3200&CameraComp=1044&TestComp=0&ISOComp=3200


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 21, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Whoa, 16-bit stills will be first rolled out to out to a mid-level crop camera? Isn't this a heretofore only available in medium format sort of spec?
> ...



No, _just the reeeeeeeally juicy ones_. That would be a pretty major milestone, wouldn't it?

- A


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 21, 2018)

According to DXOmark's data, there is an absolutely huge difference between the 200D and Canon M3.
When you set the camera to ISO 3200, the actual ISO on the 200D is only 2125! Whilst the actual ISO on the M3 is close-to-ideal ISO 3133. This is nearly a quite massive 50% difference in sensitivity (3133 is 47.4% more than 2125).
7D mark II gives 2458 ISO at the same setting.

This has real-world implications for shooting. If you were using a certain ISO and shutter speed on the Canon M3, you can no longer use it on the 7D mark II or 200D... you would possibly need to bump the ISO up one stop to get a proper exposure.

We are not doing an apples to apples comparison in dynamic range tests if we set both cameras to 'ISO 3200' in the settings.

We could arbitrarily slap the 'ISO 3200' label onto a camera with a real ISO 100 setting, and it would beat all other currently manufactured cameras.

This is why comparisons like this give a clearer picture than the link you offered, which is clearly labelled "Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting'... unfortunately there is a discrepancy between "ISO setting" and "actual ISO sensitivity", a huge one.

https://ibb.co/n0zLQx


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 21, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> According to DXOmark's data, there is an absolutely huge difference between the 200D and Canon M3.



that was a long post about something not that relevant anymore, considering the M3 has been replaced by the M5 and M6 a while back.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 21, 2018)

That's my whole point.... the old M3 is better than the new 200D, M5 and M6 at high ISO dynamic range.

https://ibb.co/gJCwyH

Canon M5, Canon 200D and all the newer APS-C cameras have been tweaked for maximum low ISO dynamic range, at the expense of high ISO dynamic range!

The M3 and 7D mark II are still the best APS-C cameras for high ISO dynamic range!
We can see concrete side-by-side comparisons here:
https://ibb.co/n5uLQx

We can have:

1) Good low ISO dynamic range
2) Good high ISO dynamic range

Not both!

So I'm wondering where this new Canon sensor will stand in this whole balance. Will we get both? Will it continue the trend of great low ISO dynamic range at the expense of high ISO dynamic range?
It will be interesting to see.


----------



## Talys (Feb 21, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> That's my whole point.... the old M3 is better than the new 200D, M5 and M6 at high ISO dynamic range.
> 
> https://ibb.co/gJCwyH
> 
> ...



Is this not also a function of megapixels? ie the more megapixels, the harder it is to have great high ISO performance.


----------



## eosuser1234 (Feb 21, 2018)

Seems that the M5 only point of difference would only have the ability to touch and drag AF.
Other than that, seems this M50 may be a better spec camera all around. Will be interesting to see the buffer, but with the RAW CR3 files being able to compress better, may be able to hold more in buffer when shooting in raw.


----------



## Talys (Feb 21, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> Seems that the M5 only point of difference would only have the ability to touch and drag AF.
> Other than that, seems this M50 may be a better spec camera all around. Will be interesting to see the buffer, but with the RAW CR3 files being able to compress better, may be able to hold more in buffer when shooting in raw.



If the CR3 format is smaller or has the option of compression (like Sony A7R3), that could really help with buffer clear times.

For me, I'm still waiting for the high(er) ISO performance unicorn. Unless mid-range ISO (800-3200) performance increases quite a lot, it could be a while before I buy another APSC camera.

White seems like an odd color for M50 (instead of silver)


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 21, 2018)

eosuser1234 said:


> Seems that the M5 only point of difference would only have the ability to touch and drag AF.



As has been said repeatedly, it's clear that there are major ergonomic differences. The M50 is missing at least two dials and probably C modes, just like x00D bodies compared to x0D.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Whoa, 16-bit stills will be first rolled out to out to a mid-level crop camera? Isn't this a heretofore only available in medium format sort of spec?
> 
> If so, why on earth would Canon first launch this in the middle of the crop portfolio? If/when this ever happens at Canon, it would be an exclusive 1-series level feature (perhaps a rebirth of the 1Ds3 'pure IQ, screw the throughput' sort of product), would it not?



Wasn't this 16-bit stuff pure speculation? Moving to 16 bit shouldn't necessitate a major file format update anyway AFAICS. CR2 is just a container format, like TIFF, capable of storing multiple datasets of all kinds of formats.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 21, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Whoa, 16-bit stills will be first rolled out to out to a mid-level crop camera? Isn't this a heretofore only available in medium format sort of spec?
> 
> If so, why on earth would Canon first launch this in the middle of the crop portfolio? If/when this ever happens at Canon, it would be an exclusive 1-series level feature (perhaps a rebirth of the 1Ds3 'pure IQ, screw the throughput' sort of product), would it not?
> 
> - A



I agree it does seem like a bit of a stretch. Let’s think of other reasons they might upgrade to CR-3. Because well, wild speculation is fun. ;D


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 21, 2018)

Dumb question.

Why call it CR3? 
Canon could have made all the changes and still could have called it CR2. What am I missing?


----------



## Diltiazem (Feb 21, 2018)

CR should have provided a link to original source, especially because last two bullet points are CR's own opinion and has nothing to do with original rumor. 

http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/02/eos-m50.html


----------



## bf (Feb 21, 2018)

I think Canon will put full frame and more serious cameras with single digit names similar to its DSLRs. This body would be M5ii in 2017!


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 21, 2018)

Diltiazem said:


> Dumb question.
> 
> Why call it CR3?
> Canon could have made all the changes and still could have called it CR2. What am I missing?



I think that you are right..... that’s what makes this so interesting!


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 21, 2018)

Diltiazem said:


> Dumb question.
> 
> Why call it CR3?
> Canon could have made all the changes and still could have called it CR2. What am I missing?



If they're making a large change to the structure of the file format itself, it might warrant a bump in "major version" instead of just releasing a new version of CR2. There might be enough accumulated cruft and backwards compatible hacks that they want to fix even though AFAICS CR2 is a pretty flexible file format.


----------



## tron (Feb 21, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Diltiazem said:
> 
> 
> > Dumb question.
> ...


Or - some humorous answer - they may want to state that it is certainly (CR3) Canon Raw instead of .. probably (CR2) Canon Raw (Sorry I could not resist!) ;D ;D ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 21, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> According to DXOmark's data, there is an absolutely huge difference between the 200D and Canon M3.
> When you set the camera to ISO 3200, the actual ISO on the 200D is only 2125! Whilst the actual ISO on the M3 is close-to-ideal ISO 3133. This is nearly a quite massive 50% difference in sensitivity (3133 is 47.4% more than 2125).
> 7D mark II gives 2458 ISO at the same setting.
> 
> ...



If you set the 200D and the M3 to 3200iso there is 0.15 stop of a difference between the DR. You can follow test results down rabbit holes or just make simple comparisons, I choose to do the later.

In a real world scenario you might find the 200D might need more over exposure to get an optimal exposure but that doesn’t alter the fact that as a baseline performance there is 0.15 stop difference in DR between the two at 3200iso, 5.54 stops to 5.69 stops. And the point of that is that at these two mathematically derived figures the component of noise is equivalent.


----------



## HaroldC3 (Feb 21, 2018)

If CR is correct about the price (around current M6 prices), it will decimate all previous body sales. M5/M6 (maybe even m100) sales would be almost nil going forward and it would give Sony/Fuji some very good competition despite the lack of a full native lens library. 

This would, of course, depends on if Canon severely crippled the M50 somehow. If so, that would be the worst mistake.


----------



## sanj (Feb 21, 2018)

Diltiazem said:


> Dumb question.
> 
> Why call it CR3?
> Canon could have made all the changes and still could have called it CR2. What am I missing?



Marketing?


----------



## fingerstein (Feb 21, 2018)

I would be interested for an alternative to Sony A6500/Lumix Gh5 for cheap gimbal work.
But I'm not sure if I'm ready to invest in something that doesn't have 4K 60p or at least 120fps FHD with sound.
I'm sure Canon will still hold back it's newest technology and will cripple features.
But even so... it proves to be very stable and reliable. I'm looking forward on Canon gear because I want something that I can work with confidence and it would be very painful to sell all my Canon branded equipment.
So... Canon, I could use my money on other brands or on yours. What you say?


----------



## snoke (Feb 21, 2018)

Diltiazem said:


> Why call it CR3?
> Canon could have made all the changes and still could have called it CR2. What am I missing?



In the beggining, CRW:
https://sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/canon_raw.html

Today, CR2:
http://lclevy.free.fr/cr2/#intro

Both TIFF format but different.

Why CR3? Who know.
Special for Dual Pixel? If yes, 5D Mark IV get CR3 in firmware?


----------



## snoke (Feb 21, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Also, it states that the C-Raw files are 40 percent smaller than the CR3 files and about the same size as the old RAW files....



This answer. CR3 because compression change. 

Canon follow Apple, replace JPEG by HEIF in CR3?

https://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=7391.0

Magic Lantern show JPEG for RAW, don't understand?


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 21, 2018)

HaroldC3 said:


> If CR is correct about the price (around current M6 prices), it will decimate all previous body sales.



why would it? I wouldn't trade my M5 for this.

this camera's song and dance will be 4K video and ergonomics to match 4K video, not stills. can sort of tell that from the one picture. No mFn button anymore, the record is there.

Odds are canon tweaked this to be exactly for the needs of vlogging.

it's not "crippled" it is just a camera body that canon has tweaked to be best served for it's purpose.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 21, 2018)

snoke said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Also, it states that the C-Raw files are 40 percent smaller than the CR3 files and about the same size as the old RAW files....
> ...



compression alone wouldn't do it, from what i recall from the makernotes, compression is an option there.

I suspect the different file format is because of the inclusion of DLO information which would be drastically different output if it was in non-destructive information.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 21, 2018)

Certainly it will be the first Canon with their new sensor generation.
Remember the heap of radio related registrations for rebel cameras?

I bet that Canon is switching their entire sensor platform to a new 
technology, starting with all entry and middle class cameras for 
Photokina 2018, and likely the big guns to follow for Photokina 2019, 
which is just half a year later in may 2019.

Some might convert to mirrorless at the same time, some might
remain mirror slappers.

Nevertheless, this is a milestone.

The M50 might not be the most exciting camera ever, but it
marks the switch to a complete new sensor generation.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 21, 2018)

Quackator said:


> Certainly it will be the first Canon with their new sensor generation.



getting a WAY ahead of things and setting yourself up for disappointment.


----------



## snoke (Feb 21, 2018)

snoke said:


> Canon follow Apple, replace JPEG by HEIF in CR3?



DIGIC 8 for 4K in mirrorless.
DIGIC 8 have H.265 in chip? Need for cool chip process fast video.

HEIF use HEVC (H.265). CR3 for DIGIC 8 newer only.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Efficiency_Image_File_Format

HEIF 50% smaller on JPEG:
https://www.tenorshare.com/heic-converter/heif-vs-jpeg-everything-you-need-to-know.html

JPEG encoding used for raw. Change to HEIF. Maybe only 40% on raw.

But why Canon say "C-RAW"/"in-camera raw"?

Read Wikipedia:
"_Additionally, HEIF introduces a framework for other non-destructive editing operations which can be specified by external specifications._"

But all is guess


----------



## efmshark (Feb 21, 2018)

5-axis sensor-based image stabilization coming in M50?


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 21, 2018)

efmshark said:


> 5-axis sensor-based image stabilization coming in M50?



never?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 21, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly it will be the first Canon with their new sensor generation.
> ...



Isn't this inevitable in threads such as this!! ;D

Jack


----------



## Quackator (Feb 21, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > Certainly it will be the first Canon with their new sensor generation.
> ...



Not at all. Introducing a new sensor platform doesn't necessarily mean 
the found the holy grail of sensors. They will be somewhat better than 
what we have (in Canon cameras) today, but expect no miracles.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 21, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Quackator said:
> ...



Yes, and then when Canon doesn't have all the specs that people here are wishing for and speculating about, they will say stupid canon instead of Stupid ME!

For heaven's sake - we don't even know that this is a new sensor! Maybe someone types "24.1" instead of "24.2" and everyone goes berserk.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 21, 2018)

dak723 said:


> For heaven's sake - we don't even know that this is a new sensor! Maybe someone types "24.1" instead of "24.2" and everyone goes berserk.



Yeah, with the 24.1 vs. 24.2 thing, I think we're taking 'the 18 MP rebel era' a bit too finely here. _It's a different number! Darkness is now light! Cats are sleeping with dogs!_ 

Some folks are of the mindset that a small change in res --> new dies in manufacturing --> all new sensor hotness. Sure, it's possible, but the res change could be for a mountain of reasons: 


Perhaps it's the same damn 24.2 MP sensor and Canon doesn't want to sample/report every pixel for DPAF or video processing reasons. 
Perhaps Canon literally wants the M5/M6 line to look 0.1 MP more premium. (I admit this is a stretch, but 20 vs. 22 and 26 vs. 30 for the 6D/5D lines implies Canon _does_ segment it's lines with resolution in fine margins.) 
Perhaps this was a long planned new fab line that has nothing to do with architecture changes.
Perhaps DPAF is now _QPAF_ (4 pixels) -- which would be sweet but probably won't skyrocket the DXO score, base ISO DR, etc. (which seems to be all anyone cares about).
A new resolution doesn't mean it's a major future thing Canon is hanging it's hat on. 7D2, 6D1, 6D2 all got one-off sensors just for those models (if memory serves).
I'm no sensor whisperer, so I'm sure some of the riffing above is rubbish, but you get my point: popping open the bubbly _for a 0.1 MP change_ is wildly, wildly premature.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 21, 2018)

Quackator said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Quackator said:
> ...


again, you are stating something that hasn't been even proven or shown yet. there was no rumors stating this was a new generation. supposedly the 7D Mark II was supposed to show that off.

the actual effective pixels of this sensor would still be 24 mega pixels

they aren't going to change it from 6000x4000 to 6004x4002 or something like that 

it's far more likely that it's the exact same or even a bit worse for stills than the M5/M6 because it's tuned for video than it is for stills.


----------



## Quackator (Feb 21, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> again, you are stating something that hasn't been even proven or shown yet.
> there was no rumors stating this was a new generation.



Remember, we are discussing on a *rumors* website.....

Call it "educated guess". Canon knows that their sensors are 
perceived worse than they are, they recognise Sony and more 
so Fuji as upcoming competition.

So, there is massive change to expect in the near future, as Canon
has decided and proclaimed to be going into the "more innovation" 
direction.

Now, there are registrations known for not a single, but several new
future cameras in the entry level and middle class category.

They are outside of what resembles a regular update cycle, and
they are registered as DSLRs, so this is not (yet) the full swing 
over to mirrorless.

Parallel to that Canon introduces new raw file extensions. 
The common denominator is made clear by that: Canon is 
changing their sensor platform.

Mark my words - we will all know that by Monday for sure.


----------



## BillB (Feb 21, 2018)

Quackator said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > again, you are stating something that hasn't been even proven or shown yet.
> ...



You may consider your words marked. As you say, we will know more in a few days.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 21, 2018)

The proof will be in the eating of the pudding when it is served! I'm willing to bet there will be a flood of complaints. 

Jack


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 21, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> The proof will be in the eating of the pudding when it is served! I'm willing to bet there will be a flood of complaints.
> 
> Jack



this just it.

EVERY. Single. release like this, there's a bunch of speculation, that turns into rumor, that turns into canon statements which turn out to be canon lied to us once the actual product came out, and the cries of why couldn't canon do what i dreamt up a week ago.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 21, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> The proof will be in the eating of the pudding when it is served! I'm willing to bet there will be a flood of complaints.



Nonsense. This will be the camera that pleases everyone. Well, everyone but one...and the EF 50/1.4 IS USM announced alongside the M50 will take care of him.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 21, 2018)

Quackator said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > again, you are stating something that hasn't been even proven or shown yet.
> ...



Well, we now know more about the specs of one of those other new DSLRs:

EOS 4000D Specifications

18mp CMOS APS-C
DIGIC 4+

Still feeling good about your prediction? ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 22, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Quackator said:
> 
> 
> > rrcphoto said:
> ...


All the good engineers were working on the M50, and the 4000D project got the rejects


----------



## HaroldC3 (Feb 22, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> HaroldC3 said:
> 
> 
> > If CR is correct about the price (around current M6 prices), it will decimate all previous body sales.
> ...



It doesn't make any sense if you already own an M5. For most anyone else it would.

As of now all you're giving up is an extra top dial, the EC dial and probably touch and drag AF. You get a swivel screen, a new (better?) RAW format, 4k video, Digic 8 for a (rumored) cheaper price than the M5. 

I'm sure there's going to be a gotcha somewhere and it will be interesting to see what it is.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > The proof will be in the eating of the pudding when it is served! I'm willing to bet there will be a flood of complaints.
> ...


----------



## Quackator (Feb 22, 2018)

dak723 said:


> EOS 4000D Specifications
> 18mp CMOS APS-C
> DIGIC 4+
> Still feeling good about your prediction? ;D



Yes. This is the leftover desk, they certainly have some stock of the
18 MP chips left, and my guess is that this box will use them up at
a going price near 200 dollars, body only. Maybe even below 200.


----------



## 3dit0r (Feb 22, 2018)

This looks like a promising step in the right direction for Canon mirrorless. However, I'd want to see weather sealing on the top end bodies and the native lenses to be really interested.

The whole point of mirrorless, for me at least, is to have a smaller-yet-still-top-of-the-line, lighter system which I can carry further on hikes and into more distant regions without having to hire a team of sherpas. A smaller system means not full-frame, almost by definition, just due to the size of lenses.

This also means the APS-C system needs decent environmental sealing.

Fuji is getting quite good in this regard now. Just some of their older, faster, primes need the weather treatment, but the bodies and newer lenses stand up pretty well by most accounts.

Once again, Canon have the tech and know-how, so I hope they don't relegate APS-C mirrorless to the sidelines in this respect.

Likewise for video use; really I don't care about full frame for video. S35 is the standard and it's fine. As long as you have sufficiently decent, fast glass. Traditionally, Canon don't. Mirrorless is an opportunity to change that.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 22, 2018)

http://www.nokishita-camera.com/2018/02/eos-m50_22.html

24.1 Megapixels APS-C CMOS
DIGIC 8
Dual pixel CMOS AF with greatly improved performance
AF area is enlarged by about 38% with corresponding lens (100% vertical × 88% wide in live view image display range)
The selectable AF point is a corresponding lens with a maximum of 143 points (99 points for non-compatible lenses)
Pupil detection AF
Dual Sensing IS
Silent mode
DLO in camera
RAW development in camera
Video: 4K 25p / 24p, FHD 60p, HD 120p
Frame cutout from 4K movie is possible
5 Axis Electronic Image Stabilizer · Combination IS
Standard ISO: 100-25600 (extended ISO: 51200)
Continuous: Up to 10 frames / sec (at servo AF: up to 7.4 frames / sec)
EVF: 0.39 type 2.36 million dot Organic EL
3 type 104 million dots Bali angle touch panel liquid crystal
Wi-Fi · Bluetooth · NFC installed
Wireless remote controller BR-E1 compatible
Supports HDMI HDR output
Supports the next-generation CR3 RAW format and the new C-RAW compression format
The C - RAW format is 40% smaller in file size than conventional RAW, and it corresponds to in - camera RAW development and digital lens optimizer
Battery: LP-E 12
Size: 116.3 x 88.1 x 58.7 mm
Weight: 387 g black, 390 g white (including battery and memory card)
Color: Black / White

so eye detection AF is added, not sure what this dual sensing IS is.. silent mode? electronic shutter? greatly improved AF performance. All nice.

Video: 4K 25p / 24p .. did 30p get left out?

There's alot of firsts in here from a canon mirrorless point of view.

more pics of the camera. this is really dumbed down folks. almost M100 dumbed down. probably perfect for vlogging though, everything is from the touchscreen.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2018)

Yep. Eye AF + this 'dual sensing IS' (which appears as a separate line item to the electronic video stabilization) would be the exciting new stuff for the stills folks here.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Yep. Eye AF + this 'dual sensing IS' (which appears as a separate line item to the electronic video stabilization) would be the exciting new stuff for the stills folks here.
> 
> - A



It is probably (hopefully) sensor stabilization and lens stabilization working together, similar to Olympus where the claim up to 5 stops of stabilization....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> It is probably (hopefully) sensor stabilization and lens stabilization working together, similar to Olympus where the claim up to 5 stops of stabilization....



Unlikely that Canon is implementing IBIS. It's dual-_sensing_ IS, probably means the camera's gyro sensors (i.e., electronic level) help support lens IS. That may require lens firmware updates.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > It is probably (hopefully) sensor stabilization and lens stabilization working together, similar to Olympus where the claim up to 5 stops of stabilization....
> ...



but it does say "5 Axis Electronic Image Stabilizer · Combination IS"...... 5 axis is most likely IBIS...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 22, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



Sorry, no. Current bodies offer '5 Axis Electronic Image Stabilizer · Combination IS', which applies only to video capture. The combination part is optical lens IS with digital rotation and translation correction of the video. 

[quote author=Canon]The Canon EOS M5 also features Combination IS with in-camera 5-axis image stabilization, while capturing video, a first in the Canon EOS series. With a compatible lens attachediv, Combination IS leverages optical IS and in-camera digital IS to help create tremendously smooth videos.[/quote]


----------



## Talys (Feb 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Yep. Eye AF + this 'dual sensing IS' (which appears as a separate line item to the electronic video stabilization) would be the exciting new stuff for the stills folks here.
> 
> - A



Eye AF is the single most useful feature in a Sony, in my opinion. I would love to see it (or Pupil AF or whatever) in Canon bodies.

IBIS has been ho-hum for me; it's definitely not remotely close to in-lens image stabilization, though it's slightly better than nothing for lenses that don't have any IS. I found that the problem is that the keeper rate might be slightly higher, but the rate of tack-sharp images was really not any different. So what ends up happening is that I had more 2- and 3-star photos that I never did anything with, but were good enough that I didn't delete.

On lenses with ILIS, people say that IBIS + ILIS is better; perhaps so, but I didn't really notice it in terms of usable shutter speeds on an A7R2. Maybe if I used an A7R3 for a whole bunch more, I'd notice a higher keep rate.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2018)

3dit0r said:


> This also means the APS-C [mirrorless] system needs decent environmental sealing.



Curious to see how the M5/M6 'II' (or whatever they call it) pans out. That line was previously something like a mirrorless 80D. Yet we will have the new mirrorless mid-level item in the M50, so it makes me wonder what the future breakdown of EOS M will be. 

The presumption is (leaving out any M1 for FF talk for now, let's just talk crop):

M5/M6 II = Top (M50 specs + more knobs/controls + likely higher fps yet, possibly new sensor, possibly sealed)
M50 = Mid-level (4K, quick burst, integral VF)
M100 = Entry

But it's possible that the M50 is more _77D_ like than 80D and Canon envisions a *4*-tier EOS M crop platform:

M* = Think 7D3-level in mirrorless terms (weathersealed, and 1-2 sealed EF-M lenses would be needed!)
M5/M6 II = Think 80D-level in mirrorless terms
M50 = Think 77D-level in mirrorless terms
M100 = Entry

* = M1 would naturally top the crop platform, but we'd get lost in a naming fight (which we love to do here, because naming stuff is everyone's favorite pasttime here :)

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


[/quote]

DARN!


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3dit0r said:
> 
> 
> > This also means the APS-C [mirrorless] system needs decent environmental sealing.
> ...



The lack of poweruser ergonomics in the M50 make it more like an x00D than a 77D (never mind 80D), even though it's tech specs are pretty impressive. I propose a simple heuristic for figuring out what tier Canon considers a body to be on: the number of C modes available.


3 – High-end, professional (1D, 5D, 7D, hypothetical M*)
2 – Enthusiast (80D, 6D, M5, M6)
(1 – No currently available bodies; 60D, 70D had just one)
0 – All "Rebel-like" (77D, x00D, 1x00D, M50, M100)


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> 3dit0r said:
> 
> 
> > This also means the APS-C [mirrorless] system needs decent environmental sealing.
> ...



or you are overthinking.

canon is going to happily make camera bodies to fit into niches. vlogging is a over-hyped niche, but still a niche.

The M50 fits into that role. it does nothing to change the m6, M5, or even the M100 really and there really doesn't have to be a line to line matchup between rebels and xxD series cameras and the mirrorless lineup. that actually would be rather inane for canon to do since the requirements of the market and video SHOULD be entirely different for mirrorless than it should for DSLR's.

and finally .. the M's are made by the powershot groups and are powershot in model numbers. they could probably couldn't care any less about how the DSLR lineup looks. the powershots are more about cameras to fit into roles than they are some mystical DSLR numbering or deployment scheme. the G9x, G5x, G3x, G7x all share similarities but are tweaked for different roles. The EF-M's more closely match up to the Gx series bodies then they ever do the DSLR's.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 22, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> The M50 fits into that role. it does nothing to change the m6, M5, or even the M100 really and there really doesn't have to be a line to line matchup between rebels and xxD series cameras and the mirrorless lineup. that actually would be rather inane for canon to do since the requirements of the market and video SHOULD be entirely different for mirrorless than it should for DSLR's.



You call it overthinking, I call it _Canon being Canon_. They segment the crap out of us and line us up for specific price points in their arsenal of products.

I actually think there's a ton of sense for these to line up because one day (5 years? 10?) the mirrors in Rebels won't be there anymore, and folks might want something spec/feature-similar in the mirrorless format. What remains to be seen is if Canon will simply pull the mirror out of a similar sized Rebel (to keep EF-S alive), or if they will just point people to a similarly tiered setup of camera options in EOS M. 

If it's the latter, expect EOS M to grow into a segmented market setup that resembles the SLR tier of crop camera bodies. They don't have to look like Rebels and have all the same controls (PowerShot thinking may honestly be better for such small bodies), but the features and price points will 100% be there. That's what Canon does: market research, segment the market, offer a portfolio with a houseload of price points and conquer!

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> rrcphoto said:
> 
> 
> > The M50 fits into that role. it does nothing to change the m6, M5, or even the M100 really and there really doesn't have to be a line to line matchup between rebels and xxD series cameras and the mirrorless lineup. that actually would be rather inane for canon to do since the requirements of the market and video SHOULD be entirely different for mirrorless than it should for DSLR's.
> ...



Sigh.

why are you trying kicking and screaming to fit this into a less dynamic role model when no other powershot line matches up the DSLR's? These are powershots. They are developed and sold under the powershot umbrella, NOT the DSLR umbrella. Thier model numbers, are powershot model numbers (PC____), not DSC____ which is for all DSLR's.

Segmentation has nothing to do with trying to fit this into a rebel / xxD series DSLR lineup and try to create some fantasy of equivalency.

you quoted me and clipped out the most relevant part of my response to you.

These cameras are segmented similar to the Gx series of 1" powershots.

heck you could have guessed the M5 feature set and look from looking at the powershots.

G9x - M100
G7x - M6
G5x - M5

it's not that hard.


----------



## freejay (Feb 22, 2018)

"Electronic" stabilization is software only. But Canon is pretty good with that.
"Sensor" stabilization is IBIS.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 23, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> EVERY. Single. release like this, there's a bunch of speculation, that turns into rumor, that turns into canon statements which turn out to be canon lied to us once the actual product came out, and the cries of why couldn't canon do what i dreamt up a week ago.



no. Every single release people express their hope to finally get gear that is fully competitive with current market/ other vendors' products *in every respect* ... every time that hope gets disappointed by Canon ... e.g. "again, no 4k", "again sensor not fully up to par with Sony", etc. ... EVERY. SINGLE.TIME. STUPID. CANON underdelivers.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Feb 23, 2018)

AvTvM, while I share a bit of that sentiment, if I felt like you I'd be long gone from Canon ... unless I liked torturing myself or just wanted to complain and be negative. 

Jack


----------



## Talys (Feb 23, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I actually think there's a ton of sense for these to line up because one day (5 years? 10?) the mirrors in Rebels won't be there anymore, and folks might want something spec/feature-similar in the mirrorless format. What remains to be seen is if Canon will simply pull the mirror out of a similar sized Rebel (to keep EF-S alive), or if they will just point people to a similarly tiered setup of camera options in EOS M.



I'll make you a bet, just for the fun of it -- that in 2028, there will still be new mirrored Rebels being released. Probably in multiple colors! 8)

I saw a guy walk into a camera shop just yesterday and buy three disposable film cameras. If those are still around... LOL.


----------



## AvTvM (Feb 24, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> AvTvM, while I share a bit of that sentiment, if I felt like you I'd be long gone from Canon ... unless I liked torturing myself or just wanted to complain and be negative.
> 
> Jack




quit simple: i have not purchased any new Canon gear for last 2 or even 3 years ... just keep using what i got. switch to another brand has not (yet) been compelling (enough) for me either ... 

mFT = sensor too small, prices too high, not interested at all
Nikon = no APS-C or FF mirrorless 
Fuji = retro-styled crop-sensor gear at FF prices and almost FF size and weight, plus don't care for their deviant sensors 
Sony = only latest gen has halfway bearable UI, but cameras got bigger all the time and lenses are either crappy or way too big and too expensive

as i often said, "stupid Canon is incredibly fortunate to have even more stupid competition only" ...


----------



## dak723 (Feb 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM, while I share a bit of that sentiment, if I felt like you I'd be long gone from Canon ... unless I liked torturing myself or just wanted to complain and be negative.
> ...



No offense, but when someone finds fault with all the camera companies - and with cameras that have great IQ are easy to use, and are way beyond what was possible in the film era - it's not the camera companies that are stupid.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> Jack Douglas said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM, while I share a bit of that sentiment, if I felt like you I'd be long gone from Canon ... unless I liked torturing myself or just wanted to complain and be negative.
> ...


Once we step out of dpr, dxo, rumors, miranda and other internet forums into real world of making pics, there are lot of things going in favor of Canon i.e., EF mount, lens, quality control, color science, service, nice cameras, market share, focus on all spectrum of users and duel pixel focus. Of course then incredibly fortunate competition and add to the shrinking market dynamics.


----------



## scyrene (Feb 24, 2018)

AvTvM said:


> as i often said, "stupid Canon is incredibly fortunate to have even more stupid competition only" ...



Maybe all the camea manufacturers are stupid, as you say, and you alone are clever. But I can think of a more likely alternative :


----------



## crashpc (Feb 24, 2018)

Nobody has to be stupid really. It´s just that many people (even internally in the company) don´t agree with certain things, and to produce at least anything, the outcome is great compromise. Maybe too great, more often than not.

The thing we want might not just be the priority in global sales angle of view. That doesn´t mean we don´t get it later, or that it is stoopid. It´s just that the function, or a "parameter" didn´t make it to the final product for some reasons. But it has better chance if people ask for it openly. Calling someone stupiid for it, is.... wel, stupid.


----------



## Talys (Feb 24, 2018)

ritholtz said:


> Once we step out of dpr, dxo, rumors, miranda and other internet forums into real world of making pics, there are lot of things going in favor of Canon i.e., EF mount, lens, quality control, color science, service, nice cameras, market share, focus on all spectrum of users and duel pixel focus. Of course then incredibly fortunate competition and add to the shrinking market dynamics.



Although the list of why I like/choose Canon is very long, it boils down to: cameras that work really well for the type of photography I enjoy (studio/wildlife), EF mount lenses, tons of third party accessories, a track record of superb reliability, and the ability to produce images that I am very happy with. 

Price also matters. Pretty much every time I've wanted to expand what I do, Canon has had something in the low, mid, and high end price range that does a pretty darn good job -- and within each of those price brackets, it's extremely competitive. Even if I were to really love the A7R3 enough to buy one, I would have a really hard time swallowing Sony prices on a set of what I'd want -- even the most popular zooms, like 100-400, 70-200/2.8, 24-70, 16-35 are all so expensive.


----------



## Yasko (Feb 24, 2018)

let's hope this sensor is not a mild step back from previous technology like the 6D sensore leaves to suppose ???


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 24, 2018)

Yasko said:


> let's hope this sensor is not a mild step back from previous technology like the 6D sensore leaves to suppose ???



To be honest, the presumed target audience for this one couldn't care less about low-ISO shadow lifting.


----------



## Yasko (Feb 24, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Yasko said:
> 
> 
> > let's hope this sensor is not a mild step back from previous technology like the 6D sensore leaves to suppose ???
> ...



Are you the presumed target audience of this camera or why do you know that? Some of them surely will.
And in general I am thinking of an overall pattern in Canon's sensor developping direction when I say that I don't hope it will be that way. Because this camera looks promising, and it still has an APS-C Sensor...

APS-C sensor is in the direction of enthusiasts, and those people generally do care about shadow lifting from time to time, me included.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 24, 2018)

Yasko said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Yasko said:
> ...



"Couldn't care less" was perhaps too strongly worded, but first: this is a Rebel-class camera, many/most potential buyers are going to only shoot JPEG. Second, this seems to be a rather video-oriented camera, also making shadow lifting a moot point. APS-C sensor definitely doesn't equal "enthusiast"—nobody would call the M100 or the 4000D an enthusiast body even though they have APS-C sensors.

Anyway, it's all a bit of a moot point because I'd say it's almost certain that this iteration of the 24Mpix sensor isn't going to be worse than the previous generation one (80D etc.).


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 24, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Yasko said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...



totally agree here. this sensor if it is tweaked is tweaked for video and stills is an afterthought.


----------



## dak723 (Feb 24, 2018)

Yasko said:


> Sharlin said:
> 
> 
> > Yasko said:
> ...



The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.


----------



## sanj (Feb 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > Once we step out of dpr, dxo, rumors, miranda and other internet forums into real world of making pics, there are lot of things going in favor of Canon i.e., EF mount, lens, quality control, color science, service, nice cameras, market share, focus on all spectrum of users and duel pixel focus. Of course then incredibly fortunate competition and add to the shrinking market dynamics.
> ...



Clap clap.


----------



## EduPortas (Feb 24, 2018)

Finally 4K becomes a consumer feature. There's no going back.

The real question becomes this: when did we get decent 1080p? With the Canon C100 and superior cinema models?

Honest question.

I can't see a consumer priced and spec'd mirrorless cam producing better video than Canon's really
expensive cine cams, even if most of them do not feature 4K. Canon's own C100 Mark II does not record in 4K, for example.


----------



## mistaspeedy (Feb 24, 2018)

If the C100 mark II was ever dead and obsolete, it is now. Especially for the massive price they ask for, and what it delivers in return.

Maybe they can slash $1500-$2000 off the price tag to make it more relevant. For those who do not want a 4K workflow slowing them down, and just want to deliver decent 1080p.


----------



## Sharlin (Feb 24, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> If the C100 mark II was ever dead and obsolete, it is now. Especially for the massive price they ask for, and what it delivers in return.
> 
> Maybe they can slash $1500-$2000 off the price tag to make it more relevant. For those who do not want a 4K workflow slowing them down, and just want to deliver decent 1080p.



Uh, the C100 II may or may not be overpriced but something like the M50 definitely doesn't compete with it. Not even close. Whether it has some form of 4K or not.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 24, 2018)

mistaspeedy said:


> If the C100 mark II was ever dead and obsolete, it is now. Especially for the massive price they ask for, and what it delivers in return.
> 
> Maybe they can slash $1500-$2000 off the price tag to make it more relevant. For those who do not want a 4K workflow slowing them down, and just want to deliver decent 1080p.



oh good grief.

just look at a C100 and it should be painfully obvious why these two cameras don't care about each other.


----------



## transpo1 (Feb 24, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Yasko said:
> 
> 
> > Sharlin said:
> ...



Photographer fascism? Too bad video is now part of the equation. Otherwise we wouldn’t be getting this camera


----------



## tmroper (Feb 24, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> roxics said:
> 
> 
> > Is it shooting H.264 and if so at what bitrate or is it going the mjpeg route like all of Canon's still cameras have done so far?
> ...



Seems more like a professional VLOGer body. That's a relatively new industry, with people using all kinds of cameras. But Canon does seem dedicated to at least trying to cater to their growing needs (their AF being one crucial technology for vlogging).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.



You you've ever really worked with high contrast scenes (that mostly applies to landscapes, but non-studio portraits, concert photography etc. are also in this category) you wouldn't have said that. DR is a very important metric and "proper exposure" doesn't help if the scene requires say 15 ev range and your camera is only 10 ev.
You can deal with 10-stop-DR-camera too but it doesn't mean professionals don't need greater DR.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 25, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.
> ...



When will the DRoning stop? :

The point dak723 is making is that *for the majority of buyers/owners of any given camera*, DR is not a _primary_ concern. I haven't seen anyone here (seriously, at least) denying the utility of more DR. It's about placing the that utility into the context of overall system capabilities and performance...*for the majority*. Sure, there are many people who are not in the majority, but most people are – by definition. If you doubt the conclusion that DR is not of primary importance to most buyers, please explain why Canon was the #1 ILC manufacturer 8 years ago – the year that Nikon sensors started delivering significantly more DR than Canon (as did Sony soon thereafter)...and Canon remains the #1 ILC manufacturer, with an even greater share of the ILC market than they had 8 years ago.

The whole 'shadow-lifting stress test' was a DPR-initiated phenomenon that seems to have come about about mainly for two reasons: 1) in recent years, cameras have simply gotten so good that there's little to differentiate them, and 2) DPR needed a way to differentiate them.

Please don't make the mistake of thinking your needs/wants represent those of the majority. If you crave more DR, good for you...so maybe you look at DxOMark's (biased) scores, and decide Sony is a great option. Someone else may highly value weather sealing, and look at Imaging Resorce's test where the Sony a7RIII failed for water ingress, or Roger Cicala/Lensrentals' teardown of the a7RIII showing it's very well sealed, except for the bottom of the camera which has no sealing whatsoever (portrait orientation, who uses that?), and decide that Sony is worthless as far as their needs go.

Personally, I'd never say no to more DR, and I've run into plenty of real-world situations where I needed more DR than my camera could capture. But...I've run into vanishingly few real-world situations where an additional 1-2 stops of DR would have been of significant benefit – the gap between scene DR and camera capability is usually much greater. But maybe you've just never worked with really high contrast scenes before. The five stops in your example, sure, that would make a difference. But that's not really a relevant comparison unless you're comparing a camera from >10 years ago with one from today.

As for your scene with 15 stops DR...which camera would you use to capture that full range? I have some that can, but they're research-grade cameras used in a laboratory setting. Today's ILCs cannot capture the full range of a 15-stop scene. Perhaps you've been a bit duped by DxOMark, since they typically report (calculated) DR following a (theoretical) downsampling to an 8 MP image. While that certainly does increase the DR of an existing image by reducing the noise floor, what it doesn't do is bring back DR that was lost at capture – the details that were not captured are gone.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 25, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.
> ...



totally overblown metric.

there's little use cases that would see a window of 1EV or less difference between a 80D styled sensor and a D7300 / D500 styled sensor.

and many a landscape photographer has had little problems with DR.

in most cases, if you need more DR odds are you are over what the best sensors can provide anyways, so you are far better off honing your technique than worrying about your camera.

granted there's some with real need, however, in alot of cases, having an ISO invariant sensor works against you if you use it as your primary way of boosting shadows to midtones.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 25, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Quarkcharmed said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...


But I want to be able to lift the shadows by 5 or 6 stops..... How else am I supposed to display random noise?


----------



## Woody (Feb 25, 2018)

It's always good to have more DR.

But in my books, system reliability and usability are far more important.

In all my years of photography, I had only encountered a couple of instances when I wished I had more DR. Most of the time, I could lift shadow details from Canon RAW images with impunity.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 25, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> granted there's some with real need, however, in alot of cases, having an ISO invariant sensor works against you if you use it as your primary way of boosting shadows to midtones.



Not really wanting to see this thread dive into another dr debate but I don't understand what you mean by this? I'm not sure I see how having an iso invariant sensor could be a downside, no matter the way it's used? Not meaning that in a pointed way, I'm just not aware of where it would be bad

On the other hand, the specs for this camera look pretty decent, didn't really think canon would put these specs into a camera at this level. This would appear to be the first camera canon has done in this price bracket/level with 120 fps in HD?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Quarkcharmed said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



I was commenting on the statement that read as "pros don't care about shadow lifting and just set proper exposure".
That's simply not true. Pros do care about DR, however I know that many modern cameras have enough DR for many purposes, say studio portraiture with controlled light doesn't really require a huge DR.



neuroanatomist said:


> The whole 'shadow-lifting stress test' was a DPR-initiated phenomenon that seems to have come about about mainly for two reasons: 1) in recent years, cameras have simply gotten so good that there's little to differentiate them, and 2) DPR needed a way to differentiate them.
> 
> Please don't make the mistake of thinking your needs/wants represent those of the majority. If you crave more DR, good for you...so maybe you look at DxOMark's (biased) scores, and decide Sony is a great option. Someone else may highly value weather sealing, and look at Imaging Resorce's test where the Sony a7RIII failed for water ingress, or Roger Cicala/Lensrentals' teardown of the a7RIII showing it's very well sealed, except for the bottom of the camera which has no sealing whatsoever (portrait orientation, who uses that?), and decide that Sony is worthless as far as their needs go.



I do look at DxO mark score but treat it with a grain of salt. They're not really a public organisation and we don't know how exactly they measure. Say their 'perceptual megapixels' is a popular but technically useless metric as we don't even know how exactly they measure it. Any independent scientific measure must be reproducible and nobody knows how to even attempt to reproduce their measurements.

On the other hand, again I don't think that 'majority of photographers don't care about DR'. It may be not the main issue, but they do care.



neuroanatomist said:


> Personally, I'd never say no to more DR, and I've run into plenty of real-world situations where I needed more DR than my camera could capture. But...I've run into vanishingly few real-world situations where an additional 1-2 stops of DR would have been of significant benefit – the gap between scene DR and camera capability is usually much greater. But maybe you've just never worked with really high contrast scenes before. The five stops in your example, sure, that would make a difference. But that's not really a relevant comparison unless you're comparing a camera from >10 years ago with one from today.
> 
> As for your scene with 15 stops DR...which camera would you use to capture that full range? I have some that can, but they're research-grade cameras used in a laboratory setting. Today's ILCs cannot capture the full range of a 15-stop scene. Perhaps you've been a bit duped by DxOMark, since they typically report (calculated) DR following a (theoretical) downsampling to an 8 MP image. While that certainly does increase the DR of an existing image by reducing the noise floor, what it doesn't do is bring back DR that was lost at capture – the details that were not captured are gone.



I do landscapes and concerts, that's exactly where I need more DR. My 5D MkIV does great in these genres but I cannot say I don't want more. I can compare 5D MkIV RAWs with 5D MkIII, 100D, 70D, 550D (not that I have all those cameras) and it's so much better in terms of DR, it really gives you more freedom.
It's also very important when shooting scenes with constantly changing light (i.e. concerts, especially art/dancing performances). You just get less throw-always with a high DR camera.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 25, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> But I want to be able to lift the shadows by 5 or 6 stops..... How else am I supposed to display random noise?



To tell the truth, that's the case where proper exposure could help, it looks like your moon was underexposed from the very beginning. It's wasn't a good exposure if the moon was the only subject.


----------



## tron (Feb 25, 2018)

Canon's 5DMarkIv is greatly improved in DR. I do not understand why many forum members behave as if it does not exist!


----------



## BillB (Feb 25, 2018)

tron said:


> Canon's 5DMarkIv is greatly improved in DR. I do not understand why many forum members behave as if it does not exist!


Well, not everybody is able, or willing, to pay Sony fullframe, Nikon 850 or 5DIV prices, even on this forum. Also, there are people who think the 5DIV doesn't match up to comparable Sony and Nikon equipment. And there are people who have decided that the 5DIV doesn't have enough to make it worthwhile to upgrade their 5DIII. And so it goes....


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 25, 2018)

tron said:


> Canon's 5DMarkIv is greatly improved in DR. I do not understand why many forum members behave as if it does not exist!



It's exceptionally good to me not only because of DR but because of many other features, and its DR is one of the best on the market. It was one the crucial factors when I was choosing between 5DIV and 5DsR.

If they release 5DsR II with the sensor as good as 5DIV but 50Mpx, it'd be a D850 killer...


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 25, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> Not really wanting to see this thread dive into another dr debate but I don't understand what you mean by this? I'm not sure I see how having an iso invariant sensor could be a downside, no matter the way it's used? Not meaning that in a pointed way, I'm just not aware of where it would be bad


if you boost shadows to the midtone via an ISO invariant sensor you effectively move the ISO up one 1EV with each 1EV of movement between shadow to midtone. each 1EV of ISO essentially loses you one bit of color depth and also less micro contrast then if you left the ISO alone.

when you bracket, use grad filters, etc - you leave the ISO alone, which keeps those areas you want in the midtones at a higher bit depth and a higher level of microcontrast.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 25, 2018)

tron said:


> Canon's 5DMarkIv is greatly improved in DR. I do not understand why many forum members behave as if it does not exist!



where does anyone say it doesn't exist?


----------



## dak723 (Feb 25, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Canon's 5DMarkIv is greatly improved in DR. I do not understand why many forum members behave as if it does not exist!
> ...



What? You missed all the dozens (or hundreds) of posts that mention how Canon is way behind Sony and Nikon in DR?


----------



## dak723 (Feb 25, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > The presumed target consumer of every camera is dominated by people who couldn't care less about 3 or more stop shadow lifting. Only the DR "enthusiasts" who dominate forums such as this one care. Real photographers who take real pictures and know how to set the exposure are the target consumer and it is time for them to dictate the conversation about what is and what is not important in a new camera.
> ...



Quite the contrary. I shoot primarily landscapes and have done so for almost 40 years. I have never had to underexpose - or then to push shadows more than 3 stops - usually far less is all that is necessary. I see a lot of photos where people are pushing shadows far more than I would consider necessary, to the point where there is almost no differentiation between light and shadow. If that is what they want to do - by all means - they should do it. What they shouldn't do is assume that that is the way it should be done and that other photographers should do it that way, too, and that Camera companies that fail to meet the demand of those few are somehow negligent.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 25, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > But I want to be able to lift the shadows by 5 or 6 stops..... How else am I supposed to display random noise?
> ...



We have a winner!

Technology is not the answer to bad photography......


----------



## crashpc (Feb 25, 2018)

Problem solved  :


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 25, 2018)

crashpc said:


> Problem solved  :


Looks like some kind of Jelly fish under water.


----------



## crashpc (Feb 25, 2018)

If that´s what images with pulled shadows from Canon camera look like, then be it. :-D


----------



## zim (Feb 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Quarkcharmed said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



+1


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Quarkcharmed said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



High DR isn't only about ability to push shadows. If you've been shooting for 40 years, you'd remember the film does better when overexposed as opposed to digital.

In digital photography, the higher DR is needed exactly to *not* push shadows or highlights, we need high DR to minimise pushing. 

Most of the scenes that include sky have DR of more than 12-13 EVs (and sunsets/sunrises need even more). But it doesn't mean a 12-stop sensor will cope. You need more than 12 so that you do less pushing. The data from the top and the bottom of the range is very limited to manipulation. Increasing darkest shadows by +3ev will produce noise even on the best Sony sensors.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 25, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Quarkcharmed said:
> ...



Only negative film, slide film needed to be erred to the side of underexposure to achieve maximum DR capabilities, you could dig into the shadows on slide film with a longer print exposure, but once highlights were over exposed there was no detail left on the film. Oh that sounds just like digital...

We have been capturing natural scenes with way lower dr than we currently have in even the most modest DSLR’s for generations. Base iso DR simply is not an issue, of the pro photographers I know, and I know a few, none of them could give you an accurate definition of DR and if you explained to them what it was they’d say they want more of it at higher iso for things like school sports shooting under crappy light or candid reception work, the difference between a players helmet and their face in the shade of that helmet easily beats the DR we have at 6400 iso, nobody gives a damn about landscapes and 100 iso capabilities, that is easy.

Ansel Adams would turn in his grave listening to the bleeding hearts of the DRone crowd and how the capabilities we have now are not good enough, it’s laughable. The DR and camera tech we have vastly outstrips all but a very few photographers yet everybody is an expert and ‘needs’ more.


----------



## Isaacheus (Feb 25, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> Isaacheus said:
> 
> 
> > Not really wanting to see this thread dive into another dr debate but I don't understand what you mean by this? I'm not sure I see how having an iso invariant sensor could be a downside, no matter the way it's used? Not meaning that in a pointed way, I'm just not aware of where it would be bad
> ...



Ah, I thought you were referring to an issue with iso invariant sensors in particular, rather than just the downsides of pushing exposure overall. That's the part I wasn't sure of.

Obviously getting the exposure right on with filters, or bracketing where possible will give better results than a single image that is pushed. No debate there. I'd still have an iso invariant sensor for the times I can't bracket and get a usable shot, but being slack with exposure isn't the aim


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 26, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> We have been capturing natural scenes with way lower dr than we currently have in even the most modest DSLR’s for generations. Base iso DR simply is not an issue, of the pro photographers I know, and I know a few, none of them could give you an accurate definition of DR and if you explained to them what it was they’d say they want more of it at higher iso for things like school sports shooting under crappy light or candid reception work, the difference between a players helmet and their face in the shade of that helmet easily beats the DR we have at 6400 iso, nobody gives a damn about landscapes and 100 iso capabilities, that is easy.



As I mentioned above I'm shooting performances from time to time and yes, that's the case where I also want more DR. Even on 5DMkIV the DR becomes narrow at high ISO, it does great compared to other cameras, but why wouldn't I want more? 
And why wouldn't I need more DR at the base ISO 100 when I shoot landscapes and I often hit the conditions where 5DMkIV doesn't cope and I have to do exposure bracketing and blending?

Turning back to the topic, I do have my own requirements in mind when I think about a secondary camera (M50 potentially). I want the camera to be lightweight and have a good sensor, high DR and low noise included. 



privatebydesign said:


> Ansel Adams would turn in his grave listening to the bleeding hearts of the DRone crowd and how the capabilities we have now are not good enough, it’s laughable. The DR and camera tech we have vastly outstrips all but a very few photographers yet everybody is an expert and ‘needs’ more.



There's two types of experts, one type tells others need more, the other type tells others they don't need more... I'm talking about myself and the conditions I shoot. Yes I do care about DR, megapixels, number of bits and ISO performance. Those are the primary specs that affect the IQ, given we use the same lens for sensor comparison.

And I wouldn't dare to guess what Ansel Adams would have wanted from modern cameras. He was great at image manipulation, and when you manipulate, you always want more information in the original negative.


----------



## Talys (Feb 27, 2018)

People on forums often conflate different issues.

First of all, if all things were equal, would a photographer accept gear with more DR, more megapixels, and a better SNR curve? Of course! But obviously, the supposition is pointless, because things aren't ever equal and it's all about making the right compromise for the individual.

Now, when some people (like me) talk about how DR isn't an issue and such, it's from a totally different perspective. The way I improve my photography is that I look at photos I think are amazing, try to understand how they're technically achieved, and then try to apply that to my own photography. It's often a combination of viewing other people's work, reading, experimentation, and then making it my own.

Most often, photos that I see that's just AMAZING, where they share what equipment was used, is quite often pretty old stuff that doesn't come close to what we can get in sensor tech today. When I go try to take great photos like that, I often fall (far) short -- but the shortfall is never "gee, if only I had 2 more steps of DR, I could have done it". And most certainly, it is never, "if only I had 50 megapixels, my shot would be freaking awesome".

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't like 50 megapixels (because, hey, I'm a nerd too, and I appreciate nice technology); but it does mean that it really would make me feel happier a whole lot more than it would improve my photography.

I see it frequently stated that great photography requires mastery of light and composition, and the capturing of a moment. I firmly believe that if you have all three of those elements, it hardly matters whether you have a 5DII or a A7RIII; you'll have a great photo.

So speaking only for myself, when I say that sensor tech isn't an issue, I mean that it really doesn't help me with light, composition, or moment, and for those rare photographs where I have managed to capture all three of those just right, I love my photos from my t2i -- or even Minolta Maxxum 7000i -- just as much as any camera body I've owned since.

My hobby of photography (and hence, interest in gear) isn't to have progressively easier ways to diarize my life and share that with others. It's to improve art in order to achieve images that are of the sort and quality of the work I admire -- and for that things like base ISO DR, given where we're at today with enthusiast cameras, just isn't an issue anymore.


----------



## Deleted member 380306 (Feb 27, 2018)

The price and specs look good, my only concern is the battery life is pretty low, however I thought my sony and old fuji x-pro were going to be issues but that was never the case so it could be nothing too concerning...

So I can order now, but does anyone know the release date here in the UK? And I did ask before about the price being much lower than the m5 which seem to me to be the lesser camera on paper, am I missing something here?

https://www.wexphotovideo.com/product-comparison/?awc=2298_1519731752_c018e46e06cce4da800326752830fb08&utm_source=aw


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> People on forums often conflate different issues.
> 
> First of all, if all things were equal, would a photographer accept gear with more DR, more megapixels, and a better SNR curve? Of course! But obviously, the supposition is pointless, because things aren't ever equal and it's all about making the right compromise for the individual.
> 
> ...



I'd agree to the most of your points, although when you take 5DMkII and A7RIII as an example, both cameras produce great quality images to start with. However because Sony has greater DR and more resolutin in the sensor, it'll give you more freedom and will probably save some landscape shots where 5DMkII would struggle. 

And if we go deeper in the past and take some old PowerShot cameras, old A540 or similar, you won't get anything good with those 5-6Mpix and extreme noise. The same applies to the mobile phones. The most recent top models have better sensors but not nearly good enough for serious landscaping or portraiture.

Can you get a good interesting image with the phone? - yes. Can you get decent shots from a phone in all conditions where you can get decent shots with 5DMkIV? - absolutely not.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 28, 2018)

OK......

Here is what you could do with a 2.1 Megapixel P/S camera with 8 stops of DR in 2001.....

I firmly believe that the major limitation with ALL cameras is the person using them.

All cameras today are better..... but people remain the same.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> OK......
> 
> Here is what you could do with a 2.1 Megapixel P/S camera with 8 stops of DR in 2001.....
> 
> ...



It looks good small sized. I appreciate your skill, it's a nice picture, colours and composition - no problem.

Opened full size 1600x1200 - sorry, the image quality is below mediocre. First of all it's not sharp... looks ok at 800x600 maybe. Also there's two blown out patches in the sky (thanks to low DR).

So it's good enough as an Instagram post, but not really usable if you want to print it or view on a big screen. Taken with a better modern camera, it could've been so much better/usable.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 28, 2018)

Those old cameras were only good for old style snap shots, and then only barely. Anything larger than that and they look pretty terrible. So you would not be able to view them on any monitor and still look decent for example. Besides having low resolution, other issues were compression artefacts and debeyering (which reduces effective resolution)

The minimum for decent shots is about 8 megapixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2018)

Tugela said:


> The minimum for decent shots is about 8 megapixels.



That explains why this silverback looks pissed off, I was only using a 4 MP camera and he knew that in twelve years someone would think the shot wasn't decent.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 28, 2018)

OTOH, this lioness seems quite happy with a mere 4 MP...


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 28, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > OK......
> ...


Thank you for the compliment, and you are bang on right about the limitations of the image....

I did not explain myself well. The point I should have made was, this this is where we were 17 years ago with a cheap P/S camera and a plastic lens....

14 years ago I had an 8Mpixel DSLR..... Things changed fast....

10 years ago I had an 18Mpixel DSLR.....

Now I have 20.....

We are seeing diminishing returns. As new models come out, the differences are less and less. The only way left to differentiate between into and advanced models is features.... the basic IQ is approaching convergence. The M50 is being marketed as an introductory level camera and, at least to my mind, we should expect limitations on what it can do and what features it has.


----------



## Talys (Feb 28, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> We are seeing diminishing returns. As new models come out, the differences are less and less. The only way left to differentiate between into and advanced models is features.... the basic IQ is approaching convergence. The M50 is being marketed as an introductory level camera and, at least to my mind, we should expect limitations on what it can do and what features it has.



I couldn't agree more.

The problem is the technology expectations game. People expected that the 6D2 would be a cheap 5D4, for example, simply because that's how it works in smartphones and tablets and laptops: today's cutting edge is tomorrow's midrange is next year's entry level.

High end cameras, especially by Canon, have been very stubborn in this respect, as Canon does not trickle down many of its professional features into less expensive bodies.

Instead, Canon trickles _up_ many minor (though extremely useful) technological improvements -- by virtue of fast refresh cycles on their low end models -- while only adding significant features that are highly desirable to enthusiasts in only their most expensive flagship models, which have a long refresh cycle.

I think it works for people who look at cameras as tools, who don't want to buy a new tool unless it really produces better images or dramatically increases efficiency; and it doesn't work for people who look at cameras as luxury gadgets. Of course, there are lots of us who value both aspects of that (tool and gadget), and depending on where your priorities lie, you may find those refresh cycles appealing or horrendous.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> The problem is the technology expectations game. People expected that the 6D2 would be a cheap 5D4, for example, simply because that's how it works in smartphones and tablets and laptops: today's cutting edge is tomorrow's midrange is next year's entry level.
> 
> High end cameras, especially by Canon, have been very stubborn in this respect, as Canon does not trickle down many of its professional features into less expensive bodies.



...except for on-chip ADC on crop cameras while the 6D2 is passed over. :

I largely agree with your post, but Canon -- in all of its considerable market wisdom -- occasionally makes some knuckle-headed decisions.

- A


----------



## ethanz (Feb 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> occasionally makes some knuckle-headed decisions.



Don't we all


----------



## dak723 (Feb 28, 2018)

Tugela said:


> Those old cameras were only good for old style snap shots, and then only barely. Anything larger than that and they look pretty terrible. So you would not be able to view them on any monitor and still look decent for example. Besides having low resolution, other issues were compression artefacts and debeyering (which reduces effective resolution)
> 
> The minimum for decent shots is about 8 megapixels.



Ha Ha Ha! I guess I will have to give a refund to all those folks that bought 8" x 12" prints taken with my 6 MP 300D! Those prints, by the way, are indistinguishable from the prints made with my 20 MP 6D. Always fun to see someone so wrong as they try so hard to make a point.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 28, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Those old cameras were only good for old style snap shots, and then only barely. Anything larger than that and they look pretty terrible. So you would not be able to view them on any monitor and still look decent for example. Besides having low resolution, other issues were compression artefacts and debeyering (which reduces effective resolution)
> ...



and interestingly enough, all those improvements have yet to give us a decent photo of bigfoot or Nessie....


----------



## Talys (Feb 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I largely agree with your post, but Canon -- in all of its considerable market wisdom -- occasionally makes some knuckle-headed decisions.
> 
> - A



I sure can't find a fault with that statement, LOL.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> OTOH, this lioness seems quite happy with a mere 4 MP...



I don't think she cares about megapixels at all, but we do 

That's a good example of a shot that'd probably need further cropping - I believe it's cropped already, but not enough. Zoomed in, this shot would be much more impressive, but given the current resolution, further cropping will make the IQ unacceptable. So no, I'm not convinced  4Mp isn't enough, but again it depends on the purpose of the shot.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Feb 28, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Ha Ha Ha! I guess I will have to give a refund to all those folks that bought 8" x 12" prints taken with my 6 MP 300D! Those prints, by the way, are indistinguishable from the prints made with my 20 MP 6D. Always fun to see someone so wrong as they try so hard to make a point.



Prints of what DPI? say 300DPI, 8*300*12*300 = 8640000, it's 8.6MP, a bit larger than 6MP, but well within the capacity of the 6D.

If you print at 150DPI (which in my opinion is too low for 8x12 prints), then yes the prints will look roughly the same.


----------



## Talys (Feb 28, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Ha Ha Ha! I guess I will have to give a refund to all those folks that bought 8" x 12" prints taken with my 6 MP 300D! Those prints, by the way, are indistinguishable from the prints made with my 20 MP 6D. Always fun to see someone so wrong as they try so hard to make a point.
> ...



The normal standard for excellent, high quality *8x10* output is 240*ppi* (pixel per inch) source. That's distinct from *dpi*, or dots per inch, of the printer, which will usually be much higher than that (especially color inkjets), because colors aren't printed in a ratio of 1 dot to 1 pixel. It takes many dots to represent 1 pixel, because pixels can have any color value, whereas each dot may only have one of a few ink colors, and it is a pattern of dots to recreate a pixel.

For photographic prints, there is almost never a reason to go over 300 pixels per inch for the source source. Even when printing at resolutions upwards of 4800 dpi (like a Pixma Pro 100, which is 4800 horizontal and 2400 vertical), a 300 and 600 ppi image will be indistinguishable printed out.

So to get a really sharp 8x10 print, you'd be ideally looking for somewhere between:

1920 x 2400 = 4.6 megapixels @ 240 ppi to 
2400 x 3000 = 7.2 megapixels @ 300 ppi

I'll bet that on most photographs, even 240 vs 300 ppi will be really tough to distinguish. Even if you expand that to fit a letter sized (8.5" x 11") print with no bleeds or A4, it's not going to matter.

That's still not to say that a 20 megapixel image isn't a good thing, because life doesn't end with 8x10's -- it's pretty easy to print 11x17 now, for example.

Personally, I've never had a great 6 megapixel crop print out poorly as 8x10, and to the contrary, I've used much lower than that (out of necessity) and still gotten good results.


----------



## dak723 (Mar 1, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Ha Ha Ha! I guess I will have to give a refund to all those folks that bought 8" x 12" prints taken with my 6 MP 300D! Those prints, by the way, are indistinguishable from the prints made with my 20 MP 6D. Always fun to see someone so wrong as they try so hard to make a point.
> ...



8" x 12" prints from my old 6 MP Digital Rebel were about 250 ppi, which as Talys mentions is plenty good enough. And as he also mentions, if you want to go bigger, than, of course, 20 MP is better.

In fact, with my 6 MP rebel, I could get excellent quality prints printing as low as 180 ppi. I have a cropped pic that's approx. 3.2 MP (2046 x 1536) printed to approx. 8.5 x 11. The larger pixels seemed to make it possible to print at a lower ppi and still get really good results. When I got an 18 MP camera a few years ago, I felt that somewhere around 220-240 ppi was as low as I could go to make a sharp print. Of course, now we will hear how the size of the pixels doesn't matter. Well, maybe not always, but in my experience with the cameras I have had - it does.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Mar 1, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Quarkcharmed said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...



Sorry I'm guilty of mixing up dpi vs ppi. Yes I meant ppi of course.

I'm a pixel-peeper and also short-sighted so usually examine the prints closely, 240ppi doesn't feel enough for an A4-sized print. I.e. 240 may be fine if you hang it on the wall, but I'm not sure about putting it into an album where people would see it at a close proximity.

As to your experience with large vs small sensor pixels, this post http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34536.msg710338#msg710338 is a good illustration, the image looks ok downscaled but evidently blurred at full res, and it's not a focus issue. That is, 6MP camera doesn't necessarily do 6 actual megapixels, neither does 18MP camera. It depends on multiple conditions, including the lens quality and how the image is processed in camera and how noisy it is. 
Still 18MP should be better than 6MP (literally 3 times better) in most cases, I don't know why you experienced the opposite.


----------

