# Three Sensors Being Tested for Canon Full Frame Mirrorless? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 24, 2018)

```
It’s no secret that Canon is hard at work on prosumer mirrorless cameras, including at least one full frame mirrorless camera.</p>
<p>We’re told that three sensors are being tested in various camera body configurations, each with a different pixel count. The source claims that 24mp, 28mp and 36mp sensors are being used.  There is no mention if these are all new sensors or if they are modified versions of current image sensors.</p>
<p>We do find it interesting that these sorts of things are being talked about, but we still don’t have not confirmed what sort of mount solution Canon is going to come up with. As we saw this past week, Canon has <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/patent-canon-wide-angle-zoom-for-full-frame-mirrorless-camera/">patented a dedicated full frame mirrorless optical formula</a>, which tells us we’re getting a new EOS M mount for full frame sensors.</p>
<p><em>More to come….</em></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## amorse (May 24, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> The source claims that 24mp, 28mp and 36mp sensors are being used. There is no mention if these are all new sensors or if they are modified versions of current image sensors.


Does Canon currently offer a 36mp sensor with DPAF? I would assume they have to be new sensors wouldn't they? I'm not in the market for a mirrorless camera (yet) but I am so very curious as to how Canon will approach their first offerings considering their acknowledgement that they want to "go on the offensive" in mirrorless.


----------



## Architect1776 (May 24, 2018)

amorse said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The source claims that 24mp, 28mp and 36mp sensors are being used. There is no mention if these are all new sensors or if they are modified versions of current image sensors.
> ...



I would hope that Canon will make the 36 MP sensor the minimum standard for all their cameras going forward. Likely not, but it would be nice for people on a budget to get good quality like in the film days I could shoot the best film available with a Canon TLb and a pro level lens and get the same quality as the F-1. It is a shame that you have to spend big bucks on the camera now to get the better sensor (Film).


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> _"As we saw this past week, Canon has patented a dedicated full frame mirrorless optical formula, which tells us we’re getting a new EOS M mount for full frame sensors."_



No. No it doesn't. A patent is one of many paths forward Canon might take. Are you really calling the mount decision a done deal at this point? 

You might consider walking back that statement above... _unless you have more details to share with the class?_ 

- A


----------



## edoorn (May 24, 2018)

yeah a patent is only a patent, at this point at least  

could be real though, but we won't know for a while. I'd happily take a 36mpix sensor btw


----------



## tmc784 (May 24, 2018)

FF-M attached with Tele lenses/mid zoom lenses are still bulky and heavy.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

As for testing multiple resolutions, that wouldn't surprise me at all. Canon wants to spend as a little as possible in production on this, but they recognize the competition could surface with something even higher spec'd than anticipated, and a (relatively) late change to resolution is an easy way to increase the appeal of the camera (as compared to having to implement something that might drive internal geometry changes (e.g. IBIS, cooling for a better spec'd 4K, etc.).

But now that Sony's 'III' line is out of the barn, Canon's biggest missing piece of intel is what price point Nikon is joining the FF mirrorless fray. Again, Canon won't outright match body specs b/c that would be foolish, but it would look really bad if Canon dropped a 6D2-like spec body and Nikon entered the market with a mirrorless D850 variant. (I don't think that will happen -- I think both Canon/Nikon are gunning for enthusiasts first and professionals later, but you never know.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

tmc784 said:


> FF-M attached with Tele lenses/mid zoom lenses are still bulky and heavy.



Indeed -- you can't hide from the glass.

But that doesn't mean they shouldn't do FF mirrorless. They should just put a big grip on the body to better prepare it for those heavy lenses.

- A


----------



## jeffa4444 (May 24, 2018)

What surprises me the most is the back-focus. 10 - 12.5mm is very short given that Sony is 18mm as is the EF-M, It also adds to certain optical challenges.


----------



## amorse (May 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> tmc784 said:
> 
> 
> > FF-M attached with Tele lenses/mid zoom lenses are still bulky and heavy.
> ...


But there is always the option of releasing slower lenses to reduce the over all size. I guess my question for people who really need a less conspicuous body is are they willing to give up some aperture in order to shrink the kit? With full frame higher ISO performance I would imagine that a slower lens may not be as much of a barrier as it once was, provided that they do not need a very shallow depth of field. Thinking of the 35mm f/2 here; there are size benefits if the aperture is somewhat restricted on a few prime lenses. I guess the kit would be overall of a similar size as to what you could get with a 5D or a 6D in terms of length from tip of glass to back of Camera, but knowing that there are several variants are in testing I can't help but wonder if there is a size-focused body which gives up some ergonomics to shrink over all weight/size.


----------



## melgross (May 24, 2018)

Architect1776 said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



We don’t need 36MP for film quality. Long ago, Kodak stated that Kodachrome 25 was between 14 and 18MP. People were asserting that it was more like 24MP. I tested it in my lab, and indeed, it was around 18MP.

If you want medium format resolution, be aware that it wasn’t too much higher. The difference was mostly in the grain and microcontrast. Medium format lenses are actually less sharp that their 35mm equivalents. It’s complex, but 24MP sensors are already pretty sharp.

I’m not arguing against higher resolution, but I would like Canon to get their pixel level dynamic range and noise equal to Nikon/sony’s best, and while they’re getting closer, they’re not there yet.


----------



## Chaitanya (May 24, 2018)

A good 24MP sensor would be more than enough for a entry level FF MILC camera. I am far more interested to know what lens mount is Canon going to choose?


----------



## melgross (May 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > _"As we saw this past week, Canon has patented a dedicated full frame mirrorless optical formula, which tells us we’re getting a new EOS M mount for full frame sensors."_
> ...



I would think that the question of the mount is indeed a “done deal”. But that doesn’t mean that we know what it is, or that the patent is it. If they are releasing a camera late this year, or early next, the camera specs need to have been locked down. While some minor areas may still be up for change, depending on developments, something as basic as the mount needs to one of the first things decided upon, not the last, as everything else depends upon it.

Oh, why does my name have the Powershot under it? I don’t have a Powershot, and I didn’t bother listing my equipment.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

amorse said:


> But there is always the option of releasing slower lenses to reduce the over all size. I guess my question for people who really need a less conspicuous body is are they willing to give up some aperture in order to shrink the kit?



For those that want a smaller body, sure.

But the rest of us 100% will be bolting on our standard f/2.8 zooms and f/1.4 primes on these bodies on. day. one.

Canon isn't making mirrorless expressly to make a smaller camera. That's just one of the markets for this camera.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

melgross said:


> I would think that the question of the mount is indeed a “done deal”. But that doesn’t mean that we know what it is, or that the patent is it.



Forgive me -- I meant "done deal" to the point that CR Guy is 100% sure of what it is. My fault for not being clear.

Agree with your statement above. If it's a Q4 '18 / Q1 '19 product, the mount decision (at Canon) is long since done. 

- A


----------



## melgross (May 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > But there is always the option of releasing slower lenses to reduce the over all size. I guess my question for people who really need a less conspicuous body is are they willing to give up some aperture in order to shrink the kit?
> ...



I hope that Canon’s idea here for full frame includes a full size camera, though I can’t say exactly what that would mean. No reason why mirrorless can’t satisfy both ends of the spectrum.

But the last interview with Canon people I saw months ago had them stating that a top end mirrorless wasn’t in the cards for now. So the question is what this will equal in their DSLR line. We have three models. 6D, the 5D, and the 1.


----------



## NeverPlayMonopoly (May 24, 2018)

Has anyone commented on the possible aesthetics of this new line of FF MILCs from Canon? Obviously, mount is in the forefront of everyones minds, but I still really wish I could get some hints on the design. I feel like popular photography industry commentators were big fans of the Fuji X-T2 simply because of its looks. Now, I'm a function over fashion kinda of person the majority of the time, but I can't help to think if both companies are throwing an enthusiast spec'd body at us, non-pros will be wanting something that looks different than the old Colani style body.


----------



## glness (May 24, 2018)

If your information is true, why does Canon always have to start out behind the competition out of the gate? Sony has a wonderful 42 MP mirrorless sensor. Nikon has 46 MP sensor that will probably end up in at least one version of its mirrorless camera. Worse yet, if Canon starts out behind the competition now, with Canon's four-year new-camera cycle, they will be even further behind the competition in just a few years.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

melgross said:


> But the last interview with Canon people I saw months ago had them stating that a top end mirrorless wasn’t in the cards for now. So the question is what this will equal in their DSLR line. We have three models. 6D, the 5D, and the 1.



I would guess Canon will work bottom to top like it did in EOS M: start at the 6D level and climb up over time. My guess is it will be spec'd roughly like a 6D2 + on-chip ADC sensor + some form of 4K (terms and conditions may apply).

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

NeverPlayMonopoly said:


> Has anyone commented on the possible aesthetics of this new line of FF MILCs from Canon? Obviously, mount is in the forefront of everyones minds, but I still really wish I could get some hints on the design. I feel like popular photography industry commentators were big fans of the Fuji X-T2 simply because of its looks. Now, I'm a function over fashion kinda of person the majority of the time, but I can't help to think if both companies are throwing an enthusiast spec'd body at us, non-pros will be wanting something that looks different than the old Colani style body.



I think if Canon makes it a fashion piece, folks won't take it seriously -- look at the Nikon Df as a good example. But to guess what styling they will go with, name me the last retro-informed / nostalgic / stylish camera Canon made. It's just not what they do. Their nostalgia is a bit more for continuity of features and ergonomics more than if you find it pretty.

If the camera is full EF mount, one presumes it will look like something they already make today -- it could be as big as a straight 6D clone externally, but as other have said, they could make a small body independently of the mount spacing and offer something like and SL1/SL2 tiny overall body. There's also the Sigma Quattro direction they could take in which the camera has the larger mount 'lens tube' idea but everything else is put on a diet.

If the camera is indeed a thinner mount, your guess is as good as mine. They could go all EOS M (the original) plus a viewfinder and make something very, very small. I don't think this is the way to go as the #1 market for this will be Canon's own people, and they own a lot of glass and will want to use it on day one. That says the camera needs some kind of grip on it.

As I posted earlier, the thickness of the body and the grip size are independent. You could have a chunky grip on a paper thin mount body, you could have a tiny grip on a full EF mount. Either way, heavy glass will be used, so regardless of where the mount decision lands, a chunky 5D grip is a wise move, IMHO.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

glness said:


> If your information is true, why does Canon always have to start out behind the competition out of the gate? Sony has a wonderful 42 MP mirrorless sensor. Nikon has 46 MP sensor that will probably end up in at least one version of its mirrorless camera. Worse yet, if Canon starts out behind the competition now, with Canon's four-year new-camera cycle, they will be even further behind the competition in just a few years.



Because being behind the competitions' _body/sensor specs_ -- and let's be honest, that's the only place they really are behind -- has not hurt their sales, so rushing to market parity on body horsepower specs like MP, fps, etc. would represent Canon just burning money symbolically to show that they are a proud company and care about bestnest / mostness / awesomeness. Foolish companies do that.

They are wise to put as little tech in there as they need to get the sale at the price they want. I hate this, of course, but clearly better competitive body specs aren't stealing market share from them, so why should they change? Until people actually leave the EF big tent for greener grass elsewhere, their MO won't change.

- A


----------



## BillB (May 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> glness said:
> 
> 
> > If your information is true, why does Canon always have to start out behind the competition out of the gate? Sony has a wonderful 42 MP mirrorless sensor. Nikon has 46 MP sensor that will probably end up in at least one version of its mirrorless camera. Worse yet, if Canon starts out behind the competition now, with Canon's four-year new-camera cycle, they will be even further behind the competition in just a few years.
> ...



More pixels gives you more resolution, but how much change in resolution does it take to be significant? The answer depends partly on how big you want to print. However, for purposes of internet wrangling, resolution is one of those magic numbers, where any difference becomes significant, whether or not you are ever going to actually print anything.


----------



## fullstop (May 24, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> What surprises me the most is the back-focus. 10 - 12.5mm is very short given that Sony is 18mm as is the EF-M, It also adds to certain optical challenges.



+1 
makes me actually wonder about likelihood of this patent ever showing up as a real product. 

3 sensors - great. Like Sony A7 / R / S


----------



## jolyonralph (May 24, 2018)

melgross said:


> We don’t need 36MP ....



I think what you mean is that *you* don't need 36mpx. 

If all you're doing is taking full-frame photos, without cropping, and using them for prints then sure, you don't need more than 24mpx, but if you're doing more than just this, for example if you're taking photos of wildlife, or aviation photos, or anything much else out of the ordinary, and you want to crop in, then every megapixel counts.

This is why I'm convinced there will be at least 2 models launched, and I would actually be somewhat surprised if the highest resolution version is "only" 36mpx.

I was somewhat expecting to see a 28mpx base model (including antialiasing filter) and a 50mpx 'R' model (without filter). In this case the 5DSR II may become redundant.


----------



## Mikehit (May 24, 2018)

melgross said:


> Oh, why does my name have the Powershot under it? I don’t have a Powershot, and I didn’t bother listing my equipment.



Because you only have 15 posts to your name so are 'entry levels. As you get more posts you will be rewarded by being upgraded to 7D2, 5DIV and more. If you say something naughty you will be relegated to Nikon D850.


----------



## Talys (May 24, 2018)

glness said:


> If your information is true, why does Canon always have to start out behind the competition out of the gate? Sony has a wonderful 42 MP mirrorless sensor. Nikon has 46 MP sensor that will probably end up in at least one version of its mirrorless camera. Worse yet, if Canon starts out behind the competition now, with Canon's four-year new-camera cycle, they will be even further behind the competition in just a few years.



What are you talking about?

If you're conflating mirrorless and DSLR, Canon already has a 50 megapixel camera.

IMO, 36 mp would be a perfect full frame enthusiast starting point, although from a marketing perspective 40+ looks nice.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> This is why I'm convinced there will be at least 2 models launched, and I would actually be somewhat surprised if the highest resolution version is "only" 36mpx.
> 
> I was somewhat expecting to see a 28mpx base model (including antialiasing filter) and a 50mpx 'R' model (without filter). In this case the 5DSR II may become redundant.



There will be a whole platform of bodies released eventually, but other than the 5DS/5DSR move -- largely identical cameras -- Canon doesn't shoot out more than one > $1000 body at a time, especially in altogether new markets for them.

So I see a single 6D2-ish mirrorless body coming out and then Canon will intensely listen to the market on how it performs, how it could be better / more attractive to existing vs. competitive customers, etc.

I've chopped up Keith's chart from NL below to just show EOS M. Other than an EVF + DPAF surely being on every FF mirrorless model, Canon might take a similar approach here -- put one out, take the money from pent-up enthusiast demand, listen to the market, add more functionality into future models and then proliferate the line at numerous price points. Sure, the crop market and where Canon's tech was in 2012 is quite different than where it is today, but it's a glimpse into how they've climbed this mountain before.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2018)

jeffa4444 said:


> What surprises me the most is the back-focus. 10 - 12.5mm is very short given that Sony is 18mm as is the EF-M, It also adds to certain optical challenges.



You seem to be confusing flange focal distance (mount surface to sensor, 18mm for EF-M/Sony E) with back focus distance (rear element to sensor, varies by lens and can vary by focal for zoom lenses). Many EF-M/EF-S lenses have a rear element that protrudes into the camera body, meaning their back focus distance is less than the flange focal distance for the mount. But yes, that short a back focus distance can result in optical design/performance challenges.


----------



## amorse (May 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> amorse said:
> 
> 
> > But there is always the option of releasing slower lenses to reduce the over all size. I guess my question for people who really need a less conspicuous body is are they willing to give up some aperture in order to shrink the kit?
> ...



I agree that many of us (myself included) would value the ergonomics and performance over reducing the size of the camera, but Canon's mantra on camera release has always seemed to favour purpose-built devices rather than the good/better/best formula seen elsewhere. For instance the 1D series was focused on speed and durability, the 5DS focused on maximum resolution, the 5D being a balance between the two, and the 6D being an entry level offering with weight savings. In the crop series of cameras Canon did explore a small camera which was priced higher than other entry level cameras (SL2), but there really isn't a comparable option in full frame. 

If we know Canon is testing several mirrorless bodies and sensors, how can we be sure that only one mirrorless camera is coming? I can't help but wonder if Canon will try to fill a full frame/minimum size, niche with *one* of their mirrorless offerings, because the opportunity may be there with the right glass. Right now, the smallest full frame option from Canon is a 6D with a 40mm pancake, which is still pretty chunky. I'm not sure that every camera body needs to be designed to fully manage a big lens ergonomically, depending on how the camera is used - I'm not sure I'd be comfortable mounting a very big lens to a T100 with its plastic mount for instance.

While my opinion is not likely reflective of the broader community, I would jump all over a full frame M6 as an emergency lightweight backup to my 5DIV (despite the ridiculous ergonomics that would create). I've been in a few weight/size-restricted situations where I almost lost my 5D: I now see some value in keeping a bare-bones extra light camera with great sensor performance on hand in the event of catastrophic failure or damage.


----------



## captainkanji (May 24, 2018)

I wonder what features Canon will leave out of the FF mirrorless. It will probably be something like focus peaking since I’m interested in some Zeiss primes. I guess I’m just too pessimistic.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2018)

I know nothing about Canon's development cycles, but just common sense makes me think that if they are just now testing three different sensors in the middle of 2018, it's highly unlikely that a full-frame body is going to come to market anytime this year.


----------



## Antono Refa (May 24, 2018)

glness said:


> If your information is true, why does Canon always have to start out behind the competition out of the gate? Sony has a wonderful 42 MP mirrorless sensor. Nikon has 46 MP sensor that will probably end up in at least one version of its mirrorless camera. Worse yet, if Canon starts out behind the competition now, with Canon's four-year new-camera cycle, they will be even further behind the competition in just a few years.



And what percentage of photographer actually cares about such high resolution?

I rarely print anything A4, for which any Canon DSLR released in the past decade would be sufficient. I recently printed a photo 27" x 40". So the viewing distance was ~6', and I could have printed it @ 100DPI. That translates to ~11MP, so I needed a camera one model better than a 10yo.

[Ah, yes, I hear the "8K screens are around the corner, everybody will want a >32MP camera" argument coming around the corner. Yet, more and more people view everything on a phone with a screen diagonal shorter than their d*cks, pardon my french.]


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

amorse said:


> I agree that many of us (myself included) would value the ergonomics and performance over reducing the size of the camera, but Canon's mantra on camera release has always seemed to favour purpose-built devices...



Appreciate the perspective. I think the wildcard is that this is a new market with pent-up demand in general and not in specifics.

In others words, some modest but non-trivial percentage of this forum (recognizing that we are not remotely the market at large) will snap up the first FF mirrorless offering on day one. These folks have been waiting for a long time for a host of reasons* -- it could be smaller, it's a lighter second body for events, should be able to higher FPS-per-dollar without a mirrorbox limiting things, it'll be new and exciting, I finally can shoot MF glass handheld for under $6000, etc.

Then, after the Black Friday like pre-ordering storm abates, Canon needs to deliver not only a product but their _vision of the segmentation of the market._ They may very well just go like for like with the various FF SLRs they sell, or their vision may be to sell the perfect mirrorless to be used alongside your SLR. They possibly might tweak the specs/usefulness/identity of each FF mirrorless offering to fit their read on the future state of the market:

6D2 mirrorless --> go all in on small/light and make a FF SL2, so speak.

5D4 mirrorless --> go big, offer the second cam on the wedding or journo shooter's shoulder, maximizing seamlessness of use when you switch bodies and offer 1-2 critical things to augment what their SLRs cannot do -- manually focus quickly in a super dark room, seamlessly drop into quick video work from the viewfinder or offer a perfectly silent shooting mode.

1DX4 mirrorless (i.e. surely not soon) --> go huge in a tank-like body built for superwhites (not that A9 nonsense) and deliver explosive framerates with top tracking AF.

...and so on, you get the point.

**I just don't think that overarching vision is clear to Canon yet given how fragmented we are as a market.* For all their work in segmenting FF so effectively, for mirrorless we are jumping in the pool for a jillion little reasons. I think Canon will put out something safe, conservative and works well and wait to see the response.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I know nothing about Canon's development cycles, but just common sense makes me think that if they are just now testing three different sensors in the middle of 2018, it's highly unlikely that a full-frame body is going to come to market anytime this year.



Sure, but there's also potentially a glut of better-than-Rebel body releases that are all timing out to the second half of next year, leaving a lovely open window from Q4 '18 - Q2 '19 wide open with nothing major (body-wise) slated to happen. It might be nothing, it might be an altogether new thing we never saw coming, etc. but it _might_ be FF mirrorless.

- A


----------



## jolyonralph (May 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I know nothing about Canon's development cycles, but just common sense makes me think that if they are just now testing three different sensors in the middle of 2018, it's highly unlikely that a full-frame body is going to come to market anytime this year.



We have heard before the Canon have had two products pretty much ready to go to production and then chosen one almost at the last minute. This could be a similar thing. It also makes sense to keep multiple options open just in case some nasty problem is found with one of the sensor choices.


----------



## stevelee (May 24, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, why does my name have the Powershot under it? I don’t have a Powershot, and I didn’t bother listing my equipment.
> ...



It was sort of neat that I've had a couple of ratings like that recently that were camera models I actually own and use.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 24, 2018)

captainkanji said:


> I wonder what features Canon will leave out of the FF mirrorless. It will probably be something like focus peaking since I’m interested in some Zeiss primes. I guess I’m just too pessimistic.



Fear not, focus peaking is in all of the EOS M cameras so there's no chance it'll be missing from the new camera.


----------



## BeenThere (May 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I know nothing about Canon's development cycles, but just common sense makes me think that if they are just now testing three different sensors in the middle of 2018, it's highly unlikely that a full-frame body is going to come to market anytime this year.


There was no mention of when the testing started. Could have been going on for awhile?


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I know nothing about Canon's development cycles, but just common sense makes me think that if they are just now testing three different sensors in the middle of 2018, it's highly unlikely that a full-frame body is going to come to market anytime this year.
> ...



Also, just exactly what kind of testing is it? Is it an engineering proof of concept test? Is it testing the software? Is it thermal testing? Is it beta testing before the production run? Testing could mean that we are anywhere between the start of the project and an official announcement later today....


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



Not trying to debate a topic I know nothing about, but just asking some questions:

Three sensors. Doesn't that mean they are trying to decide which one to proceed with?

Testing period. How long -- One month, two months, six months, one year? Canon being on the conservative side and wanting to make sure their first full-frame mirrorless is a competition-killer would argue against a short testing period. True, we don't know how long they have been testing, but presumably, as soon as you start testing there is a risk that the information gets leaked.

Review results -- Canon is conservative and wants to make sure they get it right. Would they review the results for one month? two months? six months? two days?

Final decision to proceed. The results must be kicked upstairs for a committee to make a final decision, right? What's a reasonable time period for a big organization to make that decision? 

Manufacturing ramp up. How long does it take to modify the sensor fabrication lines to produce the new sensor?

Other manufacturing processes. Is it just a matter of plugging the sensor into a pre-existing body design, or does each different sensor require slightly different electronics, etc., within the camera body itself?

Actual manufacturing and stocking? How long does it take to start the manufacturing line, print the manuals, boxes, shoot the promotional videos, build up the needed stock, etc. etc. 

Some of this can take place once a decision has been made, but it still takes time before the product can hit the shelves. 

Of course, this is a CR1 rumor, so it's pretty doubtful anyway.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> captainkanji said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what features Canon will leave out of the FF mirrorless. It will probably be something like focus peaking since I’m interested in some Zeiss primes. I guess I’m just too pessimistic.
> ...



The 6D, EOS M, and even my PowerShot S100 have in-camera HDR. So you'd think there'd be no chance it would be missing from the 1D X II. But yet...


----------



## Mikehit (May 24, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



As far as I recall, whenever someone has reliable evidence of a camera being tested in the wild, it is announced pretty soon after.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > captainkanji said:
> ...



Yes, but in-camera HDR is a 'gimmick for amateurs' (discuss if you wish!) whereas focus peaking is pretty much an essential tool on a mirrorless camera.


----------



## Don Haines (May 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > BeenThere said:
> ...



Even with threee on the go for testing at the same time, we still know very little about where in the cycle they are. They could be for the same model, and we are very early in the development cycle, or it could be that they are beta testing for three different models.....


We can speculate, but it’s all guesswork....


----------



## Talys (May 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Yes, but in-camera HDR is a 'gimmick for amateurs' (discuss if you wish!) whereas focus peaking is pretty much an essential tool on a mirrorless camera.



That's funny. When I tried focus peaking on both M-series and Sony, I thought, why would anyone want to use this?

Many times, it doesn't highlight the areas that are in focus. And sometimes, when it thinks something is in focus, it might be slightly off, for example, in comparison with focus magnified.

I am not an HDR fan either, generally speaking. However, I have seen some very nice shots taken with it.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> That's funny. When I tried focus peaking on both M-series and Sony, I thought, why would anyone want to use this?



I want to try large aperture manual focus lenses handheld with the camera held up to my eye. That means focus screens or peaking, and since Canon took interchangeable screens away, all my chips are on mirrorless delivering the goods.

I'm not all in on Canon FF mirrorless on day one, but I will be keenly looking at reviews for how the peaking works. This is potentially huge upside over (say) a 5D4 or 6D2. 

- A


----------



## Talys (May 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > That's funny. When I tried focus peaking on both M-series and Sony, I thought, why would anyone want to use this?
> ...



I think the focus magnification is WAY better (because you can just see what's in focus). In my opinion, all the red or yellow crap just gets in the way of seeing what's in focus, and what's not 

On the Sony, the low setting is fairly unobtrusive, but a lot of contrast edges don't "peak" when they're in focus. And, it can be deceptively inaccurate when manual focusing on things like flowers with a wide lens. By that, I mean that because of a shallow depth of field, if you go by what's peaked, you might think you have a an in-focus image, when in fact, a lot of what you wanted to be in focus isn't.

Incidentally, with tools like focus peaking and focus magnification, I spent a lot more time "guaranteeing" my photos were perfectly in focus. Unfortunately, that's cost me some great shots, too, when autofocus would have probably done the job just fine.


----------



## Ozarker (May 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, why does my name have the Powershot under it? I don’t have a Powershot, and I didn’t bother listing my equipment.
> ...



;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > jolyonralph said:
> ...



An essential tool? Seriously? It seems you've decided to leave reality behind and move to the AvTvM Universe, where features you like are critically important for vast multitudes of photographers. Out here in the real world, all MILCs and nearly all lenses designed for them have this feature called autofocus. Are you suggesting that focus peaking is an essential tool for using autofocus successfully? Or are you saying that most users in most cases are using manual focus lenses on their MILCs? Or are you saying that in the niche cases where manual focus is used, digitally magnified manual focusing is so poor that it's useless for manual focusing? (Personally, like Talys, I find magnified focus superior to focus peaking.)

Meanwhile, enjoy your break from reality. If you want to return to the real world, we'd welcome you back.


----------



## dak723 (May 25, 2018)

glness said:


> If your information is true, why does Canon always have to start out behind the competition out of the gate? Sony has a wonderful 42 MP mirrorless sensor. Nikon has 46 MP sensor that will probably end up in at least one version of its mirrorless camera. Worse yet, if Canon starts out behind the competition now, with Canon's four-year new-camera cycle, they will be even further behind the competition in just a few years.



Believing that more MPs is "ahead" and less MPs is "behind" is the usual spec baloney that we are constantly being fed on forums and review sites. Want more resolution - yes, than you want more MPs. Want less noise and better low light performance - than you want less MPs. I would rather Canon be "ahead" with a nice 24 or 28 Mp FF camera. Anything over 36 MPs and I would be out. I don't want a camera where I need a tripod to get the benefit of those higher MP numbers - or where I need to raise my shutter speed. In my experience with both FF and crop cameras over the past 13 years, I still prefer the look of larger pixels. That is "ahead" in my book.


----------



## dak723 (May 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Yes, I've had mirrorless cameras since 2014 and have used focus peaking twice - in both cases shooting sunsets where the inferior AF of the mirrorless cameras couldn't lock onto anything to get AF. I do understand that some folks - especially the type of folks who visit these types of forums - have older non AF lenses, and that there are some folks with vision issues that benefit from focus peaking, but it is far from essential, in my opinion.


----------



## infared (May 25, 2018)

If they are not testing at least a 40mp sensor...I am already disappointed. :-X


----------



## dak723 (May 25, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I know nothing about Canon's development cycles, but just common sense makes me think that if they are just now testing three different sensors in the middle of 2018, it's highly unlikely that a full-frame body is going to come to market anytime this year.



Yes, and this corresponds to the rumors that have appeared on this site that have mentioned a possible *announcement* by the end of this year, with the camera coming out in 2019.


----------



## unfocused (May 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Want less noise and better low light performance - than you want less MPs...In my experience with both FF and crop cameras over the past 13 years, I still prefer the look of larger pixels. That is "ahead" in my book.



While I am in general agreement, I have to say that I am hard-pressed to see any difference between the 1Dx II and the 5D IV at ISO 6400 despite the significant difference in megapixels.


----------



## fullstop (May 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Believing that more MPs is "ahead" and less MPs is "behind" is the usual spec baloney that we are constantly being fed on forums and review sites. Want more resolution - yes, than you want more MPs. Want less noise and better low light performance - than you want less MPs. I would rather Canon be "ahead" with a nice 24 or 28 Mp FF camera. Anything over 36 MPs and I would be out. I don't want a camera where I need a tripod to get the benefit of those higher MP numbers - or where I need to raise my shutter speed. In my experience with both FF and crop cameras over the past 13 years, I still prefer the look of larger pixels. That is "ahead" in my book.



while i personally am also happy with moderate MP counts, i should like to point out that the "former trade-off between resolution and noise" is pretty much a thing of the past. Current Hi-Res sensors deliver excellent IQ with low noise and good DR. Sony sensors are still ahead, but Canon sensors have made good progress to close the gap (eg 50MP 5Ds).

Higher requirements re. "proper shooting technique" are a reality, but should not be exaggerated. Even 50 MP cameras can be used handheld in many situations.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 25, 2018)

dak723 said:


> I would rather Canon be "ahead" with a nice 24 or 28 Mp FF camera. Anything over 36 MPs and I would be out.



For me 36mpx is the absolute minimum. I'd rather have a 50 or 60mpx sensor and downsample when a lower resolution image is appropriate which will mask any softness or camera shake. 

But not everyone wants the same. Some people want low(er) resolution sensors for faster recording, higher frame rates and easier workflow. Others want higher resolution for maximum detail, for cropping down, for downsampling to increase colour quality (bayer filter issues) etc etc. 

Neither is wrong. Both camps are totally justified in their reasons. This is why Sony do both the normal and the R versions of their cameras, and I think that Canon would be foolish not to do the same and release two models.


----------



## andrei1989 (May 25, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



focus peaking works quite well for me on my M5, even with the Kamlan 55 1.1 
admitedly, at close to MFD it's tricky and simply moving a bit changes the focus but at normal working distances it's quite good


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> ...*for me* yes, focus peaking is an essential tool.



That's perfectly fine. But to call it, "...an essential tool on a mirrorless camera," is ridiculous. Given that the definition of ridiculous is 'deserving or inviting derision or mockery' my comments were completely appropriate. 

Please feel free to support your argument by sharing some exciting and unpredictable images from your portfolio that _absolutely required_ the use of focus peaking to achieve (since after all, that's the definition of 'essential'). Just a few images please...since focus peaking is such an essential tool for you, no doubt such images constitute the bulk of your portfolio, but we wouldn't want to overwhelm the internet's bandwidth with your plethora of such images. 

Incidentally, I'd bet good money that far more people use in-camera HDR than have even heard of focus peaking.


----------



## jolyonralph (May 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Please feel free to support your argument ...



The whole discussion is meaningless because the new camera will almost certainly support focus peaking because all previous EOS M models do (even prior to the Powershot-type firmware models).

So whether you think it's necessary or not it'll come. And I'm sure it'll have in-camera HDR too, which I still think is a toy compared to bracketing some photos manually and merging them with more professional HDR software tools. But that hasn't stopped me using it from time to time because sometimes you just want to have fun.

And I'd much rather have fun and enjoy photography, and have positive conversations here with you and everyone else, than to extend a silly spat.


----------



## Don Haines (May 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > ...*for me* yes, focus peaking is an essential tool.
> ...



Calling any feature essential is a bit of an overstatement. Even things like AF are not essential.... what they do is to make a particular task(s) easier... it is all about convenience and personally, I see nothing wrong with that.

I do not use focus peaking, but if I was into macro photography that feature would be very high on the list of things to look for in a new camera, and just because I don't use it, there is zero reason for me to deny others the use. Likewise in-camera HDR... I prefer to set my camera to bracket 3 or 5 shots and do the processing later where I have more control, but I recognize that many (most?) people are not so dedicated (anal?) about these things and that for them the convenience of the in-camera HDR outweighs the pain of external processing.


----------



## Orangutan (May 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > ...*for me* yes, focus peaking is an essential tool.
> ...



Not sure there's a need to be hyper-literal. I read jolyonralph's comment as akin to the notion that a set of wrenches is "essential" to an automotive toolkit: it's not that it will be used in every case, but will be used often enough that the toolkit can reasonably be considered incomplete without it. In any case, it was not worth exercising your claws.

BTW: IMO, caustic wit is not an essential tool for online discussion, but more of a preference


----------



## BillB (May 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I know nothing about Canon's development cycles, but just common sense makes me think that if they are just now testing three different sensors in the middle of 2018, it's highly unlikely that a full-frame body is going to come to market anytime this year.
> ...



Canon may be testing three sensors in a mirrorless bodies but that doesn't necessarily mean mean that any of the sensors are intended for use in the first FF mirrorless body. There will be other mirrorless bodies coming after the first one, and Canon will have already begun work on them as well.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2018)

Pfffft...Sony tested four sensors. /s


----------



## Canoneer (May 25, 2018)

For me the sensor variety isn't nearly as important as the form factor variety. I would really love it Canon built three chassis bodies for mirrorless: 1) pro-spec 1D style with high capacity battery and built-in vertical orientation ergonomics, 2) standard SLR style (Sony a7/a9) with extended foregrip, and 3) compact rangefinder style with option for add-on ergonomic accessories (Sony RX1R/Leica Q/M).

While Sony's a7 series has been thrashed for becoming larger and larger due to performance demands by pro photographers, and thus mitigating the potential size advantage of mirrorless, I still think there's a large enough market segment for compact full-frame mirrorless bodies. Fuji R-series lenses in the XF line received a ton of love from users of the X-Pro cameras. Why can't Canon do the same on a full-frame chassis if they intend to make a full-frame mirrorless mount?


----------



## melgross (May 25, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> melgross said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, why does my name have the Powershot under it? I don’t have a Powershot, and I didn’t bother listing my equipment.
> ...



Ok, I get it. I suppose I should post more.


----------



## ahsanford (May 25, 2018)

Canoneer said:


> While Sony's *a7 series has been thrashed for becoming larger and larger due to performance demands by pro photographers*, and thus mitigating the potential size advantage of mirrorless


_
Are we talking about the same product here?_

See below: in each shot it's A7 I - A7 II - A7 III - A9 in order.

They made a grip change from I to II and then Sony really hasn't changed much at all. The later models got a hair thicker front to back, but effectively their front/back view footprint, grip and grip spacing remains as bad today as it ever has been. There are small things they've done to finger cutouts and such, but the basic outer profile is highly locked in.

In fact, the #1 thing Sony needs to do -- even more than fixing menus/controls -- is to make a bigger body that comfortably handles pro glass. They have not done this yet.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The whole discussion is meaningless because the new camera will almost certainly support focus peaking because all previous EOS M models do (*even prior to the Powershot-type firmware models*).



In fact, that's not true. Neither the EOS M nor the EOS M2 have focus peaking, that feature entered the M lineup with the EOS M3...which also marked the switch to the PowerShot firmware base. In other words, so far there are no EOS-firmware cameras that offer focus peaking (ML-hack notwithstanding). Not one.

So, do you think the new Canon FF MILC will be running the PowerShot firmware base? Or will it be the first EOS firmware ILC to offer focus peaking? If it's truly a 'prosumer FF MILC', I would expect them to use the EOS firmware base. Either way, while the new FF MILC _may_ have focus peaking, it's by no means the certainty you claim it to be.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > The whole discussion is meaningless because the new camera will almost certainly support focus peaking because all previous EOS M models do (*even prior to the Powershot-type firmware models*).
> ...


I skipped the EOS M series because of the Powershot like firmware. The SL2 has EOS firmware which is more capable for less cost. Mirrorless cameras should cost less to manufacture (fewer parts), but sell for higher prices. To me, thats like charging more for more MP.


----------



## ahsanford (May 25, 2018)

I had forgotten the value of 5x or 10x for focusing. 

Peaking is still a keen interest of mine for the reasons I previously mentioned, but I suppose if I could go 5x / 10x -- through the EVF -- to confirm focus very quickly (like a button hold for zooming the VF and a release immediately snaps back to the full framing) I could get onboard.

The last M I used was the original. I appreciate things have changed a ton since then -- does the M5 have this option, and if so, how slick/precise/quick is the implementation?

- A


----------



## fullstop (May 25, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Mirrorless cameras should cost less to manufacture (fewer parts), but sell for higher prices.



no no no, don't you dare say that! 

Unless you have precise and full information of each and every bit of Canon's and Sony's internal cost accounting! Otherwise you live in dream land! And if you are not a certified accountant AND engineer in opto-electronics and manufacturing process, it is all totally unfounded conjecture! ;D

At least according to our well known Canonics in this forum.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Peaking is still a keen interest of mine for the reasons I previously mentioned, but I suppose if I could go 5x / 10x -- through the EVF -- to confirm focus very quickly (like a button hold for zooming the VF and a release immediately snaps back to the full framing) I could get onboard.
> 
> The last M I used was the original. I appreciate things have changed a ton since then -- does the M5 have this option, and if so, how slick/precise/quick is the implementation?



On the M6 (and probably also true for the M5 VF, which clones the main LCD), if you have the focus mode set to AF+MF, no button push is required – simply turning the manual focus ring on the lens automatically zooms the image on the LCD at the selected focus area (I suspect that behavior could be changed, but I like it so haven't tried).


----------



## ahsanford (May 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Peaking is still a keen interest of mine for the reasons I previously mentioned, but I suppose if I could go 5x / 10x -- through the EVF -- to confirm focus very quickly (like a button hold for zooming the VF and a release immediately snaps back to the full framing) I could get onboard.
> ...



Awesome, even faster/simpler than a button press! 

Is that true for all lenses, or just the native EF-M FBW ones? If I tried this with a USM lens, Zeiss MF lens, would it also work? I wasn't sure if FBW was a pre-requisite for that communication to the body to work.

- A


----------



## stevelee (May 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I had forgotten the value of 5x or 10x for focusing.



focus peeking


----------



## ahsanford (May 25, 2018)

stevelee said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I had forgotten the value of 5x or 10x for focusing.
> ...



;D


----------



## jolyonralph (May 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> In fact, that's not true. Neither the EOS M nor the EOS M2 have focus peaking, that feature entered the M lineup with the EOS M3...which also marked the switch to the PowerShot firmware base.



It appears my memory has failed me! I was sure my old EOS M (sold a while back) did focus peaking, but it appears it didn't.

I'm probably getting mixed with using Magic Lantern on the EOS M, but because none of the EOS M series cameras support USB tethered shooting I never used them much for Macro photography.

I very much doubt the new FF will use a Powershot firmware, but we certainly can't rule that out, after all at the moment it's the only firmware that has been written to take advantage of the Digic 8 chip. It would make sense for Canon to consolidate their development into a single firmware system, and ditch either the current EOS-M firmware branch or the traditional firmware.


----------



## slclick (May 25, 2018)

I enjoy FP on my M5 but I use a couple mf lenses including Lensbabies and that is certainly not in the majority. All said and done, I'll take accurate and fast AF on my bodies as opposed to MF capabilities every day of of the week.


----------



## stevelee (May 25, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> stevelee said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Glad you liked that.


----------



## Talys (May 26, 2018)

slclick said:


> I enjoy FP on my M5 but I use a couple mf lenses including Lensbabies and that is certainly not in the majority. All said and done, I'll take accurate and fast AF on my bodies as opposed to MF capabilities every day of of the week.



I have a love/hate relationship with focus magnification and focus peaking and razor-sharp, manually focused photos. On one hand, I just love that every photo is bang-on focused on the part of the photo I want focused. On the other hand, I waste so much time doing so that I miss a crap ton of shots. Conceptually, it's so awesome that I can't stop myself from using it, often in cases that are to my detriment.

The reality is that the spot AF (square with dot in center) on a Canon DSLR is super-duper accurate. If I'm pointing at a bee pollinating a flower, 3/4 of the time, the bee will be in perfect focus. So, yeah, 25% of the photos will be unusable. But there are so many great shots that it's ok.

All the cameras I've used with some form of MF wizardry (Canon, Sony, it doesn't matter), by the time the bee is perfectly focused, I've 75% of the interesting positions I would have captured, and although 100% of the shots are perfectly focused, I might not like any of them.

The other problem I have with Canon and Sony is that whether it's the M5 or the A7R3, the AF is not precise enough, in that although something in the AF focus point will be in perfect focus, it might not be what's in the center of it, like with spot AF.


----------



## fullstop (May 26, 2018)

EOS M - including M5 - is notorious for "not small enough AF fields" / lack of "pinpoint spot AF". i hope this is really improved on with M50 - though apparently not for all but only with 3 EF-M lenses: 28 macro, 18-150, 55-200. 

http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/eos-m50/eos-m50-autofocus.shtml

hopefully "precise spot-af" selection will be implemented for all EF-M lenses (firmware? upgrade?) on all future EOS M bodies. not sure, what the bottlenecks are. sensor? digic? lens af drive? firmware ? lens-body protocol? some or all of them?


----------



## Talys (May 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EOS M - including M5 - is notorious for "not small enough AF fields" / lack of "pinpoint spot AF". i hope this is really improved on with M50 - though apparently not for all but only with 3 EF-M lenses: 28 macro, 18-150, 55-200.
> 
> http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/eos-m50/eos-m50-autofocus.shtml
> 
> hopefully "precise spot-af" selection will be implemented for all EF-M lenses (firmware? upgrade?) on all future EOS M bodies. not sure, what the bottlenecks are. sensor? digic? lens af drive? firmware ? lens-body protocol? some or all of them?



The AF coverage on all EFM lenses is excellent. The lack of precision on M50, however, is probably disqualifying for me, but if I'm hire frank about it, I really don't like M5 or A7R3 precision either. Also, the M50's lack of controls makes the M5 a better choice for me, as much as I enjoyed playing with M50. 

I do recognize, however, that in Canon land, Spot AF (square with dot) is a higher end enthusiast feature -- I think the cheapes body it is on is 6D2 -- so I get why it isn't on M5 or M50. I hope it can be found on the future enthusiast/semi-pro bodies, though.


----------



## fullstop (May 26, 2018)

did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)? 

While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.


----------



## slclick (May 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EOS M - including M5 - is notorious for "not small enough AF fields" / lack of "pinpoint spot AF". i hope this is really improved on with M50 - though apparently not for all but only with 3 EF-M lenses: 28 macro, 18-150, 55-200.
> 
> http://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/eos-m50/eos-m50-autofocus.shtml
> 
> hopefully "precise spot-af" selection will be implemented for all EF-M lenses (firmware? upgrade?) on all future EOS M bodies. not sure, what the bottlenecks are. sensor? digic? lens af drive? firmware ? lens-body protocol? some or all of them?



according to who? YouTube pundits? My M5 has more than enough AF points and if you can't deal with it it's a PEBCAK issue. (old school computer guy joke for you young ones) I am so sick and tired of folks who can't shoot without this and that. The film masters has jack nothing to use gear wise and made much better images than any of us will ever do in a lifetime. Blurghhhh


----------



## Bennymiata (May 27, 2018)

I just hope Canon don't re-visit the ergonomic disasters of the Sony 7 series cameras to try and make it as small as possible. I won't use a Sony 7 camera as everytime I use one with a pro lens on it, my fingers keep getting stuck between the grip and the lens and after a few hours, it hurts!
While Canon's spec sheets don't look as good as Sony's do, we know that Canon's mirrorless will work and work well. DPAF will ensure their autofocussing will be superior to anything else, and the menus will actually make sense, and the camera won't lock up all the time either.
Personally, I would like a FF mirrorless (like my M5) that just works really well and reliably and takes great photos, and I know Canon can deliver this better than anyone else.


----------



## Talys (May 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?
> 
> While no true "Canon Spot AF" [square with dot] 143 AF fields on M50 in enhanced mode (with 3 lenses) or even 99 in "normal mode" (with all/other lenses) vs. only 49 AF fields on M5 and other prior EOS M models should give much finer control over where focus is put? At least one would hope so.



Quite frankly, I see no difference between enhanced and other EFM lenses for practical photography purposes. 80% x 80% is virtually identical to 88% x 100%, because I'll never use that extra ring of squares on the far edges and corners. The last time I ever needed to focus on something at the extreme edge of the frame was... never.

I honestly don't care for MORE AF points. I mean, I think one of the nicest things about the 7DII is being able to reduce the number of selectable points. I only need a few AF points, but I'd like the option to make them much smaller squares if I wish.


----------



## fullstop (May 27, 2018)

implementation of "true spot AF fields" would also be my preferred solution. but until canon offers it on any or some of their mirrorless cams, i was expecting - or hoping - that more and SMALLER AF fields across the entire AF-area would make some difference and alle iate the problem to some extent.

@slckick: yes, some people manage to create compelling photographs using only a pinhole camera. And yes, Henri Cartier-Bresson captured all of his amazing images using cameras without autofocus. BUT he used the very best and most technically most advanced cameras available at the time. Myself I am not nearly as talented a photographer as HCB. Therefore it is even more important to me to get as much "technical support" from the cameras i use that helps me to concentrate on the image (and moment in time) i want to capture by taking care of the more mundane aspects of photography - like getting exposure right and having the essential parts of an image in sharp focus. 

that's why i would like to have a camera with an af system that RELIABLY manages to focus the scene exactly where i want it. when oirtraying people for example the left or right eye of the person. not the tip of the nose. not the earlobe. and even less so some fence or other strong contrast visual structure in the background. with my current EOS M (1st gen) this is unfortunately a serious problem in daily, real-world practice. and while newer versions of the M series have made great progress in AF performance, the basic layout of only 49 VERY LARGE AF fields has not changed. this is why i am interested in the AF improvements Canon has implemented now in the M50. that's why i was trying to learn whether it does offer a real improvement in use and if it is marginally or significantly better. or only a Canon marketing "paper spec". 

is this unreasonable?


----------



## dak723 (May 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > did you find the M50 AF better in that respect than M5? Did you try M50 with one of the "enhanced mode" lenses (28 / 18-150 / 55-200)?
> ...



More AF points are a real negative for me. I only need a few as well. On the M5 you can choose between two sizes. I use the smaller box and it is small enough for me, although I can not compare it to "Spot AF as I have never had a camera with that feature. Don't know if the M50 has the option to change the AF box size.


----------



## fullstop (May 27, 2018)

i find more AF points very helpful in certain situations. Very useful for example, when i have cam on tripod and can finely select focus point over desired part of the image on touchscreen - without having to manipulate cam on tripod head. 

And for tracking AF the more AF points and coverage of the image, the better. On 2018 cameras we should not ever have to focus first with one of a few AF point and then re-compose. Although I know, that many still do it that way - usually because they never really learned or mastered the AF system of their cameras.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 27, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Can you elaborate as to why it’s a negative? Due to their display in the VF maybe?


----------



## Ozarker (May 27, 2018)

slclick said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > EOS M - including M5 - is notorious for "not small enough AF fields" / lack of "pinpoint spot AF". i hope this is really improved on with M50 - though apparently not for all but only with 3 EF-M lenses: 28 macro, 18-150, 55-200.
> ...


 ;D My mother-in-law (w)itches less than some of these perpetual gouches.


----------



## Mikehit (May 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.


----------



## fullstop (May 27, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.



there would be one REALLY RIGHT way of AF point selection. Innovative Canon has invented and implemented it many years ago. AF point automatically chosen based on what users' pupil is looking at in viewfinder. An improved version would work fabulously on a mirrorless camera with today's processing power and so many AF fields covering more than 80%x80% of viewfinder area. 

But ... Canon.


----------



## dak723 (May 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dak723 said:
> ...


*
EXACTLY.*


----------



## dak723 (May 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> .... On 2018 cameras we should not ever have to focus first with one of a few AF point and then re-compose. Although I know, that many still do it that way - usually because they never really learned or mastered the AF system of their cameras.



Thank yuo for letting us no that us folks dat focus and recompost are too stupod to learn or masterr the AF sistems of our cameras. I guess I will thro away all my beautifle, purfectly focussed pitures that I did with focus and recompost since I obvusly doned it wrong.


----------



## slclick (May 28, 2018)

dak723 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > .... On 2018 cameras we should not ever have to focus first with one of a few AF point and then re-compose. Although I know, that many still do it that way - usually because they never really learned or mastered the AF system of their cameras.
> ...


----------



## takesome1 (May 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> On the M6 (and probably also true for the M5 VF, which clones the main LCD), if you have the focus mode set to AF+MF, no button push is required – *simply turning the manual focus ring on the lens automatically zooms the image on the LCD at the selected focus area* (I suspect that behavior could be changed, but I like it so haven't tried).



Zooms, as in 5x or 10x?
Tried this on the M5 and nothing, in fact it only MF sporadically.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 28, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



So it's an interface thing. Optionally reducing the number of user selectable points is, IMO, preferential to them not being there at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 28, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > On the M6 (and probably also true for the M5 VF, which clones the main LCD), if you have the focus mode set to AF+MF, no button push is required – *simply turning the manual focus ring on the lens automatically zooms the image on the LCD at the selected focus area* (I suspect that behavior could be changed, but I like it so haven't tried).
> ...



Yes, I think it's 5x but I'm not positive. Tried on M5 with what lens? LCD or VF?


----------



## takesome1 (May 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



LCD with the 15x45 and 55x200.

I re-set the settings again just now, I was able to get it to work this time. Not sure what the glitch the first time might have been, it was like the camera didn't recognize the changes. Now it works, it shows it is doing it at 5x.
Thanks


----------



## jayphotoworks (May 28, 2018)

Coming back to focus peaking, I realize that some users here that shoot stills primarily don't see a lot of value, but for film production, it is immensely useful. It offers the best of both worlds for these smaller cameras where you won't have a large crew, or any crew for that matter. 

On a larger camera, the AC can punch in all they want on his/her her secondary monitor, while the operator only has to consider framing on their own monitor, but on a small hybrid camera, you are framing and focusing simultaneously on one screen/vf/lcd, so those ugly red and green lines makes the world of difference. In addition to that, you have a bit more latitude between critical and adequate focus when shooting moving pictures, and getting in the ballpark while the camera and subject are both moving is a godsend.


----------



## Talys (May 28, 2018)

jayphotoworks said:


> Coming back to focus peaking, I realize that some users here that shoot stills primarily don't see a lot of value, but for film production, it is immensely useful. It offers the best of both worlds for these smaller cameras where you won't have a large crew, or any crew for that matter.
> 
> On a larger camera, the AC can punch in all they want on his/her her secondary monitor, while the operator only has to consider framing on their own monitor, but on a small hybrid camera, you are framing and focusing simultaneously on one screen/vf/lcd, so those ugly red and green lines makes the world of difference. In addition to that, you have a bit more latitude between critical and adequate focus when shooting moving pictures, and getting in the ballpark while the camera and subject are both moving is a godsend.



Neat to know. Don't most of the field monitors have focus peaking (and the ability to turn it on and off) independently of the camera?


----------



## jayphotoworks (May 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> jayphotoworks said:
> 
> 
> > Coming back to focus peaking, I realize that some users here that shoot stills primarily don't see a lot of value, but for film production, it is immensely useful. It offers the best of both worlds for these smaller cameras where you won't have a large crew, or any crew for that matter.
> ...



Yes you can. You can even daisy chain a second monitor for the operator. But once you go down this route, I'm not so sure a converged camera would be a best choice anymore. Adding a field monitor would most likely result in the addition of a camera cage, power supply and other bits to get it going. If you have an AC and other support crew, you probably would be better off with a camera designed for video work anyways. These small cameras are best for run and gun work like vlogging, docs and weddings, so it makes sense to be a jack of all trades in the video dept.


----------



## ahsanford (May 28, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.



Sure. I focus-recompose often, but there are times where that isn't what you want to do: 


If you are an aperture-priority shooter and want the simplicity of metering and focusing with the same half-shutter press (i.e. you don't want to mess with AE lock or BBAF). If you focus and recompose, you're locking in your metering with the original framing and not the final framing. You could clip your histo that way.


If you want to shoot large aperture with the subject off-center. Focus and recompose with an 85 f/1.4 @ 1.4 can certainly get you into trouble.

There are times focus/recompose isn't the right call without having to change other aspects of your control set. You need to the ability to move (and, in some cases, pinpoint) your AF -- people pay good money for that option.

I'm not saying those odd needs above can only be solved with a madly complicated AF system, though. I'd love to see* the touchscreen + a right thumb drag gesture be able to allow fast/precise AF point selection while one is still shooting in a traditional OVF / camera-up-to-the-eye manner -- you'd still be discretely held to the individual AF 'boxes' of the AF sensor in this manner, but perhaps it would be quicker than many discrete left/right/up/down taps on the joystick.

*5D3 user here, so apologies if (say) the 5D4 or 6D2 already does this today, or if the new joysticks are slicker/quicker these days. 

- A


----------



## BillB (May 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.
> ...



Right. If you are working with tricky lighting or shallow depth of field, you have to deal with it, and focus recompose has its limitations. I don't know about other cameras, but on the 5D4, you can pick among several AF point patterns to work with.


----------



## Durf (May 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Coz you spend so damn long moving the AF point to cover where you want it to be that you miss the shot, instead of remembering that focus-recompose is quicker.
> ...



I think the new M50 has it so you can use your thumb to touch and drag your auto focusing points around while looking through the viewfinder. 

Hopefully they'll at least put this feature in all future cameras that don't have a joystick.


----------



## ahsanford (May 28, 2018)

Durf said:


> I think the new M50 has it so you can use your thumb to touch and drag your auto focusing points around while looking through the viewfinder.



Sure, but that's for a camera working 100% of the time in LiveView. 

I'm asking about using an SLR in a default (e.g. OVF, non-Liveview) manner in conjunction with AF selection being dragged around on (presumably) only a portion of the touchscreen. Might that be possible?

- A


----------



## Durf (May 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > I think the new M50 has it so you can use your thumb to touch and drag your auto focusing points around while looking through the viewfinder.
> ...



I wasn't aware that the M50 had to always be in live-view for this touch and drag to work????

What you're talking about surely would be nice though to have on cameras without joysticks for sure...


----------



## ahsanford (May 28, 2018)

Durf said:


> I wasn't aware that the M50 had to always be in live-view for this touch and drag to work????



Forgive me, I was being somewhat sarcastic. The M50 is mirrorless, so using the EVF or the back LCD (doesn't matter) is effectively _always_ in Liveview. There is no optical light path option like an SLR.

- A


----------



## Durf (May 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't aware that the M50 had to always be in live-view for this touch and drag to work????
> ...



I didn't know mirrorless was always in live-view, I've never owned a mirrorless camera and not deeply familiar with them.
(Learn something new everyday)


----------



## fullstop (May 28, 2018)

not possible on a DSLR. possible on an SLT. but not implemented on any Sony which dont even have a touchscreen to my knowledge.


----------



## ahsanford (May 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> not possible on a DSLR. possible on an SLT. but not implemented on any Sony which dont even have a touchscreen to my knowledge.



I'm pretty sure it's possible on a DSLR -- it just won't use LiveView, DPAF, etc. 

Logic: if you can shift the discrete AF point/cluster on an OVF setup (i.e. the AF sensor) with a joystick giving discrete up/down/left/right instructions and that feedback is projected up in the viewfinder, you can program a portion of the touchscreen to do give the same joystick-like input to the body.

I'm just talking about using the touchscreen as faster / more sensitive / less repetitive (no more Left, left, left, really fast) option than a joystick for SLR users.

- A


----------



## Talys (May 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > I think the new M50 has it so you can use your thumb to touch and drag your auto focusing points around while looking through the viewfinder.
> ...



Sure it's possible -- all you're doing is converting the right 1/3 or so of the touchscreen into a touch pad that moves the AF point. I mean, to say that's impossible on a DSLR makes no sense. It's no different than the D-pad on a 6D or a joystick on a 5D. 

On the other hand, I think the feature is much more useful on a M5/M50, and possibly a SL2 than on a 6D/5D, because the thumb is quite far from the touchscreen on a 6D (nevermind a 5D) compared to a M5.

Like, to make it work, ideally, you should be able to drag AF point AND have your hand around the grip, but that's not going to happen for most people on a 5D/6D.


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

ah, yes - to only use touchscreen as AF point command pad would also be possible on DSLRs. i misunderstood and thought you wanted to also see image on touchscreen while moving around af points - without being in liveview mode. 

i agree with the ergonomical problem to use it on DSLRs due to thickness/depth of body/grip. 

as stated earlier, in my opinion optimal solution for AF field selection would be Canon Eye Control AF system - an improved version 2.0 of what was implemented in some Canon (film) SLRs (eos 5, elan 7e, ...) 
https://m.dpreview.com/articles/6531126959/looking-back-canons-eye-controlled-focus

last year i bought a Canon EOS 7E SLR in excellent, only lightly used condition (for 40 €) - mainly to try out ECF for myself. works rather well for me. no fumbling with thumb on touchscreen or fiddling around with af selector nipple. just look at what you want zo be in focus - and bam, it is in focus (speed depending on lens af drive performance). hands-free - to operate BFF AF button, for example. 

i'd really like to have an updated, "2018 AI-powered version" ECF in a new Canon FF mirrorless cam with state of the art EVF. working perfectly and seamlessly integrated with face/eye recognition and tracking af modes. 

technical challenges? yes, sure. insurmountable for innovative Canon? hopefully not. ;-)


----------



## fullstop (May 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Drunk much?



reported. inacceptable. 

The nastier the ad hominem attacks get, the better they prove I have made a very valid point.


----------



## BillB (May 29, 2018)

Talys said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Durf said:
> ...



It may be possible, but that doesn't mean that it is practical. The toggle on the 5D's is a relatively quick and accurate way to select among an array of points with visual feedback and minimal disruption of the main image. Not sure how easy it would be to improve on that with a touchscreen/OVF approach.


----------



## Talys (May 30, 2018)

BillB said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I agree with you. I happen to like the toggle on the 5D, and I don't think that something similar is practical on a large (wide) DSLR. But I mean, I don't think it's a big deal to implement, and the user should be able to just disable it if they aren't interested.

Maybe there's some application we don't run into... I know lots of people who swear by the LCD drag for AF point selection, whereas it just isn't my preference.


----------



## Adelino (Jun 1, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ah, yes - to only use touchscreen as AF point command pad would also be possible on DSLRs. i misunderstood and thought you wanted to also see image on touchscreen while moving around af points - without being in liveview mode.
> 
> i agree with the ergonomical problem to use it on DSLRs due to thickness/depth of body/grip.
> 
> ...



I have never heard a really good reason why Canon stopped Eye Controlled Focus. It really seems like it would be amazing with today's technology. I had a non eye focus Elan and I thought, at the time, that my next camera would have Eye Controlled Focus but nope. Anyone have any thoughts why it was dropped and pretty much forgotten by Canon?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 1, 2018)

Adelino said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > https://m.dpreview.com/articles/6531126959/looking-back-canons-eye-controlled-focus
> ...



did you read the linked article? There are some hints as to why Canon may have dropped it. But I totally agree that a much improved version should be technically possible for innovative Canon in 2018 and I'd definitely like to get it.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 2, 2018)

Adelino said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > ah, yes - to only use touchscreen as AF point command pad would also be possible on DSLRs. i misunderstood and thought you wanted to also see image on touchscreen while moving around af points - without being in liveview mode.
> ...



I still have a 7NE. I always use it with eye-control disabled; it has a tendency to refocus when I don’t want it to, etc. It could probably be better implemented today.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 24, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'd love to see* the touchscreen + a right thumb drag gesture be able to allow fast/precise AF point selection while one is still shooting in a traditional OVF / camera-up-to-the-eye manner -- you'd still be discretely held to the individual AF 'boxes' of the AF sensor in this manner, but perhaps it would be quicker than many discrete left/right/up/down taps on the joystick.





ahsanford said:


> Sure, but that's for a camera working 100% of the time in LiveView.
> I'm asking about using an SLR in a default (e.g. OVF, non-Liveview) manner in conjunction with AF selection being dragged around on (presumably) only a portion of the touchscreen. Might that be possible?





fullstop said:


> not possible on a DSLR. possible on an SLT. but not implemented on any Sony which dont even have a touchscreen to my knowledge.




Ugh, Chris Nicholls just showed me that Nikon has this functionality in a D5X00 level. *Are you kidding me. *

Tee it up exactly at 4:00 if this link doesn't do that, it's just 4:00 - 4:07 or so, very quick but clear what's happening: a touchscreen is driving a very intuitive AF point selection that can be seen through an OVF.






Gorgeous. I'd love that. This would be awesome in a higher end SLR.

Between this and spot metering at any AF point, Nikon is trolling me pretty hard. _With a D5500._ 

- A


----------



## fullstop (Aug 25, 2018)

aha! was not aware of this. nice, Nikon!

but there is some menu diving involved to set it up. 






and a number of potential snags / cross-dependencies may also be encountered, eg:
https://dpreview.com/forums/thread/4253759

but definitely nice to see it in viewfinder mode in mirrorslappers. who knows, maybe it will eventually also become available in innovative Canons ... unless it is already.


----------

