# New mid-level DSLR and EOS M5 Mark II the next ILC’s from Canon? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 12, 2019)

> Canon has had a pretty busy 2019, and it looks like that’s going to continue if the latest information we’ve received is to be believed.
> We’re told that a new “mid-level” DSLR will be coming in 2019, but that it won’t be an EOS 7D Mark III replacement. The obvious thought would be a replacement to the EOS 80D. It has been rumoured in the past that the EOS 80D and EOS 7D Mark II could be amalgamated into one body going forward.
> We’re not sure how the APS-C lineup is going to play out at the moment, but it looks like 2019 will bring some clarity.
> The second camera we’re told that is coming for sure in 2019 is a replacement to the Canon EOS M5. We’re told this camera will feature an all-new 24mp sensor and would put a larger gap in features between the top of the EOS M lineup and the EOS M50. No information about features was given.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Cryve (Apr 12, 2019)

I am so excited about the new sensor. Mainly about the megapixel and low light performance.
I also hope its bsi!

i wonder if its really gonna be 24mp, as claimed. 24mp is a good sweetspot for apsc, but im skeptical if it is really going to be 24mp, because a higher mp count usualy is good for marketing.

Sad that the 7diii probably wont come this year, but it was the same with the 7d ii. First came the 70d, which introduced the new sensor, then about 1 year later came the 7d ii.

so it can be projected that we will see the 7d iii at the end of 2020.


----------



## Maximilian (Apr 12, 2019)

2019 stays interesting. 
Esp. to see how Canon defines the future of APS-C DSLR.


----------



## Josh Leavitt (Apr 12, 2019)

I'd like to see Canon merge the xxD and 7D series into one model. That camera would definitely compliment my 6D II for those times when I'm photographing wildlife or sports. 

It's also nice to see that they're not pulling the plug on EOS M yet. Hopefully the new 24MP sensor can manage 4k without any crop. A higher quality EVF, and enhanced eye-AF would be welcome too. I'm not expecting Canon to deliver IBIS with the M5 II, but it might serve as a decent product for testing the technology in the real world before equipping it on the future full-frame EOS R cameras.


----------



## criscokkat (Apr 12, 2019)

I'd like to see at least 5dIV level tracking and I'd like to see live view have R level dpaf tracking. I would really love to see 1dx tracking ala the 7dx line, but if they are making a hybrid of the two I wouldn't expect that level but something in between. 

Maybe priced around the same as the RP.


----------



## Karlbug (Apr 12, 2019)

Is it realistic to expect R's EVF in M5 II? I didn't have a problem with M5's EVF until I bought R... now it seems so tiny.

Also a 24MP sensor is the ideal place to start with uncropped (binning? oversampled?) 4K, especially with a new faster-readout sensor... if that fits into Canon's differentiation strategy is another thing.


----------



## mpb001 (Apr 12, 2019)

I think that the MILC market is evolving so rapidly, that I think Canon and others should probably reduce the models of DSLRs. How many Rebel DSLRs are needed? I can see one Rebel, one pro oriented 7D and one 5D model. After that, probably all MILC including the 1D line. Just my two cents worth.


----------



## Etienne (Apr 12, 2019)

For the M5:
Proper swivel screen and IBIS.
Ok ... real 4K and 1080p 120fps too.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> What I see dying off quickly is the SLR product lines. They'll keep making bodies as long as people want them but they'll just have the electronics suite from the MIL's and the mirror/pentaprism from the current models, I think. In other words, these product lines will die off but due to demand, not because Canon unilaterally cuts them away.


The available data suggest that DSLR demand is dropping, but not as quickly as you suggest. Moreover, the data suggest that the decline in DLSRs continues to moderate. The data also suggest that MILC demand is not really rising. Market share is slowly shifting (although DSLRs still comprise the majority), due to decreasing DSLR sales. In other words, the DSLR is far from dead.


----------



## nickorando (Apr 12, 2019)

This was being said a few years ago: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...pper-nail-coffin-bulky-old-style-cameras.html 

And yet it's Nikon One that's dead, and DSLRs soldier on...


----------



## wyotex43n (Apr 12, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...


Hope the rumor concerning 7D Mk ll replacement is wrong. I damaged my 7d Mk ll and really need the replacement asap. It takes sharp photos but there is no readout in the viewfinder. Canon cannot repair it for less than buying a new one. 
I don't want to buy a body that is a 3 to 4 years old design so I am really hoping for a replacement soon.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Apr 12, 2019)

Pity about the no 7D mark III yet.. but i am lukewarm exited about a M5 update.


----------



## jtf (Apr 12, 2019)

Newbie to this site but have been using Canon since '75. I've been looking to upgrade my 7D/6D combo for over a year. I picked up an M5 last year as a walk around too. I only do photo, not video.

Was hoping a 7DIII was on the horizon but now I don't know. On the other hand the EOS R kinda ticked a lot of boxes to replace my 6D. 

Now I'm thinking I might just holdout to see if a new R series camera can come up with the fps and better tracking and replace both the 7D and 6D. I've seen several youtube vids of people using the 1.4x and 2x converters on the R with good results. I really hate to say it but what I'm looking for is a Canon that does what the A7III does. 

Give me 10-12 fps, excellent focus tracking the ability to use a teleconverter for the extra reach of an aps-c in a full frame mirrorless and I'm sold.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 12, 2019)

Maximilian said:


> 2019 stays interesting.
> Esp. to see how Canon defines the future of APS-C DSLR.


The SL3 defined it, Canon is not going to have any revolutionary changes, the cameras will evolve with a slightly different sensor and some additional features. 

Each new model is slightly better across the board, that makes for a big improvement when you add it all up, but there will be crying and winning. Low light performance foe APS-C is about as good as you can get, so tiny improvements should be expected at best. There is room for a lot more MP if Canon wanted, but they balance that with the power usage of a faster processor and heating from video versus sensor size to fit into a price range.

Its usually not worth a upgrade from the previous model unless there is a must have feature.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The SL3 defined it, Canon is not going to have any revolutionary changes, the cameras will evolve with a slightly different sensor and some additional features.
> 
> Each new model is slightly better across the board, that makes for a big improvement when you add it all up, but there will be crying and winning. Low light performance foe APS-C is about as good as you can get, so tiny improvements should be expected at best. There is room for a lot more MP if Canon wanted, but they balance that with the power usage of a faster processor and heating from video versus sensor size to fit into a price range.
> 
> Its usually not worth a upgrade from the previous model unless there is a must have feature.


Implicit in the announcement (and to the chagrin of some on this forum) is that the APS-C DSLR *has* a future. Not that I had any doubt of that, personally.


----------



## wyotex43n (Apr 12, 2019)

mrav said:


> Canon would have so many sales to people like you, I and wyotex43n who are wanting to upgrade but we are left in the dark on what is and isn't going to be released. I wanted to buy a new camera last year but everything was up in the air because we didn't know what to expect with the mirrorless launch. I was contemplating buying the 7d III if and when it came out and have the same reservations as you regarding the EOS R, the teleconverters make the prospect very interesting so I really don't know what to buy and was then waiting to find out what the "pro" version of the R offered. Not to mention if they will release a new 5D IV. So many camera lines are due to be replaced and like you I think it's stupid to buy a 3-4 year old camera especially when the new tech is so exciting. This wouldn't have been as complicated 5 years ago when everything was a dslr and you knew the release dates were 4 years with relatively minor updates but now we don't have any clue what Canon is going to do with the slr lines nor the R system is going (outside of the lens release schedule). Is the R system going to have more bodies and are they going on a 4 year release schedule also? So I didn't buy last year and it doesn't look like I'm buying this year. I'm sticking with my existing kit. If sales of cameras are dropping drastically, this secrecy project isn't helping (I understand why they keep things under wraps but it doesn't always help their bottom line, not everyone needs to buy the latest release, some of us are more deliberate when we're spending thousands of dollars). But at least we have this great site keeping up in the loop.


I mostly shoot wildlife with by 7d mk ll and my 100-400mm. Since my camera is damaged, and my only other investment in lenses is a 18-135mm and a rokinon 14mm I would not take an awful hit to switch brand. If there is not a replacement for my 7dmk ll in the near future I may have to think about switching. Don't really want to but I can't wait another year or 2. If there was a replacement for the 5d soon I would do that and wait but both seem to be far off.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Just to be clear, I don't expect people to even START moving until the RF system has 1) a professional body (minimum twice battery life, 2x storage, a bit more rugged, and better controls), and 2) trinity lenses plus maybe an ultra-wide and a portrait.
> 
> At that point, I'm not sure why most genres of shooting other than sports and wildlife won't move over as fast as their old kit tax-depreciates. Who is going to say:
> 
> ...


When you talk about ‘SLR product lines’ you seem to be referencing the entire ILC market, and in that context the RF system won’t have much impact since it’s for FF only. The overall market trends are driven by APS-C sensors, a FF-dedicated lens system isn’t going to affect that too much.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

mrav said:


> Exactly and this is why Canon won't be able to keep their massive market share forever because people are contemplating other companies. I was even thinking about buying a Sony body and if they release a 7R IV I will consider it (depending on the changes they make/things they add)


YAPODFC. 

What makes now different from the past 16 years? Did everyone wake up yesterday and suddenly think, hey maybe I’ll switch ILC brands now? LOL. People have been ‘contemplating other companies’ all along. Some switch from Canon to those other companies. Some switch from those other companies to Canon. 

The fact that you are thinking about buying a Sony is completely irrelevant as far as the ILC market goes. To even imply otherwise is asinine.


----------



## Tom W (Apr 12, 2019)

Tom's prediction (and totally opinion based) - new sensor will be in the 25ish MP range as an APS-C, will be able to work out 4K at 60 with the proper processing, quad-pixel AF, next step up in DR from the 80D, which was an improvement over its predecessor.

Also, same sensor tech transferred to a high-pixel count full frame body at around 65 MPx, (1.6X1.6X25-ish), with dual processors and some crazy 4K or better. Something big has to happen to get into the high-end mix with the Sony fans.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 12, 2019)

Tom W said:


> ...Something big has to happen to get into the high-end mix with the Sony fans...



Why would Canon feel compelled to cater to Sony fans? Sony is always going to have a share of the market and the cost-benefit for Canon or Nikon to convert those users is probably far too high.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough... as someone who's only had EF, EF-M, and now RF, I forget that EF-S is even a thing. Is the EF-M system sucking the lifeblood out of EF-S? If not why not? If there's a really good reason for that, then maybe I'm wrong about the death more or less of SLR FF.


In Japan (the geography in which mirrorless cameras are more popular than anywhere else), the top three best-selling ILCs for the past few months have been the Kiss X9 and X9i (SL2/200D and T7i/800D) trading off for first and second place, with the Kiss M (EOS M50) in third. The first FF ILC on the list is the Sony a7III which has been running at about #20, followed by the EOS R ranked in the mid-30s and the 6DII running at about #40. That’s based on BCN data, which comprises about 2/3 of sales in Japan. 

The bottom line is that APS-C ILCs (and m4/3 MILCs from Oly/Pana) far outsell FF ILCs. We discuss FF cameras a lot on here, but this is yet another reminder that this forum is not at all representative of the real world.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> "No thanks, I don't need a half-size 70-200/2.8 IS."



A what now?


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> The available data suggest that DSLR demand is dropping, but not as quickly as you suggest. Moreover, the data suggest that the decline in DLSRs continues to moderate. The data also suggest that MILC demand is not really rising. Market share is slowly shifting (although DSLRs still comprise the majority), due to decreasing DSLR sales. In other words, the DSLR is far from dead.



I believe the OP is saying that they *will* die off quickly, not that they are already dead- don't worry  I take a more conservative approach to this- the high-end DSLR will hang around for *some* photography pros for quite some time but most hybrid shooters, prosumers, hobbyists, and video shooters will almost all be on MILC within the next 5-10 years.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2019)

Tom W said:


> Tom's prediction (and totally opinion based) - new sensor will be in the 25ish MP range as an APS-C, will be able to work out 4K at 60 with the proper processing, quad-pixel AF, next step up in DR from the 80D, which was an improvement over its predecessor.
> 
> Also, same sensor tech transferred to a high-pixel count full frame body at around 65 MPx, (1.6X1.6X25-ish), with dual processors and some crazy 4K or better. Something big has to happen to get into the high-end mix with the Sony fans.



Canon will never compete with Sony. Canon's only hope is to stay close to Sony or start using Sony sensors. If Sony has made a full DR global shutter sensor for the A7S III, then all bets are off. Sony's officially won the race. Canon has nothing even close, as they are still working with FSI single layer global shutter sensors outside of patent R&D.

Sony does a bazillion yen in R&D around smartphone sensors that have to be built to a higher technical level than anything Canon would ever dream of.

All their innovation comes from smartphone sensors and they sell them by the boatloads. What does Canon have? maybe some 1" sensors, but other than that, all their APS-C full frame sensors which they sell right now around 5 million a year. Sony sells what? hundreds of millions smartphone sensors now? Sony's share of the CIS sensor market is 15 TIMES greater than Canon's in terms of revenue.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon will never compete with Sony. Canon's only hope is to stay close to Sony or start using Sony sensors. If Sony has made a full DR global shutter sensor for the A7S III, then all bets are off. Sony's officially won the race. Canon has nothing even close, as they are still working with FSI single layer global shutter sensors outside of patent R&D.
> 
> Sony does a bazillion yen in R&D around smartphone sensors that have to be built to a higher technical level than anything Canon would ever dream of.
> 
> All their innovation comes from smartphone sensors and they sell them by the boatloads. What does Canon have? maybe some 1" sensors, but other than that, all their APS-C full frame sensors which they sell right now around 5 million a year. Sony sells what? hundreds of millions smartphone sensors now? Sony's share of the CIS sensor market is 15 TIMES greater than Canon's in terms of revenue.


The fact that canon current competes with Sony would seem to undermine your claim that they never will.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The fact that canon current competes with Sony would seem to undermine your claim that they never will.



they don't really. their sensors still don't match Sony's at low ISO's in terms of DR, and they can't match what Sony has in terms of Aptina's dual ISO patent.
Canon's sensors have a much slower readout rate, and they have nothing outside of R&D patents that match the A9 sensor.
Sony Electronics has a 16 bit ADC 62MP and 100MP full frame sensors already done just waiting for camera bodies.

Sony electronics has at least a two generation jump on Canon .. right now.. and at a rate of investment of probably 15 times that of Canon's sensors, they probably won't catch up quickly.

There's the possiblity that Canon will do a quantum leap forward with their next sensor. but as of right now, they aren't anywhere close. sorry.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2019)

mrav said:


> What's asinine is the fact you can't read properly. I didn't say anything about the ILC market, I said Canon's market share. The only reason they put all their money and energy over the last year into mirrorless is because of market pressure and keep people from switching.



it would have taken Canon easily 3 to 5 or even more years to develop the EOS R and ready the RF lenses for production, you make it seem like they just created the entire thing in someone's basement overnight.

Canon would have been thinking about this since around when the A7 was released by Sony, and really did nothing as far as the market.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough... as someone who's only had EF, EF-M, and now RF, I forget that EF-S is even a thing. Is the EF-M system sucking the lifeblood out of EF-S? If not why not? If there's a really good reason for that, then maybe I'm wrong about the death more or less of SLR FF.



People on this forum love to extrapolate from their narrow personal experience. I'll play that game. I do some work for a small college. Every year there are maybe two-three students who decide they want something better than a cell phone. They come to me for some lessons in how to use the camera (There is no photography program here.) Invariably, they buy a DSLR and it's almost always a low-end Canon Rebel, frequently in a kit with a telephoto. 

Two thoughts: 

1) It's only two or three because most are content to use their phones and they become very skilled at using their phones. More young adults are taking more pictures than ever before, but cell phones are the dominant medium and likely to stay that way. That's the big trend and that's what the camera industry as a whole is focused on.

2) Like most consumers, even these young college students when deciding to buy a "real" camera, choose a DSLR.

My tiny sample means nothing. But my _opinion_ (and it is only an opinion) is that there are far too many variables out there to assume that one format will replace another. I _think_ that even with all their research Canon/Nikon/Sony etc. have no idea where the market is headed. Sony put all their eggs in the mirrorless basket because they couldn't effectively compete for DSLR users. Canon and Nikon are hedging their bets and are putting a lot of different options out there and seeing what works. My _guess_ is that Nikon and Canon are playing the long game and we may not see any major product line shakeups for maybe five to 10 years, if ever.

On this forum, there always seem to be teams. With Team Mirrorless trying to beat Team DSLR. But, Canon and Nikon are more like coaches, trying to make sure their bench has a good mix of players -- full frame, crop, DSLR, mirrorless, point and shoot, instant print, etc. etc. The only teams they are on are Team Nikon and Team Canon.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> they don't really. their sensors still don't match Sony's at low ISO's in terms of DR, and they can't match what Sony has in terms of Aptina's dual ISO patent.
> Canon's sensors have a much slower readout rate, and they have nothing outside of R&D patents that match the A9 sensor.
> Sony Electronics has a 16 bit ADC 62MP and 100MP full frame sensors already done just waiting for camera bodies.
> 
> ...


I didn’t realize compete with meant match in all aspects, including licensed IP.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The fact that canon current *out*competes with Sony would seem to undermine your claim that they never will.


Fixed that for you.


----------



## BillB (Apr 12, 2019)

mrav said:


> Yes but it has become their #1 priority over the last year, I doubt this was the plan at the beginning. And that's fine, things change and you need to adapt and they are. The problem is consumers have their own ideas and that's changing the market in it's own way (plummeting sales). I started on a point and shoot, look where that is today (it's not because the camera companies killed it off)


Plummeting sales may well have very little to do the cameras that are now in the stores. It may have more to do with the phones people can buy and the cameras people already have. How many people print pictures anymore?


----------



## Tom W (Apr 12, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Why would Canon feel compelled to cater to Sony fans? Sony is always going to have a share of the market and the cost-benefit for Canon or Nikon to convert those users is probably far too high.



I didn't mean "cater to" - I meant compete for. You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent. There have been a lot of people that have switched brands these last few years. Ideally, for Canon, you'd want them to switch to your brand and not away from it.

When people see all those big white lenses at the Olympics, they don't think "I need to run out and buy a Sony".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

mrav said:


> What's asinine is the fact you can't read properly. I didn't say anything about the ILC market, I said Canon's market share.


What’s asinine is that you don’t understand that ILC market share is one aspect of the overall ILC market. 



mrav said:


> The only reason they put all their money and energy over the last year into mirrorless is because of market pressure and keep people from switching.


So there have been no DSLRs announced this year? No EF lens patents? Moreover, Canon has been invested in mirrorless for years, and has the best-selling MILC line. Presumably you’re talking about the FF ILC market, but that’s only a small segment of the ILC market as a whole. People haven’t been switching in the net. If they had, Canon would have lost market share. They haven’t. But somehow you believe that because you’re thinking of buying a Sony, Canon’s market share is suffering. Who are you, the butterfly flapping his wings in China that causes the hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico? 



mrav said:


> Yes but it has become their #1 priority over the last year, I doubt this was the plan at the beginning. And that's fine, things change and you need to adapt and they are. The problem is consumers have their own ideas and that's changing the market in it's own way (plummeting sales). I started on a point and shoot, look where that is today (it's not because the camera companies killed it off)


Oh, so _now _you’re talking about the ILC market, with your reference to plummeting sales. Except those plummeting sales haven’t altered market share at all from Canon’s perspective – they had close to 50% of the ILC market 10 years ago, and they have the same now. Sony did take a bit of market share from Nikon, though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> I believe the OP is saying that they *will* die off quickly, not that they are already dead- don't worry  I take a more conservative approach to this- the high-end DSLR will hang around for *some* photography pros for quite some time but most hybrid shooters, prosumers, hobbyists, and video shooters will almost all be on MILC within the next 5-10 years.


Yes, I read what he wrote thanks.

Will most people be using MILCs in 5-10 years? We’ll see, it’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But, “The DSLR wil be dead in 5 years,” was the prediction by pundits...about 7 years ago. We’re still waiting, and the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> what's BCN?











世の中のリアルを速く正しく- BCN＋R


BCN＋Rは、世の中のリアルを速く、正しく伝えるニュースサイトです。デジタル家電、グルメ、マネー、ヘルスケア、ライフスタイルの最新トレンドを発信し、デジタルで便利な暮らしを応援するメディアです。




www.bcnretail.com





Same organization that puts out these:






BCN Ranking Out - Canon Dominates Mirrorless and DSLRs « NEW CAMERA


2019 Japan BCN ranking are out and finally we are surprised again by the rankings. It's not Sony in the leading table, we have the Canon as the market leader with DSLR as well as Mirrorless category.




thenewcamera.com


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

mrav said:


> _yawn_


Thanks for that pithy summation of your posts to date on this site.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> they don't really. their sensors still don't match Sony's at low ISO's in terms of DR, and they can't match what Sony has in terms of Aptina's dual ISO patent.
> Canon's sensors have a much slower readout rate, and they have nothing outside of R&D patents that match the A9 sensor.
> Sony Electronics has a 16 bit ADC 62MP and 100MP full frame sensors already done just waiting for camera bodies.
> 
> ...


Canon produces more patents than Sony, and spends more on R&D than Sony. They also have 200Mpixel sensors “just waiting for a camera”.

And more importantly, when people go outside the lab to take pictures they bring along an entire camera with lenses, not just a sensor.'


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 12, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Canon produces more patents than Sony, and spends more on R&D than Sony. They also have 200Mpixel sensors “just waiting for a camera”.
> 
> And more importantly, when people go outside the lab to take pictures they bring along an entire camera with lenses, not just a sensor.'



not with respects to sensors. Sony has more patents than Canon when it comes to sensors, which is what we're talking about here.

also Canon doesn't spend more on R&D than Sony, Sony for last fiscal is 470,000 million yen, Canon is 315,842 million yen.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't think the FD user base lasted 3 years once EF trinity zooms were out (and 50/1.4, 35/2). In fact not even Nikon lasted 3 years after EF system's initial trinity zooms were out.


Yes, but the situation is quite different. With a couple of niche exceptions, Canon declaratively switched from FD to EF and terminated FD bodies and lenses. Canon is not switching from EF to RF, they’ve just added RF to the mix (and with an adapter that allows full compatibility of EF lenses on RF-mount bodies, which was not the case with FD), and they’ve explicitly stated that both systems will continue to be developed in parallel for some time to come.


----------



## snappy604 (Apr 12, 2019)

Nothing wrong with being tempted by certain competitor features and I know a few of the long term fans here will pounce on this  so be it.


Anecdotally I have been seeing a lot of used Canon gear for sale on local markets.. 5D MkIVs etc. Of the group of folks I consistently interact with on SLRs, most have now switched to Sony A7IIIs. New firmware coming out from Sony seems to continually be addressing capabilities on lens adapters on the A7IIIs... (apparently eye focus for animals is coming for adapted lenses?)

so while the numbers being quoted indicate Canon is a strong leader, my experience looking around at the local enthusiast circles is that a change is occurring.

Am I jumping? nope.. don't have the money at moment and I still would prefer to stay Canon. Personally I think the competition is great and some of the things that came with the R helped even things a bit, but still seem.... lack-luster to me. I hope it's just Canon building up to another tech leap, but time will tell. 

Will it help me take better pics? probably not, but it will give me more latitude for my goof ups ;-) and that has value for me.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> The mockup for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS looks like a munchkin compared to the EF-mount lenses.


Got a link?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.


The difference between excellent lens performance and slightly more excellent lens performance pales in comparison to the difference between manual focus and autofocus. I don’t imagine owners of the 16-35/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 MkII lenses were rushing out to buy the MkIII versions. And that’s assuming the lenses are better, the 24-105 is essentially identical between EF and RF. 

The 28-70/2 is nice, but the extra stop adds quite a bit of weight and those 4mm on the wide end are quite significant. A retracting 70-200 is nice, but may also be perceived as less robust. An RF 24-70/2.8 IS would be nice, but the need for IS in that focal range is debatable. On the balance, all of these little improvements may add up to an advantage for the RF-based system, but seem unlikely to be a massive driver of MILC adoption among pros.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 12, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> Got a link?


There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).

As for the link...
http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=RF+70-200


----------



## malarcky (Apr 12, 2019)

Sometimes it's hard to imagine that the camera consumer community aren't the most brazen, and feckless people in the world. It's almost as though they are always telling us how bad the engineers are doing based on their personal knowledge of what's possible in technology advancements. There is a sense that they are always more knowledgeable than the camera brand manufacturers are, because there's always shortfalls in the designs that they are producing. These wonder people are blessed with the knowledge of how much the technology is advancing, and why there is a crippling of certain cameras due to the competitive nature of these brand names.

Sometime these brands are competing with themselves, such as the video capabilities being dumbed down so that the consumer is forced to buy a product in the dedicated video camera line instead of having those capabilities in the DSLR line. Everyone knows (they would make you think), beyond a shadow of a doubt, that these manufacturers are holding back certain features to make these devices more competitive in their own line of products. It's just an amazing feat, for the commenters to know more than the engineers, and how the implementation of these devices are strategically placed in order to make the upper echelon of products sell more. I just have never seen such brazen statements, such as "The limit has been reached on the light gathering capabilities of (such and such) that line of products", without knowing a thing about the actual implementation of the products themselves.

I'm not trying to make photographers look bad here, I'm just highlighting the strange way that these comments are just plain headstrong in their perspective of the evolution of modern day camera technology. When the Canon 6D MkII came out, it was the worst camera ever made, as it wasn't any better in expanding the dynamic range of an ISO 100 capture in regards to the 6D. It turns out, that the benefits of the new camera overall was more than enough to qualify as a great upgrade overall. Sure there were some instances where it fell slightly behind, but overall, it kicked butt over the 6D in overall performance. When you read the comments when this model came out, it was all about the ISO 100 capture nitpicking that left a bad taste in these peoples mouths, so it scored poorly "overall". Comments such as "Canon dropped the ball", or "The 6D Mk II falls way short of being an upgrade over the 6D". Of course, like I was saying all along, the 6D Mk II is a much better camera than the 6D in places that matter, like the articulating screen, the Dual Pixel focus, the ability to electronically work with Canon converters and the most popular telephoto lenses, and many, many other features that *MATTER THE MOST*. When a group of distractors gets away with the initial bashing of a new model, they can pat themselves on the back for the bragging rights that the 6D MkII was a poor upgrade because the ISO 100 capabilities didn't spank the 6D. Just the implimentation of Dual Pixel focus technology was enough of an improvement to discount the ISO 100 measly shortcomings. A new camera model doesn't need to outdo the previous model in the specifications in every single category to be a worthy upgrade. It's the overall package that matters most.

It's things like I just described that give the camera community the unique ability to tell the other members in the camera community that they know more than the engineers that develop and manufacture these wonderful devices. Sometimes I just don't understand where someone can brazenly assume that they know much more than the engineers who are responsible for the actual development of these wonderful cameras, but it runs rampant all the time it seems. You see it so many times, and looking back on just about every single camera that Canon has upgraded, it was the initial impressions that dogged the model, only to be a much better model, every single time.

EDIT: I wasn't meaning to respond to *neuroanatomist . *I was just responding to these posts overall.


----------



## unfocused (Apr 12, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I didn't mean "cater to" - I meant compete for. You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent. There have been a lot of people that have switched brands these last few years. Ideally, for Canon, you'd want them to switch to your brand and not away from it...



Actually, few companies gain market share by being excellent. Excellent may work for high-end niche products. But, for most products and services, "good enough" is the best strategy. I know it's popular for companies to market themselves as though their products are excellent. But the reality is they succeed by offering decent products at a competitive price (not my opinion, this has been documented.) 

Your second statement, by the way, is factually wrong as has been pointed out innumerable times on this forum. Don't confuse churn with switching. On any given day, there will be switching from one brand to another. Companies are content to lose a few customers so long as they are gaining more than they are losing. Canon's numbers show that they are gaining more than they are losing.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> There was a prototype on display at an expo recently (photoplus in the UK?). Based on the patent, the RF 70-200/2.8 is an extending zoom, unlike the fixed EF versions. Thus, the RF version certainly is smaller when retracted (but it’s actually longer when extended, such that the sensor to front element distance should be about the same for both EF and RF systems).
> 
> As for the link...
> http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=RF+70-200



And in massive amusement, Canon won't even confirm that it extends, even though anyone with a vague understanding knows it will.


----------



## malarcky (Apr 12, 2019)

Post deleted due to circumstances beyond my control. I want to extend a "Thank you" to the moderation team here at *CANONRUMORS.*


----------



## FramerMCB (Apr 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...but the need for IS in that focal range is debatable.



Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Actually, I had a realization around 2000 that SLRs were probably going to be replaced by what we call mirrorless, so I'm sure Canon was thinking about it since sometime in the 20th century...


Same here.

What many need to consider is that this is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary change.

When we went from film to digital, it was a revolutionary change. We changed from analog to digital, we went from dark rooms to computer screens.

Mirrorless is evolutionary. Our workflow remains the same, the sensors are basically the same. A Mirrorless camera is a DSLR being used in liveview mode with an extra display (EVF) and no mirror.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 12, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, I read what he wrote thanks.
> 
> Will most people be using MILCs in 5-10 years? We’ll see, it’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But, “The DSLR wil be dead in 5 years,” was the prediction by pundits...about 7 years ago. We’re still waiting, and the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs.


In 5 years, the odds are quite high that I will be using the DSLR cameras I have now. I may add a FF Mirrorless by then, but what I have now meets the functionality that I need.

As to the typical camera buyer, my feel is that the three biggest factors are price, ergonomics, and name recognition. The typical buyer does not care about Mirrorless, about DR, and about fancy programmable controls. These cameras spend their lives in Auto mode. The only real decision people make is to choose between small size ( like an M) or something like a Rebel or SR2 that looks more like a “real” camera and may ( or may not) fit the hand better, and that depends more on the size of the persons hands than any technical specs


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...


I would certainly like IS in *all* my lenses. But ‘typical’ uses of a 24-70mm lens involve people, and that generally means 1/60 s or preferably higher (I use a 1/125 s minimum) to eliminate the effect of subject motion, which obviates the need for IS. I’d still like it (not all uses are ‘typical’, and I certainly appreciated being able to handhold 1/3 s waterfall shots with the RF 24-105/4L IS), but I doubt IS in a 24-70 will be a major driver of purchase decisions for most people in terms of switching from a DSLR to a MILC.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 13, 2019)

mrav said:


> Yes we should all roll over and just take what's given to us and have no expectations from companies but still gleefully give them thousands of our dollars. We should talk about how blessed and amazing our lives are like people do on Facebook.



You should give a company thousands of dollars for their products if you feel their products are worth it. If you'd rather purchase a competitor's product, you are perfectly free to purchase that instead. If no one makes the product you want (for the price you wish to pay) you're out of luck.

Your deliberate mischaracterization of malarcky's point is telling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2019)

mrav said:


> Yes we should all roll over and just take what's given to us and have no expectations from companies but still gleefully give them thousands of our dollars. We should talk about how blessed and amazing our lives are like people do on Facebook.


No, but nor should we expect companies to give us everything we want for free. 

See, you’re not the only one who can employ hyperbole.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 13, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> Canon will never compete with Sony...



 Let me take a stab at one sided rhetoric...

Sony will never compete with Canon. Sony's only hope to stay close was to provide adapters for Canon glass, but they can't adapt Canon's new RF mount. If Canon has made more lens improvements like the 28-70 f/2, 50 f/1.2, 15-35 f/2.8 IS, and half size 70-200 f/2.8 IS then all bets are off. Canon officially won the race. Sony has nothing even close, as they are still working on f/1.4 primes and f/2.8 zooms that aren't even as sharp nor weather sealed.

Canon does a bazillion yen in R&D around lenses that have to be built to a higher technical level than anything Sony would dream of.

What does Sony have? Maybe a few kit lens sales, but other than that everyone using Sony is using adapted glass. And let's not forget that Canon's share of weather sealed bodies is 9,001 TIMES greater than Sony's. Sony is literally TWO AND A HALF DECADES behind Canon weather sealing technology. How can you close that gap and catch up?

Canon: 1
Sony: Lost

 That was fun.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 13, 2019)

FramerMCB said:


> Dustin Abbott <http://www.dustinabbott.com> has some interesting things to say when he performed a 3-way comparison between the Canon 24-70mm f2.8, Tamron G2 24-70mm f2.8 VC and the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art. When tripod shooting the Canon yields slightly better results on the edges/corners (sharper for example - this is wide-open) but when hand-holding, the VC in the Tamron yielded better results. Now, individual results I'm sure would vary based on many variables, mainly how steady can you hold your camera. Still, I found it an interesting test/review...



Interesting since it was his individual reviews that resulted in me getting the Canon over the Tamron. I have two Tamron lenses and really like them. But I couldn't ignore the sharpness and micro contrast in the Canon 24-70 vs. the Tamron 24-70 while looking over his samples.

To be sure the Tamron is a good lens and it's a close call, but I had to go Canon on that one.


----------



## flip314 (Apr 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Same here.
> 
> What many need to consider is that this is an evolutionary change, not a revolutionary change.
> 
> ...



MF to AF was also a revolutionary change. While I'm convinced RF/mirrorless will win and EF/DSLR will go away, I don't think it will be anywhere near as fast as the FD to EF transition was. I think people who are suggesting that FD to EF is a good metaphor for EF to RF are going to be surprised when EF hangs around for much longer than they expect.


----------



## malarcky (Apr 13, 2019)

mrav said:


> Yes because you exhibit the same superiority complex that you're criticizing in your post.


I don't use projection tactics in my responses to posts. My post was directed towards people who are on these forums who want to act like the Canon engineers are manipulative in their actions towards the market. My point is to the posters who don't feel like they need to pay any heed to the engineers that spend their hard earned time and engineering expertise to deliver products that we, as consumers, are sometimes taking for granted. I'm just making an observation. That should be clear to posters who actually understand my previous post, and the message I was attempting to deliver in that post. Only those who want to take what I said personally would respond in a fashion that is acting as though I was targeting a specific poster. Nowhere did I insinuate that I am doing that, as I am just making a generic statement that is prevalent in many posts on camera forums in general. The Canon engineers (and other manufacturers engineers) are doing their best to deliver products that put a smile on our faces, and to insinuate that they are deviantly manipulating their products to structure the market in a way that hampers their ability is just not where I believe they are, in their heart of hearts. I believe that we are enjoying the best that they have to offer, without a vested interest in hampering their products to structure their product lines. Of course some people will disagree, and that's their right to do so. Of course there is concern as to these product line placements, but they are giving us some really great products that should be celebrated, across the board.

I think that Canon is doing their best to deliver a premium product, and the impression I get from a lot of posters is that the engineers are manipulative more than they are intuitive. I'm not going to go into my perspective at length, but the products we are able to enjoy from Canon and other competitive manufacturers are of the highest quality that they are putting their namesakes on. The impression I get of these combative posts that only serve to muddy the waters is just fodder for the excitable persons who are on these forums to lessen the realization that these products we are purchasing today are marvels of technology. I see no need to keep hammering the suspicion that these manufacturers are crippling some products in order to boost the sales of others. Some people may disagree with that notion, and that's their right to do so.

To act like we (you and I and everyone else), as a consumer of cameras, can critique the manufacturers without any serious regard to what these engineers actually face in real time is what my post was about. It's not fair to take for granted what the deliberative features these products are actually facing when they release a new, or updated model, and then spread a rumor as to how they are dumbing down their products in order to sell more of other product lines. I believe that we are enjoying the best of what they have to offer, yet I get the impression that other posters just want to spread conspiracy theories about why they are manipulating certain models in order to advance or retard other product sales.


----------



## Architect1776 (Apr 13, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I would like to see a fully loaded M5 on the level of the 5D series.
I held off on the MI because it was less than my 7D but if this new M5 MII is a major upgrade I will definitely get one.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Fair enough but Nikon was also wiped out by Canon EF. Pros wanted the better autofocus and would switch systems to get it. My guess is that once there's an RF system to switch to (trinity zooms, a few other key lenses, and a pro body), Pros will want the better lenses that the SLR film-flange makes impossible, and will switch systems to get them.


Nikon took the complete opposite approach to AF and tried, remarkably unsuccessfully and with staggering incompetence, to maintain compatibility with the F mount. A decision that ended up being a nightmare of incompatibility across lenses and bodies, throw in their early digital attitude that there would never be a need for ff sensors and the corresponding pro F mount lenses without the image circle to cover either the film frame or the ff digital sensors that eventually arrived and it is a shock that Nikon didn't disenfranchise every single Nikon shooter over that 2000's period.

Most pros I know spend a fraction on camera gear that even comparatively modest forum posters do and I've never met one who said a lens they owned, however modest it was, wasn't good enough. 

The difference between mirrored and mirrorless is simply that, one has an optical viewfinder and one has an electronic viewfinder. Personally whilst I do see some of the advantages of EVF's I have yet to use one I'd take over an OVF for hours a day day after day.


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Apr 13, 2019)

The 7DII is 5 years old this year. How many years we need to wait for a replacement?


----------



## slclick (Apr 13, 2019)

It's going to take much more than a sensor's performance to get me to switch to something other than Canon. I can't be the only one who also values environmental toughness, battery life+ inter body compatibility, menu system(HUGE factor) ergonomics and most important ,lens selection. I fiddled with Nikon, Oly and Panasonic, only to sell it off with not nearly the resale value of Canon gear. I hold Sonys and just cannot fathom them becoming an extension of my hand like a 5D series body. I'm good.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 13, 2019)

slclick said:


> menu system(HUGE factor)



I so rarely navigate camera menus, this is among the smallest factors to me.


----------



## max_sr (Apr 13, 2019)

slclick said:


> It's going to take much more than a sensor's performance to get me to switch to something other than Canon. I can't be the only one who also values environmental toughness, battery life+ inter body compatibility, menu system(HUGE factor) ergonomics and most important ,lens selection. I fiddled with Nikon, Oly and Panasonic, only to sell it off with not nearly the resale value of Canon gear. I hold Sonys and just cannot fathom them becoming an extension of my hand like a 5D series body. I'm good.



That whole menu system thing is funny, because the Sony system is essentially the same as the Canon one, with the only difference being that there are a lot more things to adjust on the Sony cameras and therefore their menu is larger. And the form of a handgrip is the most subjective thing about a camera. The Canon DSLR grips aren't deep enough for my hands. Does that mean their bodys have bad ergonomics in general? Or maybe just for me?


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 13, 2019)

Just a user comment about DSLR vs. mirrorless - amateur, very critical in IQ, seeing cameras as a tool:

While ordering an M50 I was very sceptical if mirrorless is close to usability with dirty electronic viewfinders compared to these crisp optical VFs.

After 2 hours I was shure that a good EVF outperforms a standard OVF in terms of usability/flexibility.

I like exposure preview which helps especially in night shots.
I like to use the Technicolor Picture Style which is very flat. If you see blown out areas they are
 blown out w/o interpreting histograms etc.!

Flexibly configurable information overlay in the VF.
CHOOSING AF POINTS ACCORDING TO MY NEEDS LEAVING THE CENTER AREA MOST OF THE TIMES.
PRECISE AND ACCURATE AF.
SAME WITH POOR MANS SUPERTELE (5.6 400) WITH 2x TC (f/11 AF, slow but dead on !!!).
100% IMAGE FIELD JUST IN CHEAPEST CAMERAS
QUICK REPLAY OF LAST IMAGE SHOT IN EVF (good for those 50+ y.o. people with reduced close focus range)
The dowsides of EVF, lower brightness in bright sunlight and the larger power draw of mirrorless cameras will be reduced by brighter OLED displays and larger batteries. And if I have to pimp my M50 with a battery grip taking two 3000 mAh round 18650 cells by designing and printing one 

On the neutral side: In my experience a "mediocre" viewfinder image is helpful to create better images - the flat Technocolor Picture Style helps because images seem to be flat, a little bit hazy. You have to get the right composition and light to bring the viewfinder image to life - a very good viewfinder image might make you lazy.

For me - despite I like optical and mechanical systems a lot - the DSLR is dead. My next cameras will be EVF/mirrorless cameras. Except ... Canon will make a combo system using a DSLR - EVF hybrid viewfinder: SLR = optical or mirror up and than OVR. Or they use a semitransparent mirror while using the sensor for AF avoiding alignment problems between PD AF sensor array and imaging sensor by using DPAF sensor


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 13, 2019)

slclick said:


> It's going to take much more than a sensor's performance to get me to switch to something other than Canon. *I can't be the only one who also values environmental toughness, battery life+ inter body compatibility, menu system(HUGE factor) ergonomics and most important ,lens selection. *I fiddled with Nikon, Oly and Panasonic, only to sell it off with not nearly the resale value of Canon gear. I hold Sonys and just cannot fathom them becoming an extension of my hand like a 5D series body. I'm good.



You are not the only one! While using "underdog cameras" just these are reliable, support photographic basic principles and a good lens selection.
Just used the now "old" EF 100 mm USM Macro on my M50 and it performs very very well. Not only optically but ergonomically while the combo is looking strange, maybe ugly.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 13, 2019)

mb66energy said:


> You are not the only one! While using "underdog cameras" just these are reliable, support photographic basic principles and a good lens selection.
> Just used the now "old" EF 100 mm USM Macro on my M50 and it performs very very well. Not only optically but ergonomically while the combo is looking strange, maybe ugly.



I liked the EF-S 60mm better on an M camera. For me it balanced better and the autofocus seemed to work better. The downside is that it's an EF-S lens, so it's pretty useless on my RP.


----------



## mb66energy (Apr 13, 2019)

koenkooi said:


> I liked the EF-S 60mm better on an M camera. For me it balanced better and the autofocus seemed to work better. The downside is that it's an EF-S lens, so it's pretty useless on my RP.



I own the EF-S 60mm too but having the great EF-M 32 with its close focus abilities the EF 100 is a better "real" tele option if you want to use just two lenses. Maybe the AF of the EF-S is a little bit faster because it has to move only ~25% of the mass compared to the EF 100 (0.6^^3).


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Let me take a stab at one sided rhetoric...



how about you try that again without quoting me out of context. and btw, lensrentals found the engineering and weathersealing,etc of the Sony 400mm G just as good as the new Canon 400mm III.

Sony's making great strides, and there's no way canon could (or should) try to complete with Sony Electronics (note, I stated Sony electronics, not sony imaging). whether they can catch up may become a bigger issue in the future.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 13, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> there's no way canon could (or should) try to complete with Sony Electronics


DPAF/QPAF is one of such ways.

Technically, Canon does not need to compete with Sony on its own. It could cooperate with Samsung, for example.


----------



## koketso (Apr 13, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> I'd like to see Canon merge the xxD and 7D series into one model. That camera would definitely compliment my 6D II for those times when I'm photographing wildlife or sports.
> 
> It's also nice to see that they're not pulling the plug on EOS M yet. Hopefully the new 24MP sensor can manage 4k without any crop. A higher quality EVF, and enhanced eye-AF would be welcome too. I'm not expecting Canon to deliver IBIS with the M5 II, but it might serve as a decent product for testing the technology in the real world before equipping it on the future full-frame EOS R cameras.


The reason Canon won't merge them is purely because of price. They would rather keep them separate and have a dedicated middle-of-the-ground camera like the 77D - I agree with that strategy.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2019)

Josh Leavitt said:


> I'd like to see Canon merge the xxD and 7D series into one model. That camera would definitely compliment my 6D II for those times when I'm photographing wildlife or sports.



that doesn't seem to be as easy as you'd think.

https://www.canonnews.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-merging-the-80d-series-and-the-7d-series


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 13, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> that doesn't seem to be as easy as you'd think.
> 
> https://www.canonnews.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-merging-the-80d-series-and-the-7d-series


Yes,

The basic problem of merging is as follows:

Let’s say you have two lines, one with quality/features of level 10, and the other of level 7.

Technology marches on, the next iterations will be better, say at 11 and 8. If you merge them, anything less than a 10 means that half your market stays with what they already have, or upgrades to the old model.

To get sales, you need a merged camera that is better than both the cameras you are merging, and that is not a merge, it is upgrading the 7D2 and dropping the 80D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Yes,
> 
> The basic problem of merging is as follows:
> 
> ...


Features at 11, price at 9. 7DII owners get a slight bump in features and a lower price, 80D owners get a big bump in features and a price increase. That parallels the 1DsIII and 1DIV merging into the 1D X.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2019)

Kit. said:


> DPAF/QPAF is one of such ways.
> 
> Technically, Canon does not need to compete with Sony on its own. It could cooperate with Samsung, for example.



Entirely possible. and probably something Canon should do.
Looking at where Canon is as far as global shutters and where Sony Electronics is, Sony is around two full generations ahead of even Canon's patent applications.

Going it alone may just not be a grand idea.


neuroanatomist said:


> Features at 11, price at 9. 7DII owners get a slight bump in features and a lower price, 80D owners get a big bump in features and a price increase. That parallels the 1DsIII and 1DIV merging into the 1D X.


problem is if you do that, the 80D loses the size and weight advantage over the 7D. then you have the fact that bringing a fully articulating screen to the 7D drastically changes its ergonomics.

there's no right or easy answer. and btw, there's certainly no guarantee the price will be lower either. it's basically a 7D Mark III and you're dropping the 80D.
the problem is the articulating screen, and merging the ergonomics.

I personally don't think Canon will do this. I liked the idea that the 90D and 7D Mark III are basically the same under the hood, but with different styles and ergonomics. Shared R&D between the two, but for two different customers.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 13, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> Sony's making great strides, and there's no way canon could (or should) try to complete with Sony Electronics (note, I stated Sony electronics, not sony imaging).



When you say Sony electronics, do you mean Sony Semiconductor Solutions?


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 13, 2019)

Tom W said:


> I didn't mean "cater to" - I meant compete for. You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent. There have been a lot of people that have switched brands these last few years. Ideally, for Canon, you'd want them to switch to your brand and not away from it.
> 
> When people see all those big white lenses at the Olympics, they don't think "I need to run out and buy a Sony".



You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units (relative to your competitors, than you did previously).




SwissFrank said:


> I'm vocally predicting death of SLRs soon (or at least FF), but to be clear I don't have an emotional investment in that. I'm not on "Team Mirrorless." I just haven't heard any possible advantage to SLRs except battery life and especially when you have long viewing times per exposure (wildlife).
> 
> So curious, do you have any particular reasons to think "high-end DSLR will hang around for *some* photography pros for quite some time?"
> 
> Also, I think the 5-10 years you mention may be much closer to 5, albeit counting from when there is a pro MILFF, trinity zooms + superwide + portrait available. I think take-up of the RF system hasn't even begun yet. I don't think the FD user base lasted 3 years once EF trinity zooms were out (and 50/1.4, 35/2). In fact not even Nikon lasted 3 years after EF system's initial trinity zooms were out.



Nikon's woes in the early 1990s were almost exclusively about AF performance. The invention of the USM is what killed Nikon in the pro 135 format market.
Canon made a clean break from their existing system, announced very clearly that they were doing so, and clearly explained why (to move to an all electronic connection between camera and lens). That decision is what enabled their AF performance to take off like a rocket when the UltraSonic Motor was created.

Nikon's miscalculation was their notion that pro shooters, who almost exclusively shot with Nikon cameras, would ever even be interested in AF. (Along with the assumption that compatibility with existing and legacy lenses would trump performance advantages.)

They then further shot themselves in the foot by deciding to put AF in the body, where different sized lenses with focusing elements of a very wide range of masses were being driven by the same motor. The heavier focusing elements in the larger lenses (e.g. large telephoto lenses used for sports and reportage) were hopelessly slow compared to Canon's brand spanking new USM lenses.



rrcphoto said:


> not with respects to sensors. Sony has more patents than Canon when it comes to sensors, which is what we're talking about here.
> 
> also Canon doesn't spend more on R&D than Sony, Sony for last fiscal is 470,000 million yen, Canon is 315,842 million yen.



A lot of that 470B yen Sony spends on R&D has absolutely nothing to do with cameras or imaging sensors. A lot of the 315.8B yen Canon spends on R&D is also on things other than cameras and sensors for conventional cameras.

Please make up your mind. Are we talking about sensors _only _or not?



SwissFrank said:


> The mockup for the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS looks like a munchkin compared to the EF-mount lenses. Sports people and fixed-location reporters probably don't mind the size, but people moving around have a hard time coping with an EF 70-200/2.8IS. I could see say wedding photogs switching to RF just to get a much smaller version of that lens. (Or to get the IS on the 24-70/2.8, or to get the 28-70/2.0, or ...)



You do realize that the new RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an extending zoom design and is just as long as the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III when zoomed to 200mm? It's right there in the patent filing.




flip314 said:


> MF to AF was also a revolutionary change. While I'm convinced RF/mirrorless will win and EF/DSLR will go away, I don't think it will be anywhere near as fast as the FD to EF transition was. I think people who are suggesting that FD to EF is a good metaphor for EF to RF are going to be surprised when EF hangs around for much longer than they expect.



It was at Canon. It was not at Nikon. That's what cost Nikon the biggest part of the pro market for at least the next two decades.




dtaylor said:


> Interesting since it was his individual reviews that resulted in me getting the Canon over the Tamron. I have two Tamron lenses and really like them. But I couldn't ignore the sharpness and micro contrast in the Canon 24-70 vs. the Tamron 24-70 while looking over his samples.
> 
> To be sure the Tamron is a good lens and it's a close call, but I had to go Canon on that one.



Yet a lot of folks go for the Tamron with VC precisely because it works better for them if they shoot handheld almost all of the time. Your assumption that _because you chose absolute lens performance when the camera is mounted on a tripod → everyone else will as well_ is about like Nikon's assumption that no pros were interested in AF back in 1985-90.




blackcoffee17 said:


> The 7DII is 5 years old this year. How many years we need to wait for a replacement?



Until Canon decides one is ready and meets a need in the marketplace.

If Canon releases an incremental update, folks complain trash Canon because it's not _really_ an upgrade.
If Canon waits until they have a significant improvement in a model line, folks complain trash Canon that is took _way_ too long.

Some folks just like to complain because they can't have the latest, greatest, top of the line feature _at every single point on the list_ in the cheapest entry level model just announced.




SwissFrank said:


> Sure, I'd say the same in their shoes. If they think like I do, they're 90% sure that "some time to come" might turn out to be more like three years, but further recognize they may be misreading the market and don't want to say anything that precludes selling SLRs for another 15.
> 
> RF lens designs (except telephotos) and full-sensor AF features (face recognition, etc.) simply cannot be rolled out for the SLRs. A few years of that is going to be a reason to move as well.



Well, except for cameras like the 1D X Mark II that have 750,000 pixel RGB+IR light meters that are coupled to the AF system and assist in tracking moving subjects and do, in fact, recognize things such as facial features.

Does Canon need to more effectively exploit the capabilities of high resolution, full color light meters? Certainly.
Do they need to market those capabilities better? Surely they do.
But that does not mean that such capabilities _simply can not be rolled out for the SLRs _when some SLRs already have such capabilities.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Right. If you're a White House reporter or do sports or what have you--you don't move around much--then the size doesn't matter. If you're a travel photographer or wedding photographer, especially a petite one, then having a smaller, somewhat lighter bag is going to be a win though. Even if it's as long at 200mm, it's not going to be at 200mm in your bag or backpack.



Just because it is shorter at 70mm (and is the same length at 200mm), it's highly unlikely to be any lighter. Extending designs have an extra barrel that fixed length lenses do not require.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> A lot of that 470B yen Sony spends on R&D has absolutely nothing to do with cameras or imaging sensors. A lot of the 315.8B yen Canon spends on R&D is also on things other than cameras and sensors for conventional cameras.
> 
> Please make up your mind. Are we talking about sensors _only _or not?



actually, I wasn't talking to you at all. So "we" weren't talking anything.

not to mention you clipped out what I was replying to, which certainly didn't state R&D on sensors, which of course, no one knows. but If I had to hazard a guess, since they have more patents, they most likely spend more on sensor R&D than Canon does. It only makes sense. what drives Sony is smartphone sensors, and the tech in those has to be top-notch, including design rules that would never be necessary for larger sensors.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Right. If you're a White House reporter or do sports or what have you--you don't move around much--then the size doesn't matter. If you're a travel photographer or wedding photographer, especially a petite one, then having a smaller, somewhat lighter bag is going to be a win though. Even if it's as long at 200mm, it's not going to be at 200mm in your bag or backpack.



the RF one will be a win for traveling.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 13, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> the RF one will be a win for traveling.


An extending f/4 version would be better. Along with an RF 1.4x TC.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> An extending f/4 version would be better. Along with an RF 1.4x TC.


The ‘Really Right’TM version would be a very high resolution sensor using a lens with a wide focal length (prime) paired with a fixed narrow aperture.

No need to focus; most everything is within DOF.
No need to zoom, just crop digitally.

Solid statist’s fantasy.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 13, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> how about you try that again without quoting me out of context.



How about you learn how to take a joke? 



> and btw, lensrentals found the engineering and weathersealing,etc of the Sony 400mm G just as good as the new Canon 400mm III.



What good does that do if the body leaks like a submarine with a screen door?


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Yet a lot of folks go for the Tamron with VC precisely because it works better for them if they shoot handheld almost all of the time. Your assumption that _because you chose absolute lens performance when the camera is mounted on a tripod → everyone else will as well_ is about like Nikon's assumption that no pros were interested in AF back in 1985-90.



Where did I make that assumption? I clearly was talking about _my decision _and acknowledged that it was a close call, i.e. other people's decisions would be different. 

Choosing between them rests on whether or not you can keep shutter speeds sufficiently high in your common use scenarios. For _my common use scenarios_ with this zoom range that's not a problem.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 13, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units.



No, it is a contracting market. You can gain market share while your sales continue to go down.


----------



## Kit. (Apr 13, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> Entirely possible. and probably something Canon should do.
> Looking at where Canon is as far as global shutters and where Sony Electronics is, Sony is around two full generations ahead of even Canon's patent applications.


I won't be a fan of global shutters until a rolling shutter sensor can reach native ISO 25 or lower with the same color filters and without loss of quantum efficiency. For reasonable money.


----------



## malarcky (Apr 13, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Yeah I saw that a lot in like the 2000s, when every time Canon released a non-IS lens, every single review would be forehead-slapping, OMG why didn't Canon think to make this IS? As if Canon would forget that IS was even possible, and it's something you could bolt on to anything as simply as putting feet on the focusing scale.
> 
> (The answer clearly is that on many lenses it'd be impossible, or make the lens twice the weight and/or size and impossible to sell.)
> 
> ...



The main reason that I promote as far as backup protection is concerned is the ability to use a wireless format to copy the captures in real time to a backup device. I can't see it being too difficult to have a simple Bluetooth or Wi-Fi connection to a compatible wireless thumbdrive or wireless dongle that can easily be written to just by being in the vicinity of the camera body. That would solve the problem of having to add the bulk and extra room necessary to make the camera capable of a trusted backup, without having the extra card slot. A confirmation window in the display would allow the user to see if the backup connection is working or not, and you could easily take extra precautionary steps to make sure that the copying is successful in real time. I don't want to contradict myself, and be hypocritical as to the next part of my reply by simply assuming this wireless feature would be easily accomplished by the engineers, as I know for a fact that it can, and has been done already. They just need to perfect the technology and make it a universal feature with the ISO community. 

As far as the first part of your reply, I am with you on that example. There is a group of folks who act as though the engineers can just snap their fingers to get certain features added to a camera body without knowing anything at all about the background of the process involved in that addition. It just seems that everyone has a penchant for "Off the cuff" engineering solutions with absolutely no knowledge of what's involved in adding these most wanted features. I see it all the time with trusted reviewers even. Some are more consistent than others, but when a reviewer starts to demote a new camera body's overall score because they figure that the manufacturer left out "Something so simple". 

A lot of fuss has been made about 4K technology (mostly the lack thereof) in the modern DSLR discussions, and I see that being a problem that Canon made for themselves with the advent of the video capabilities in the 5D MkII. It was a great feature, there's no doubt about it, but the sudden craze to expect top notch video codecs to be implemented into *ALL* of the new models sullied the pool of comments for every single camera that didn't offer some kind of cutting edge video capabilities with every single model. Some people are to the point where they will literally destroy the review of a new DSLR, just because it doesn't have bleeding edge 4K video capabilities. I am of the school that believes in buying a DSLR to take still captures, and I am not invested in the video capabilities. I would like to see a "Stills only" model where I don't have to pay for technology that I am not interested in at all, as that is what a DSLR is supposed to be for.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 13, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> An extending f/4 version would be better. Along with an RF 1.4x TC.



I'm sure the f/4 lenses will be coming. Heck I'm wondering when the 24-240 will come and how good it will be in daylight...


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 14, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I'm sure the f/4 lenses will be coming. Heck I'm wondering when the 24-240 will come and how good it will be in daylight...


Im sure that when the R is mature we will have the ultra fast lenses, the midrange lenses, and the kit lenses that are F6.3...

But yes, I really want to see the 24-240 when it comes out. With an RP, that could make a kick-ass walkabout camera!


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 14, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Right. If you're a White House reporter or do sports or what have you--you don't move around much--then the size doesn't matter. If you're a travel photographer or wedding photographer, especially a petite one, then having a smaller, somewhat lighter bag is going to be a win though. Even if it's as long at 200mm, it's not going to be at 200mm in your bag or backpack.


I'd find smaller to pack very attractive. I wouldn't mind if it zooms out to the same size. A clever design by Canon. It looks chunky so probably hasn't lost weight but the size is nice.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 14, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Im sure that when the R is mature we will have the ultra fast lenses, the midrange lenses, and the kit lenses that are F6.3...
> 
> But yes, I really want to see the 24-240 when it comes out. With an RP, that could make a kick-ass walkabout camera!


As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.


----------



## Hector1970 (Apr 14, 2019)

stevelee said:


> No, it is a contracting market. You can gain market share while your sales continue to go down.


Completely agree and that's the current situation. Slowing the rate of loss of sales is improving your market share currently.
When companies can't get volumes they try to widen margins.
I suspect Canon is good with margins.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 14, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.


I did a lot of hikes with a 60D and an 18-200. It was a good all-in-one combo. The 18-200 is fairly dated, just about every superzoom DSLR lens out there now beats it, so I am confident that the 24-240 would be significantly better. I think that the combo of that lens on a RP is going to be a best selling combo for Canon.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 14, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> As time goes by so would I. I'd even settle for 24-200. You could do alot of good travel photography with just the one lens and camera.



Not that long ago I was crossing my fingers for an updated 28-300L in the 100-400Lii body. A 24-200 IS USM would have been great too. On the R it's probably better, but I'm still torn on the body.

But I could pair it with the RF35 for night. Hmm.


----------



## Pape (Apr 14, 2019)

3kramd5 said:


> The ‘Really Right’TM version would be a very high resolution sensor using a lens with a wide focal length (prime) paired with a fixed narrow aperture.
> 
> No need to focus; most everything is within DOF.
> No need to zoom, just crop digitally.
> ...


Phone cameras are going to that direction  To work it needs incredible fast focus stacking too ,F needs to be 1 cause diffraction.
To achieve that need burst speed like 4000 fps and focus what can move as fast.
If thinking you got 1,6 gigapixel full frame sensor and 25 mm lens ,you can crop from that 25mpixel picture what got 200mm lens field. 1,6gigapixel got diffraction limited on f1,2
I wonder if house sized computer could make 4000fps with 1,6gigapixel
10 year and phone camera can do that?


----------



## Kit. (Apr 14, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I don't follow, can you go into more detail?


In order to support the same full well depths, a global shutter sensor needs to have twice as large capacitance per unit area as a rolling shutter one does.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 14, 2019)

Street Price Clearance: M5 + 15-45 + Adapter $549, 18-150 $749 | Canon Camera and Lens Deals - Canon Price Watch







www.cpricewatch.com





This might be additional supporting evidence for a new M5: clearance deals on the current version.


----------



## masterpix (Apr 14, 2019)

For what it worth, I don't see that the XXD's and the 7D's can be merged into one body in a way not sacrifice too many options of each of the bodies, the articulate screen of the 80D and the control buttons of the 7D. The light weight of the 80D to the strength and durability of the 7D and so on. Canon will do good if they keep both lines separate until they will, eventually, will be replaced by a mirror-less models (due to the fact that mirror-less, by definition, are simpler bodies - no penta-prism or flipping mirrors). 

I am still wondering when Canon will announce the new 7Dmk3.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 14, 2019)

masterpix said:


> they will, eventually, will be replaced by a mirror-less models (due to the fact that mirror-less, by definition, are simpler bodies - no penta-prism or flipping mirrors)



They’re mechanically simpler, and electrically more complex.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 14, 2019)

Kit. said:


> In order to support the same full well depths, a global shutter sensor needs to have twice as large capacitance per unit area as a rolling shutter one does.


basically yes, the global shutter sensor needs to store the value of each pixel into memory. to be somewhat efficient, you need to go stacked. BSI such as Sony's latest global shutter sensor also helps. for a normal FSI non stacked global shutter, none of them will have the same full well capacity as a non global shutter sensor. you lose your FWC by at least half.

Sony came out with a novel way of doing it, but unlikely it will ever reach production. each pixel had an ADC attached to it via a stacked sensor, and the digital values stored in memory for each pixel. allowing for full well capacity being the same as a non global shutter.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 14, 2019)

For me, the RP with an EF-S lens on an adapter, would make a great crop camera. No interest in either an M or a 7D3. YMMV.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 14, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> For me, the RP with an EF-S lens on an adapter, would make a great crop camera. No interest in either an M or a 7D3. YMMV.



Just out of curiosity, if you want to use EF-S lenses on an adapter, why do you want a FF camera like th RP? It seems like for that task, the M50 would do just as well.

I keep trying to tell myself that I can be as happy with an M50 as an R, but it's that FF sensor that's the big draw. With EF-S lenses, why pay for it and carry it around?


----------



## degos (Apr 15, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> I'd find smaller to pack very attractive. I wouldn't mind if it zooms out to the same size. A clever design by Canon. It looks chunky so probably hasn't lost weight but the size is nice.



Clever? It's, uh, a fixed-aperture extending zoom... like the 24-70. It's not particularly novel.

There's nothing inherent about the RF mount that made it possible only now.


----------



## Wandor (Apr 15, 2019)

90d I'm waiting for you....


----------



## Kit. (Apr 15, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> OK, I'm an engineer and have looked at some sensor designs but I still don't follow your original point...


The physical limit of the DR of the photosensor is the amount of photoelectrons the sensor can store per unit area (which amounts to the exposure the sensor can receive without saturating). In a rolling shutter sensor, you only need one capacitor per pixel. In a global shutter sensor, you need two capacitors of the same capacitance per pixel.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 15, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Just out of curiosity, if you want to use EF-S lenses on an adapter, why do you want a FF camera like th RP? It seems like for that task, the M50 would do just as well.
> 
> I keep trying to tell myself that I can be as happy with an M50 as an R, but it's that FF sensor that's the big draw. With EF-S lenses, why pay for it and carry it around?


The M60 is even less a pro camera than the M5. For instance, their is no C1, C2 or C3. The M50 has far fewer AF points. Very poor selection of M lenses. Does the M50 do Focus Bracketing/ Stacking—this is very important to me. FF is no big deal, about the only time I'd use a 1Ds2 or 5D3 was with the 90mm f/2.8 TS-E lens.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 15, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> all the RF lenses (even the 35/1.8, which is huge given how modest its spec is)



It's shorter, narrower, and a third lighter than the Tamron 35/18VC. It's shorter and lighter than the Z 35/1.8 (which lacks any stabilization). It is bigger than the Sony 35/1.8, which also lacks stabilization... and appears to be for crop. It's slightly shorter and lighter (oh and faster...) than the EF 35/2IS. I struggle to understand how it's "huge", unless all other moderns 35s are also "huge".


----------



## Ricardo_fon (Apr 15, 2019)

Personally, I'm looking forward to the new M camera. If this system isn't killed off, I'll stick to it for as long as possible. If they do kill it one day, I'll be very annoyed – I've tried the DSLR thing, and don't like it. Tried Fuji, loved the cameras and lenses, but didn't like working with the files. Tried the Eos M5, no complaints (nothing huge anyway). 

I don't want or need a full frame system (maybe if I made money from photography, but unfortunately I'm not talented enough to make this a career)

If this system dies, I'll end up giving up on it all and shooting film again. That was fun and I never worry about the next upgrade.


----------



## Ladislav (Apr 15, 2019)

Mid-level does not sound like anything to replace 7DII. They can merge different product lines but what defines 7DII is its capability to capture action in various weather conditions. That means AF, fps and build (weather sealing and joystick). If they compromise on anything from these, they are not providing any reason to "upgrade" for many current 7DII users. On the other hand, if they don't compromise on them, they are building 7DIII in everything but name.

Imo they should just put the latest APS-C sensor to 7DII, use two latest DIGICs, add touch screen, 4k and release it as a new camera. They can call it whatever they want. 

I would be interested in something like 24MP at ~12fps and ~1 stop better high iso than 7DII.


----------



## jeanluc (Apr 15, 2019)

c.d.embrey said:


> The M60 is even less a pro camera than the M5. For instance, their is no C1, C2 or C3. The M50 has far fewer AF points. Very poor selection of M lenses. Does the M50 do Focus Bracketing/ Stacking—this is very important to me. FF is no big deal, about the only time I'd use a 1Ds2 or 5D3 was with the 90mm f/2.8 TS-E lens.



I don’t have an M50, but I have an R and an M5. The performance in terms DR etc on the M5 is very good. Sensor size makes the FF better, but practically for almost all shooting it makes little difference except for low light. In a lot of ways, I like the physical layout of the M5 more....mode dial etc. The M lens I use most is the UWA.....10 or 11-22...very sharp.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 15, 2019)

Cryve said:


> I am so excited about the new sensor. Mainly about the megapixel and low light performance.
> I also hope its bsi!
> 
> i wonder if its really gonna be 24mp, as claimed. 24mp is a good sweetspot for apsc, but im skeptical if it is really going to be 24mp, because a higher mp count usualy is good for marketing.
> ...



just out of curiosity why do you hope it's BSI? BSI by itself does very little for the sensor performance, especially with the relatively large pixels of a 24-26MP APS-C sensor.

I see so many people asking and dreaming about it and it makes me curious to why


----------



## EduPortas (Apr 15, 2019)

7D Mark III will be here around September-October. Testers gonna test.

How do I know this?

It will be the exact same timespan between the original 7D and the 7D M2 (five years, almost to the day).

You know, the _Kaizen_ way of thinking for most big Japanese companies and all that.
Don't release something until you're absolutely certain it will
work well and build upon your design-functionality legacy.

Perfect timing for Canon's investors who will be revved up for
a spike in sales just before Tokyo's 2020 Olympics. I expect a slight bump in premium
lens' sales thanks to the new 7D model.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 15, 2019)

Ladislav said:


> Mid-level does not sound like anything to replace 7DII. They can merge different product lines but what defines 7DII is its capability to capture action in various weather conditions. That means AF, fps and build (weather sealing and joystick). If they compromise on anything from these, they are not providing any reason to "upgrade" for many current 7DII users. On the other hand, if they don't compromise on them, they are building 7DIII in everything but name.
> 
> Imo they should just put the latest APS-C sensor to 7DII, use two latest DIGICs, add touch screen, 4k and release it as a new camera. They can call it whatever they want.
> 
> I would be interested in something like 24MP at ~12fps and ~1 stop better high iso than 7DII.


I agree!

I got a 7D2 because I shoot a lot in the winter and outside. I needed a camera that could spend several days out in the freezing cold, could withstand rain, and live through salt spray from the ocean. For me, the ruggedness was the number one factor in my decision criteria


----------



## Cryve (Apr 15, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> just out of curiosity why do you hope it's BSI? BSI by itself does very little for the sensor performance, especially with the relatively large pixels of a 24-26MP APS-C sensor.
> 
> I see so many people asking and dreaming about it and it makes me curious to why


I didnt know that it has only little effect on aps-c sensors.
I imagined it would make more light reach the sensor and the improvment equating about 1/6 of a stop.


Now you seem more knowledgeable ablout it than i am. what improvements could be expected from bsi?


----------



## LSXPhotog (Apr 15, 2019)

I would love to see the M5 Mark II very soon. Every day I battle with the idea of just getting a refurbished M5 from Canon - I've really grown to adore the M50 for recreational photography and would appreciate the superior manual controls the M5 offers. But it's a little long in the tooth, so buying one new is not a good idea in 2019.

It would also suck to buy an M5 and then the Mark II comes out a few weeks later. Haha

I wish Canon would confirm the status of the 7D line. I made my start in the motorsports world with a 7D and the 7D Mark II with the 1DX Mark II have been a great team. But adding a newer sensor and better autofocus would be a dream come true for me. I personally have no need for two 1DX bodies, so being able to use the $6,000 to spread around with various other bodies has been a much greater asset. I just want a NEW sensor in this thing...it can struggle sometimes and the Autofocus will randomly just stop being accurate for a few shots. Haha


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 15, 2019)

Cryve said:


> I didnt know that it has only little effect on aps-c sensors.
> I imagined it would make more light reach the sensor and the improvment equating about 1/6 of a stop.
> 
> 
> Now you seem more knowledgeable ablout it than i am. what improvements could be expected from bsi?


So, know about a sensor feature (BSI). Know nothing about the feature, but still hope for the feature. Par for the course around here. 1/6 stop (your calculation)? Nothing to write home about. I don't know anything about it either, but 1/6 of a stop wouldn't throw BSI onto my wish list if that's all there is to it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-illuminated_sensor


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 15, 2019)

Cryve said:


> I didnt know that it has only little effect on aps-c sensors.
> I imagined it would make more light reach the sensor and the improvment equating about 1/6 of a stop.
> 
> 
> Now you seem more knowledgeable ablout it than i am. what improvements could be expected from bsi?



1/6 to 1/4 EV is pretty negligible when you think about it.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 15, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> It's bigger than my Leica 35/1.4 ASPH, and would be much bigger than the earlier 35/1.4 non-ASPH, the 35/2, etc.
> 
> You may argue, "but it has IS, which justifies its relatively huge size!" My answer would be, "I didn't say its size was unjustified, I said it was huge."



I'd call that unjustified hyperbole, but I can see it's larger than you'd like because it's much more capable. It's not even 19mm longer than your Summilux, which is the dimension that most matters for handling. I struggle to see 19mm as the difference between "huge" and "not-huge". "Medium" and "large" maybe. I also find it doubtful that Canon is focused on winning over Leica users.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 15, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> I'd call that unjustified hyperbole, but I can see it's larger than you'd like because it's much more capable. It's not even 19mm longer than your Summilux, which is the dimension that most matters for handling. I struggle to see 19mm as the difference between "huge" and "not-huge". "Medium" and "large" maybe. I also find it doubtful that Canon is focused on winning over Leica users.


If I had a RP I'd use small and light Canon and Leica LTM lenses, with an adapter.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 15, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, I read what he wrote thanks.
> 
> Will most people be using MILCs in 5-10 years? We’ll see, it’s certainly a reasonable hypothesis. But, “The DSLR wil be dead in 5 years,” was the prediction by pundits...about 7 years ago. We’re still waiting, and the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs.



You're wrong on this point, actually. The majority of users are buying smartphones and are not purchasing any dedicated cameras at all. 

Coincidentally (not that I am suggesting this is their main selling point but just as a point of interest), what do most smartphones have? 4K video.

I'm really saying that last part just to bug you


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 15, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I'm vocally predicting death of SLRs soon (or at least FF), but to be clear I don't have an emotional investment in that. I'm not on "Team Mirrorless." I just haven't heard any possible advantage to SLRs except battery life and especially when you have long viewing times per exposure (wildlife).
> 
> So curious, do you have any particular reasons to think "high-end DSLR will hang around for *some* photography pros for quite some time?"
> 
> Also, I think the 5-10 years you mention may be much closer to 5, albeit counting from when there is a pro MILFF, trinity zooms + superwide + portrait available. I think take-up of the RF system hasn't even begun yet. I don't think the FD user base lasted 3 years once EF trinity zooms were out (and 50/1.4, 35/2). In fact not even Nikon lasted 3 years after EF system's initial trinity zooms were out.



Yes, because--

A) Judging by the resistance to change displayed by some on this forum, some of whom I assume must be photography pros, there will be some people who will remain skeptical of smaller, lighter, newer gear. In other words, change is hard and a lot of people are fearful of it. 

B) DSLRs just feel like more solid gear, even though this is actually not the case (more moving parts, etc.). But they are generally rugged and heavy and do have a reassuring feel for those that use them. Better ergonomics for those with large hands, etc. (no Trump jokes, please).

C) Perhaps there will be a resurgence (much as there is for 35mm film SLRs these days) and people will start buying used DSLRs on eBay as a novelty. These won't be pros, but could be one reason they hang around.

D) Also, clients tend to sometimes perceive bigger cameras as more professional, even they are incorrect in this day and age to do so.

Anyway, these are a few reasons, maybe none of them good, but I agree with you; once pro MILFF with the corresponding zooms are out and as the ecosystems grow for both Nikon and Canon, things will speed up rapidly.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> You're wrong on this point, actually. The majority of users are buying smartphones and are not purchasing any dedicated cameras at all.
> 
> Coincidentally (not that I am suggesting this is their main selling point but just as a point of interest), what do most smartphones have? 4K video.
> 
> I'm really saying that last part just to bug you


Yeah, but everybody gets a phone. Everybody needs a phone. Majority of users are buying Smartphones? Not primarily for the cameras they aren't. 4k on a phone? Hmmmm.... and people complain about the crop on FF.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> D) Also, clients tend to sometimes perceive bigger cameras as more professional, even they are incorrect in this day and age to do so.



I get that one a lot at work. If I bring the Canon it is perceived as a “real” camera, but the Oly is seen as a toy.....

We got the Oly primarily because it is tiny. Even for someone my size (187cm and big boned), at times you want a small unit. Often, it is the right tool for the job. As a pro, one should be using the right tool and not what some marketing campaign is telling the masses.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> Yes, because--
> 
> A) Judging by the resistance to change displayed by some on this forum, some of whom I assume must be photography pros, there will be some people who will remain skeptical of smaller, lighter, newer gear. In other words, change is hard and a lot of people are fearful of it.



Resistance to change should not be confused with preference, or not drinking the Kool Aid. I don't think anyone is fearful. The "change" you talk about is not a big change at all. Mirrorless has been around for a long, long time. I doubt anyone is fearful. Smaller, lighter gear? You are referring to the camera bodies, obviously. Even then, you are not referring to a Canon high end MILC body. None have yet hit the market. Lens wise, smaller and lighter is not currently the case by any stretch of the imagination.



transpo1 said:


> B) DSLRs just feel like more solid gear, even though this is actually not the case (more moving parts, etc.). But they are generally rugged and heavy and do have a reassuring feel for those that use them. Better ergonomics for those with large hands, etc. (no Trump jokes, please).



Are you sure about less moving parts? IBIS requires moving parts. How many compared to a mirror box? I have to wonder how rugged those little parts (IBIS parts) are in the camera if dropped. Also, more moving parts does not necessarily = less rugged. Example: Sony's weather sealing problems. There are thousands of products on the market right now that have thousands more moving parts than their predecessors, and are far more rugged and reliable than earlier products. Example: Cars, airplanes, etc.



transpo1 said:


> C) Perhaps there will be a resurgence (much as there is for 35mm film SLRs these days) and people will start buying used DSLRs on eBay as a novelty. These won't be pros, but could be one reason they hang around.



Won't be pros? Now how do you know that? Anecdotally, I personally know one pro who seeks out old manual lenses and uses them in his fashion work. The worse the lens the better, for him. He's currently seeking a Praktica film camera to add to his tool box. He shoots digital and film. Film cameras are not a novelty to him.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 16, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yeah, but everybody gets a phone. Everybody needs a phone. Majority of users are buying Smartphones? Not primarily for the cameras they aren't. 4k on a phone? Hmmmm.... and people complain about the crop on FF.


I get the impression that one reason that some folks upgrade their phones is to get better cameras. I wouldn't tend to think that way myself. Rather than spending another $700 to $1,000 for a better phone, I'd just buy the next G7X III or the like and have a vastly superior camera.

On the rare occasion that I shoot video with the phone, I will always use 4K. I use the extra resolution to compensate for the lack of optical zoom. I can crop the video and produce decent 720p or 1080p. If I had 4K on the G7X III, I'd probably use it some of the time, though with the real zoom lens, that would mostly not be necessary. When I start shooting feature films for Netflix, I'll invest in a newer phone.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I get the impression that one reason that some folks upgrade their phones is to get better cameras. I wouldn't tend to think that way myself. Rather than spending another $700 to $1,000 for a better phone, I'd just buy the next G7X III or the like and have a vastly superior camera.
> 
> On the rare occasion that I shoot video with the phone, I will always use 4K. I use the extra resolution to compensate for the lack of optical zoom. I can crop the video and produce decent 720p or 1080p. If I had 4K on the G7X III, I'd probably use it some of the time, though with the real zoom lens, that would mostly not be necessary. When I start shooting feature films for Netflix, I'll invest in a newer phone.


hehehe My phone is 10 years old. I need a new one. As soon as my carrier offers a free phone I like, that's what I'll get.  I'm with you... I'd rather spend that cash on another lens or body. I leave my phone at home as often as possible. Drives my 34 year old daughter crazy. She has the latest phone. She takes photos of the grandson. I can easily say my photos with either the 5D Mark III or the Olympus are better. Much better. (Thanks to Canon and Olympus, not me.) I just cannot wrap my brain around spending hundreds of dollars for a phone (Or getting locked into a contract to pay for it.). Social media access can wait until I get home to the computer. I can look at phone photos of friend's lunches, dogs, cats and bunions anytime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

transpo1 said:


> You're wrong on this point, actually. The majority of users are buying smartphones and are not purchasing any dedicated cameras at all.
> 
> Coincidentally (not that I am suggesting this is their main selling point but just as a point of interest), what do most smartphones have? 4K video.
> 
> I'm really saying that last part just to bug you


Apologies (in simpler terms, that means 'I'm sorry'). I wasn't cognizant of the fact (in simpler terms, that means 'I didn't know') that I needed to explicitly define (in simpler terms, that means 'spell out') all of the underlying frameworks that are obvious to those with a modicum of intelligence (in simpler terms, that means 'stuff most people with some smarts get'). To be unambiguoisly descriptive (in simpler terms, that means 'clear'), "...the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs," referred to ILC buyers. 

Using dimunitive terminology occasionally facilitates comprehension (in simpler terms, that means 'small words might help you understand').


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 16, 2019)

rrcphoto said:


> actually, I wasn't talking to you at all. So "we" weren't talking anything.
> 
> not to mention you clipped out what I was replying to, which certainly didn't state R&D on sensors, which of course, no one knows. but If I had to hazard a guess, since they have more patents, they most likely spend more on sensor R&D than Canon does. It only makes sense. what drives Sony is smartphone sensors, and the tech in those has to be top-notch, including design rules that would never be necessary for larger sensors.



If you're posting to a forum, you're talking to everyone here.

You may not have stated it was R&D on sensors, but you certainly seemed to be implying it was mostly on their camera/imaging related businesses. Sony does R&D on a lot of other things that has nothing to do with any kind of imaging - ILC-based, phone-based, or otherwise.


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 16, 2019)

stevelee said:


> No, it is a contracting market. You can gain market share while your sales continue to go down.



You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units (as a percentage of total sales in the market).


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 16, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> I did a lot of hikes with a 60D and an 18-200. It was a good all-in-one combo. The 18-200 is fairly dated, just about every superzoom DSLR lens out there now beats it, so I am confident that the 24-240 would be significantly better. I think that the combo of that lens on a RP is going to be a best selling combo for Canon.



Most superzoom lenses out there are for APS-C or smaller sensors. It gets more complex and size/weight/cost increase rapidly when one needs to project a larger image circle with such a lens and maintain the same image quality at 22mm (half of the FF image circle size) from the optical center of the lens than 14.5mm (half an APS-C image circle diameter) from the center of the lens.

Compare the EF 28-300L, or even the Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC, to the EF-S 18-200 .




masterpix said:


> For what it worth, I don't see that the XXD's and the 7D's can be merged into one body in a way not sacrifice too many options of each of the bodies, the articulate screen of the 80D and the control buttons of the 7D. The light weight of the 80D to the strength and durability of the 7D and so on. Canon will do good if they keep both lines separate until they will, eventually, will be replaced by a mirror-less models (due to the fact that mirror-less, by definition, are simpler bodies - no penta-prism or flipping mirrors).
> 
> I am still wondering when Canon will announce the new 7Dmk3.



It's looking more and more like late 2020, if ever.




EduPortas said:


> 7D Mark III will be here around September-October. Testers gonna test.
> 
> How do I know this?
> 
> ...



If the 7D Mark III were coming out in late 2019, it would already be in the hands of pre-production testers.


----------



## hamish (Apr 16, 2019)

Hi everyone. First time poster here! About 18 months ago, I bought a 200D/SL2 and a used 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM lens for a 3 month trip to Africa and Europe. I wanted a camera that was light, easy to use, and had good battery life. I looked at mirrorless for the size, but the battery performance wasn't up to par. The 200D fulfilled the brief admirably. I've processed out the safari photos and some others, and if I do say so myself, they're pretty good! If anyone is interested in having a look-see at African animals I can post the link. I am still slowly processing out other trip photos.

Now that I've been bitten by the photography bug, I'm quite interested in an upgrade to something a bit more capable, especially if it has a more flexible AF system, so this article about a new mid-level DSLR is of interest. I was looking at a used 80D, but if the 90D is around the corner, maybe I could save up a bit and stretch myself to that. After the trip, I added a couple of other used lenses, including the 55-250mm and the 24mm pancake. I'm now invested in EF-S lenses and won't be looking to change to other systems anytime soon.

Much as I can appreciate the beauty and capability of things like the 5D IV and so on, I'm one of those folk who will never be a pro and honestly, I'll never need or be able to afford pro level equipment. Mid-level is where I'll stay as I enjoy photography and have printed a couple of photos from the trip and put them up, and puddle around a bit in Gurushots, but that's about it. I am Canon's bread and butter


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 16, 2019)

stevelee said:


> I get the impression that one reason that some folks upgrade their phones is to get better cameras. I wouldn't tend to think that way myself. Rather than spending another $700 to $1,000 for a better phone, I'd just buy the next G7X III or the like and have a vastly superior camera.



I specifically bought my current phone (iphone X) to get a better camera that I would always have with me. Taking pictures of a 2 year old is hard enough without having to run to camera shelf to pick up a camera. To make it worse, the camera with good enough AF for small children was a 7D, the camera small enough to keep nearby was an original M, which has an AF suited for sleeping children and buildings.

With the second kid having arrived I'm much better at keeping the M50+32mm f/1.4 within reach, but it's still about a 50-50 split between phone and 'proper' camera.

The M50 and RP have AF that is 'good enough' most of the time, even in video mode. AF in 4k seems to be worse than regular AF on the original M.


----------



## stevelee (Apr 16, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> hehehe My phone is 10 years old. I need a new one. As soon as my carrier offers a free phone I like, that's what I'll get.  I'm with you... I'd rather spend that cash on another lens or body. I leave my phone at home as often as possible. Drives my 34 year old daughter crazy. She has the latest phone. She takes photos of the grandson. I can easily say my photos with either the 5D Mark III or the Olympus are better. Much better. (Thanks to Canon and Olympus, not me.) I just cannot wrap my brain around spending hundreds of dollars for a phone (Or getting locked into a contract to pay for it.). Social media access can wait until I get home to the computer. I can look at phone photos of friend's lunches, dogs, cats and bunions anytime.


I spent $29.95 to replace the battery in my iPhone 6S back in December. It still had over 80% capacity, but that price was just through last year, and I decided to keep the phone a few more years. It does everything I need it to do, and more. No matter how fast the phone is, I don’t talk any faster. 

Last year I had decided that I would buy myself the 16-35mm f/4 for my birthday in October. In June a high school classmate died, and on the way home I decided that given the brevity and uncertainty of life, it made no sense to wait until October. So I stopped by Best Buy and bought the lens. That left me with the question of what to buy myself for my birthday. Several friends had new cars, and my car was getting toward eight years old. But I decided I didn’t really want a new car, so I bought an Apple Watch instead, which I also didn’t need. Compared to the car, the watch seemed cheap. Nowadays, the phone mostly manages the watch.


----------



## andrei1989 (Apr 16, 2019)

going back on topic...any chance the M5m2 will come with a new kit lens, or some equivalent of the 15-85 EF-S?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 16, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units (as a percentage of total sales in the market).


The appropriate response would have been, “Thanks for the correction, I was wrong when I stated, ‘You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units.’” 

Since you seem to be a big fan of pedantry, in spite of your apparent inability to admit your own errors, the point is that you can sell fewer units in a given y/y or other time period, but as long as your competitors’ sales slip relatively further, you will have gained market share. This has happened for Canon a few times. In other words, a gain in market share results from a _relative_ increase in sales compared to others in the market, independent of absolute sales numbers.


----------



## EduPortas (Apr 16, 2019)

> If the 7D Mark III were coming out in late 2019, it would already be in the hands of pre-production testers.



We don't know if it's not already, hehe.


----------



## rrcphoto (Apr 16, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> If you're posting to a forum, you're talking to everyone here.



Technically I was responding in a sub thread conversion directly to someone, which is why I quoted them. It certainly had nothing to do with you. Even less to do with you because you obviously didn't read the entire sub thread to realize what was being talked about.



Michael Clark said:


> You may not have stated it was R&D on sensors, but you certainly seemed to be implying it was mostly on their camera/imaging related businesses. Sony does R&D on a lot of other things that has nothing to do with any kind of imaging - ILC-based, phone-based, or otherwise.


I wasn't implying anything. you're the one that reached for a conclusion that I did not state. I was simply responding as anyone could have clearly have deduced from the conversion that you quoted me out of context about, was about someone mentioning canon versus sony sensor patents and also mentioning the total R&D budgets of canon and sony. Of course, you're the only one to have taken this tact, so many you should read versus assume, not my problem you have trouble with english.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 16, 2019)

I've tried using the Sony A7R3 and the A73 recently and I really don't like it. Purely from the fact that it does not allow me to have enough manual control and the ergonomics.. Sheesh, I know ergo ergo ergo.. but it really is a thing for me. I do really like the fact that it is smaller and lighter and I would change systems from DSLR to ML for that reason. I usually hike with gear about 30lbs.. travel with almost 45lbs. The Sonys really just feel and act like a very advanced point and shoot camera IMO. The fantastic algorithms allow the camera to focus on your subject super well as you hold down the shutter. Yes it takes fantastic photos and the eye-AF tracking is simply without any competition. But the other things really hold me back from jumping. Obvious the color science which really really is a thing - super annoying in post!! (from first hand experience) Also, on my particular trip to Iceland, my friend's Sony died from some seawater. Another A73 started acting weird from the inclement weather.. the menu and the screen was flickering and acting up. I kept mine out (5D3) in the elements all day, didn't get it soaked in seawater but - still going strong! weather sealing.. it's also a real thing!!

I don't care much for the non-prograde cameras that aren't FF, because I'm hooked to what canon does for me as a whole. It's like people getting the Panasonic gh5 and saying that it's better than the canon C200. There's a reason why the price difference is high and yet people still go for the latter, at least the people that know what quality means.  Now, have I been enticed to buy canon's new ML offerings? yes, but I just want something to match the basic quality of the mark 3 and be just as reliable as I know and trust my camera to be. With this whole online forum war thing between canon and Sony, meh, I think majority are cliff note keyboard busters made up of inter web reviews and videos.


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2019)

If they come out with 5D5, I would have been totally wrong with my judgement here.


----------



## sanj (Apr 16, 2019)

Having said that, I will not buy a DSLR again as the choices of the new mirrorless lenses are fantastic and there is a promise of more coming. And I am sure there will be a professional mirrorless in near future.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 16, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> I've tried using the Sony A7R3 and the A73 recently and I really don't like it. Purely from the fact that it does not allow me to have enough manual control and the ergonomics.. Sheesh, I know ergo ergo ergo.. but it really is a thing for me. I do really like the fact that it is smaller and lighter and I would change systems from DSLR to ML for that reason. I usually hike with gear about 30lbs.. travel with almost 45lbs. The Sonys really just feel and act like a very advanced point and shoot camera IMO. The fantastic algorithms allow the camera to focus on your subject super well as you hold down the shutter. Yes it takes fantastic photos and the eye-AF tracking is simply without any competition. But the other things really hold me back from jumping. Obvious the color science which really really is a thing - super annoying in post!! (from first hand experience) Also, on my particular trip to Iceland, my friend's Sony died from some seawater. Another A73 started acting weird from the inclement weather.. the menu and the screen was flickering and acting up. I kept mine out (5D3) in the elements all day, didn't get it soaked in seawater but - still going strong! weather sealing.. it's also a real thing!!
> 
> I don't care much for the non-prograde cameras that aren't FF, because I'm hooked to what canon does for me as a whole. It's like people getting the Panasonic gh5 and saying that it's better than the canon C200. There's a reason why the price difference is high and yet people still go for the latter, at least the people that know what quality means.  Now, have I been enticed to buy canon's new ML offerings? yes, but I just want something to match the basic quality of the mark 3 and be just as reliable as I know and trust my camera to be. With this whole online forum war thing between canon and Sony, meh, I think majority are cliff note keyboard busters made up of inter web reviews and videos.


Sony does not have a very good reputation for surviving bad weather, the Canons seem to have a great reputation.

The 1DX2 is the toughest of the lineup, but the 7D2 May be just as good. Both are as well sealed as you are going to see. personally, my 7D2 has seen everything from +40 to -20, has spent days outside on a hiking trip below freezing, heavy rain, freezing fog, and lots of time in a canoe.

The later ones of the 5D series are supposed to be almost as well sealed as The 1DX2 ......

When you want something that works no matter what, you can’t go wrong with a higher end Canon.

As to the R series, way too early to tell, but at some point I am sure that Roger from Lens Rentals will rip one apart and critique it. 

Interestingly enough, the Olympus cameras also have a great reputation for weather sealing......


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 16, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> As to the R series, way too early to tell, but at some point I am sure that Roger from Lens Rentals will rip one apart and critique it.



He already did:









Teardown of the Canon EOS R Mirrorless Camera


I've wanted to look inside the new Canon and Nikon mirrorless cameras since the moment they were announced, so I'm probably more excited about this than you guys are. I'm really not sure what to expect. Early on, when we took apart a Sony A7R, we were struck by how clean and straightforward...



www.lensrentals.com





Sadly, not as good as one might have hoped.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Apr 16, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> Sony does not have a very good reputation for surviving bad weather, the Canons seem to have a great reputation.
> 
> The 1DX2 is the toughest of the lineup, but the 7D2 May be just as good. Both are as well sealed as you are going to see. personally, my 7D2 has seen everything from +40 to -20, has spent days outside on a hiking trip below freezing, heavy rain, freezing fog, and lots of time in a canoe.
> 
> ...



There are plenty of videos up on youtube demonstrating the weather-sealing robustness of canon cameras, at least the higher end. As a tool for the job, I can't be babying my camera. Once, it got so dirty, I washed it in the sink with water and towel. I'm pretty mean to my camera I guess.. haha! Whenever weather gets bad, all of the Sony cameras disappear.  The canon Eos R is not up there in terms of weather sealing according to Roger.. I did read his article. Unless the next FF ML canon is super disappointing, I don't see myself purchasing the R: based on all of the things that I already mentioned. I am one of the people here on the forum that is waiting for that epic FF body that can use the amazing RF glasses. Anyone else starting to sell their EF equipment?


----------



## BrightTiger (Apr 16, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> , I don't think anyone's moving just to have a mirrorless. No-one cares about mirrorless. They care about the lenses and AF.


You might not. Many if not most are. It's not the body is mirrorless. It will also be all the features mirrorless will enhance or add, in addition that's where the newest tech will be regardless. 
I shoot wildlife and long since moved over. Lighter is great. And there are small/travel and DSLR-sized bodies. More room to put more features in. 
Mirrorless is about a box will more room. But what it offers is what matters. And it's the future, now.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 16, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> You might not. Many if not most are. It's not the body is mirrorless. It will also be all the features mirrorless will enhance or add, in addition that's where the newest tech will be regardless.
> I shoot wildlife and long since moved over. Lighter is great. And there are small/travel and DSLR-sized bodies. More room to put more features in.
> Mirrorless is about a box will more room. But what it offers is what matters. And it's the future, now.


Lighter. Just the body.
Mirrorless is about a box with more room. More room to put more features in. Inconceivable! Mirrorless bodies are smaller. So how do you also get more room? What features do you need more room for? It isn't as though camera companies removed the mirror box assemblies and there is now a cavernous area in the body in which to stuff features into.
Which features does mirrorless enhance or add? Which capabilities does mirrorless lose? Aren't those features at home on the circuit board anyway? So what is this need for more room?
And it's the future, now. Nothing new or futuristic about mirrorless. Mirrorless is actually older than the SLR, when film was the sensor (range finders).
BTW: I own a DSLR and a MILC. I reach for the DSLR 99.99% of the time.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Resistance to change should not be confused with preference, or not drinking the Kool Aid. I don't think anyone is fearful. The "change" you talk about is not a big change at all.



Mirrorless fans need to remember that DSLRs still have some key advantages.

Battery life.
Viewing experience. (Having now had real stick time with a Sony A9 I'm going to say straight out that I still prefer an OVF despite the advantage of exposure preview. That's not to say an EVF is terrible or unusable, but MILC fans completely discount those with a preference for OVFs.)
Viewing and focusing in low light. That's often cited as a MILC advantage. But I can focus the Milky Way through a 24mm f/1.4. I've never seen anything more than static on a MILC under those conditions. And having your night vision obliterated in one eye is a strange feeling. At least if I'm using the rear LCD screen to review shots my eyes are even.
Ruggedness: I won't say MILCs can't be as rugged as DSLRs, but the manufacturers haven't hit that point yet.
Feel with big lenses.
I fell in love with my Canon 5Ds and the files it produces. It feels very much like MF digital without the expense. So I'm *the* target audience for a 70+ MP Canon MILC with IBIS. And while I will probably have one of those shortly after it comes out, I can say right now there will be times when I still grab the DSLR. A two day hike through the Zion Narrows would be a classic example where ruggedness, OVF, and battery life make the choice for you.


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Mirrorless fans need to remember that DSLRs still have some key advantages.
> 
> Battery life.
> Viewing experience. (Having now had real stick time with a Sony A9 I'm going to say straight out that I still prefer an OVF despite the advantage of exposure preview. That's not to say an EVF is terrible or unusable, but MILC fans completely discount those with a preference for OVFs.)
> ...


Yup. I might also be interested in a 70mp camera (DSLR or MILC) from Canon... but I shoot fashion and portraits. Being able to crop that much could help me get two or three shots from a single photo.

Strange thing to me is that the mirrorless missionaries (As apposed to people who just like the cameras) seem quite fanatical and sometimes delusional: "Mirrorless is smaller and lighter. There's more room for more features. Mirrorless is the future. I can fit more in my bag." Please.

Back in 2008 when I got my first DSLR (Canon XSi) I hauled that camera and every lens / flash I had everywhere. It was murder. Then I realized that I could anticipate what I might be shooting anyway and did a whole lot of culling before each trip after that. But these people screaming smaller and lighter when speaking about FF MILC, and the associated lenses, do not have the equipment they are singing the praises of and probably never will. They assume: "Mirrorless is always smaller and lighter." They do this and have not even looked up the lens sizes and weights, much less held the gear. They are just spewing ignorance.

Personally, smaller and lighter will never make the decision for me. The correct tool for the job, and how I like to do it, will. The weight means nothing for my situation.


----------



## dtaylor (Apr 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Personally, smaller and lighter will never make the decision for me. The correct tool for the job, and how I like to do it, will. The weight means nothing for my situation.



Agreed with one caveat: I really love my M+22mm or 18-55mm for casual shooting. But either combo is truly small and light. P&S small and light. Not "I've shaved a few ounces off my body but I'm carrying a lens just as big as a DSLR" small and light in which case give me the grip and ergonomics of the DSLR.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apologies (in simpler terms, that means 'I'm sorry'). I wasn't cognizant of the fact (in simpler terms, that means 'I didn't know') that I needed to explicitly define (in simpler terms, that means 'spell out') all of the underlying frameworks that are obvious to those with a modicum of intelligence (in simpler terms, that means 'stuff most people with some smarts get'). To be unambiguoisly descriptive (in simpler terms, that means 'clear'), "...the majority of buyers are still buying DSLRs, not MILCs," referred to ILC buyers.
> 
> Using dimunitive terminology occasionally facilitates comprehension (in simpler terms, that means 'small words might help you understand').



Yes, you're using so many BIG words, I can see how intelligent you are...and insecure. Don't worry, I won't tell anybody


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 17, 2019)

EduPortas said:


> We don't know if it's not already, hehe.



The rumors usually get out fairly quickly when pre-production models are in the hands of photographers in the wild. We usually see blurry, cropped photos of a well known photographer with close Canon connections using cameras with tape over their model names and the like.



rrcphoto said:


> Technically I was responding in a sub thread conversion directly to someone, which is why I quoted them. It certainly had nothing to do with you. Even less to do with you because you obviously didn't read the entire sub thread to realize what was being talked about.
> 
> 
> I wasn't implying anything. you're the one that reached for a conclusion that I did not state. I was simply responding as anyone could have clearly have deduced from the conversion that you quoted me out of context about, was about someone mentioning canon versus sony sensor patents and also mentioning the total R&D budgets of canon and sony. Of course, you're the only one to have taken this tact, so many you should read versus assume, not my problem you have trouble with english.



If you're posting to a forum, you're posting to everyone here. There are no sub-threads or nested comments here. But even if there were, you're still "talking" to everyone who can see what you post.

Your statement:

"not with respects to sensors. Sony has more patents than Canon when it comes to sensors, which is what we're talking about here.

also Canon doesn't spend more on R&D than Sony, Sony for last fiscal is 470,000 million yen, Canon is 315,842 million yen. "


I think it is perfectly reasonable for anyone to interpret your statement as applying to sensors, which you had just specified immediately before is "What we're talking about here."

Just for the record: at the point I read and responded to your post, I had read every other post on this topic that had been posted prior to yours.




neuroanatomist said:


> The appropriate response would have been, “Thanks for the correction, I was wrong when I stated, ‘You only gain market share by doing one thing: selling more units.’”
> 
> Since you seem to be a big fan of pedantry, in spite of your apparent inability to admit your own errors, the point is that you can sell fewer units in a given y/y or other time period, but as long as your competitors’ sales slip relatively further, you will have gained market share. This has happened for Canon a few times. In other words, a gain in market share results from a _relative_ increase in sales compared to others in the market, independent of absolute sales numbers.



Thanks for the correction. I overestimated the ability of those who read that post to understand the context in which it was written and left out the assumption that "more units" was to be understood relative to how many your competitors in the same market sold as compared to a previous period. I certainly did consider a much longer response that included all of that but rejected it as unnecessary.

Please accept my apology for not connecting the dots for everyone. It certainly deflected the conversation from the point that was being made: That market share is measured by sales units, not by "excellence."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 17, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It certainly deflected the conversation from the point that was being made: That market share is measured by sales units, not by "excellence."


Oh, was that your point? Next, you should consider making the points that the earth revolves around the sun or that 2 + 2 = 4. It’s always helpful to have a Captain Obvious around to explain things we all know.


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 17, 2019)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Yup. I might also be interested in a 70mp camera (DSLR or MILC) from Canon... but I shoot fashion and portraits. Being able to crop that much could help me get two or three shots from a single photo.
> 
> Strange thing to me is that the mirrorless missionaries (As apposed to people who just like the cameras) seem quite fanatical and sometimes delusional: "Mirrorless is smaller and lighter. There's more room for more features. Mirrorless is the future. I can fit more in my bag." Please.
> 
> ...


But Mirrorless is so much lighter!

Today I had my DSLR, two lenses, studio tripod, two light stands, studio flash, background, two more stands and pole to hold the background, and assorted bits and pieces. If I had a Mirrorless camera it would have been so much lighter!


----------



## Michael Clark (Apr 17, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Oh, was that your point? Next, you should consider making the points that the earth revolves around the sun or that 2 + 2 = 4.



My original statement was in response to someone who said, "You don't gain market share by seeking to be moderately good; you gain it by being excellent."

Perhaps I was attempting to state the obvious to someone who obviously did not see the obvious?



neuroanatomist said:


> It’s always helpful to have a Captain Obvious around to explain things we all know.



Please forgive me for attempting to usurp your devinely appointed rightful position, Captain.


----------



## koenkooi (Apr 17, 2019)

dtaylor said:


> Mirrorless fans need to remember that DSLRs still have some key advantages.
> 
> Battery life.
> Viewing experience. (Having now had real stick time with a Sony A9 I'm going to say straight out that I still prefer an OVF despite the advantage of exposure preview. That's not to say an EVF is terrible or unusable, but MILC fans completely discount those with a preference for OVFs.)
> ...



As a counterpoint to your #2 and #3 I present my, admittedly nice use case: MP-E 65mm in my back yard. Going beyond 3x makes an OVF really, really dark especially when you are casting a shadow over your subject. Exposure simulation combined with being able to zoom in 10x makes it an ideal tool for this.

Having said that: I keep running into the same problem lately: when trying to take a picture of something above me, with the sun at 90 degrees to my right the EVF will get washed out and you have to really smash your eyesocket to the eye-cup on the RP. The R might do a bit better here.

Now give me 70+ MP, IBIS and a blinky warning light in the EVF when I hit the diffraction limit and I'd very happy.


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> This too is surely happening at times. As a lifelong software engineer I just cannot see a reason the R lacks two memory slots or a larger battery, other than they're dumbing it down a bit to make room above for a "pro" model with higher margin.



As a lifelong software engineer, I’m surprised that you haven’t encountered this. Features get cut all the time. Each feature adds cost to manufacture, develop, to test. You have a deadline, and with hardware, a target unit cost to manufacture. Sometimes it’s artificial segmentation, but sometimes it’s just simply ‘cutting this thing let’s us keep that thing and stay within out target unit price or target market date.’


----------



## Don Haines (Apr 18, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> As a lifelong software engineer, I’m surprised that you haven’t encountered this. Features get cut all the time. Each feature adds cost to manufacture, develop, to test. You have a deadline, and with hardware, a target unit cost to manufacture. Sometimes it’s artificial segmentation, but sometimes it’s just simply ‘cutting this thing let’s us keep that thing and stay within out target unit price or target market date.’


And as someone who also programs hardware, sometimes you get into the situation where the firmware does not fit onto the available storage so you have to decide what gets dropped....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> As a lifelong software engineer I just cannot see a reason the R lacks two memory slots or a larger battery, other than they're dumbing it down a bit to make room above for a "pro" model with higher margin.


Could you add a second card slot and a larger battery without making the EOS R larger, heavier and more expensive? Those are three good reasons not to do it, right there.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 18, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> Extra battery--of course the camera would be a bit bigger, heavier and expensive. Given the number of people bleating that they won't buy one because of battery capacity, though, if they were trying to maximize sales of the R instead of working to build a whole product line, they'd have done that. But extra slot? You'd never note it was there. Look how little space the current slot takes between the battery and the back of the camera. It's not there because they've planned models above it that need to be differentiated, not because they think a slot for a 2g memory card would somehow be just too heavy. Suddenly you're like some guy who's never seen an SD card or the slot you stick one into.


Sure, the second card slot is for differeniation. Suddenly you’re like some guy who’s never looked at the features and prices of cameras and noticed the direct correlation between them.


----------



## QuisUtDeus (Apr 18, 2019)

Don Haines said:


> And as someone who also programs hardware, sometimes you get into the situation where the firmware does not fit onto the available storage so you have to decide what gets dropped....



...Or you run your server host out of floor space, AC, and power supply, and you just can't cram more hard drives in no matter how hard you try. And moving or adding hosts is prohibitive because of red tape.


----------



## Pape (Apr 19, 2019)

I dont think smaller size is so good for mirrorless cameras when thinking about saving space .All lenses now 2cm longer but good thing is short lenses now more backweighted.
Good things what i have noticed so far is ability see how picture is before pressing shutter and incresed light on viewfinder on dark. Lack of mirror is good also for my old shaky benbo trekker tripod ,it now works on long exposures too.Very versatile thingie  I love focus stacking too but i guess that can be added to mirror camera also.


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 19, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> Street Price Clearance: M5 + 15-45 + Adapter $549, 18-150 $749 | Canon Camera and Lens Deals - Canon Price Watch
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Sounds like my trade in of my M5 for the RP was the first time in my life I got the timing exactly right!


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 19, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> I can't see any advantage Canon had in making the flange 20mm instead of say 17mm (the EF-M is 18mm) and this is the biggest reason I considered moving from EF to Sony instead of to RF.



Not an optical engineer, but a slightly longer flange distance improves the angle of incidence on pixels at the edge of the sensor, potentially resulting in better light collection, and less bending of the light, so possibly better handling of chromatic aberration. I’d love an actual student of optics to correct me. I’m running off physics that’s 20 years of of date and mostly forgotten.


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 19, 2019)

QuisUtDeus said:


> ...Or you run your server host out of floor space, AC, and power supply, and you just can't cram more hard drives in no matter how hard you try. And moving or adding hosts is prohibitive because of red tape.



Been there too. The first time you encounter it is quite the shock. ‘But all I want to do is add one more server. What do you mean it’s impossible? How else am I going to get that extra card slot?’


----------



## Quirkz (Apr 20, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> not the most common failure scenario in embedded software



I suspect it’s part in jest, and part pointing out that when you’re not a professional in the field, you have no idea what very real and practical limits you might strike. The first time I was told our data center couldn’t add our new server because they didn’t have the power was a surprise to me, and seemed like absolute idiocy.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 21, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> My EOS-1DSMkIII + M --> R trade wasn't a question of market timing as the two old bodies were SO old. I think I missed the boat on the EF 50/1.2, as the prices seemed a lot lower than I remember just 6 months ago, and perhaps due to a slight oversupply causing it to become a buyer's market. I sold my 85/1.2 to "beat the rush" to the RF models and got a good price for it. I'm in a quandary about the 70-200/2.8IS MkI: sell now and be without until the RF comes out, and possibly find out the RF is a dog and I didn't want to trade anyway? Or do I wait until the RF comes out and then take a $150 hit or something on the old zoom? Answer: I think I'm safe waiting, as the 70-200 is one of the most common L lenses and therefore there's going to be far less impact from the numerically tiny number of people already using the R.



In another thread you talk about leaving your Ferrari at home because it’s raining, and in this one you’re in a quandary over $150.
Huh.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Apr 21, 2019)

SwissFrank said:


> You seem more interested in talking about me than camera stuff!


Not really, I just read them back to back.


----------



## ShermN8r (Apr 25, 2019)

Cryve said:


> I am so excited about the new sensor. Mainly about the megapixel and low light performance.
> I also hope its bsi!
> 
> i wonder if its really gonna be 24mp, as claimed. 24mp is a good sweetspot for apsc, but im skeptical if it is really going to be 24mp, because a higher mp count usualy is good for marketing.
> ...


I'm no longer optimistic about a 7D Mark III anymore.


----------



## Cryve (Apr 25, 2019)

ShermN8r said:


> I'm no longer optimistic about a 7D Mark III anymore.



im a bit more skeptical too.

maybe the new high mp model is where its at. no high frame rates but i mostly only do animal portraits anyway. so no high fps needed. still sad for the rugged body, af and controlls tho. i hope the upcoming full frame high mp model can statisfy my needs. guess it will be the new wildlife cam for me.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jul 3, 2019)

anything new on the M front? a previous rumor said first half of 2019 which has come and gone without any info...
any chance the new M and lenses will come out with the G5X/G7X?


----------



## hamish (Jul 5, 2019)

andrei1989 said:


> anything new on the M front? a previous rumor said first half of 2019 which has come and gone without any info...
> any chance the new M and lenses will come out with the G5X/G7X?



The later rumo(u)rs indicated late July/August for the M announcement. Patience, grasshopper  Although I really want to know what it will be too, as I'm looking to upgrade a 200D. I'll either get the M5 Mk. II and EF adapter or, if that's too expensive for my limited budget, a used 80D on ebay.


----------

