# Is the new Canon full frame mirrorless called the EOS R?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Aug 29, 2018)

> Since yesterday’s post, we’ve been getting a lot of information from unknown sources. I’m going to just post them all here without a rumor rating and you can do what you’d like with this information.
> *Canon EOS R Information:*
> 
> Name: Canon EOS R
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 29, 2018)

Lie to me with the mount.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 29, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



But we can't wait a week!  Help

Jack


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

Someone was joking last week about R being remote mount. I guess you connect it with a coax cable (RF)...


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 29, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Someone was joking last week about R being remote mount. I guess you connect it with a coax cable (RF)...



Wow, only hold the lens while strapping the camera to your body?

Jack


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 29, 2018)

EOS M, R- why not just keep going through the alphabet? 

Now, what does R stand for? Reflex (ironic), Resist (as in resist change), Resolution (not with 28MP, Retails for less than Sony? 

None of these are very good but that’s all I can think of before I have my coffee.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2018)

R for "rear cap".


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

'R' stands for 'Ready to stuff it to Transpo1 and AvTvMFullstop and we'll show them how to make a camera'


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 29, 2018)

Can’t believe Canon has held info this tight a few days prior to announcement which makes me very skeptical there will be an announcement on 5 Sept.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Can’t believe Canon has held info this tight a few days prior to announcement which makes me very skeptical there will be an announcement on 5 Sept.



If I recall correctly the 5DS/R took everyone by surprise as did video on the 5Dmkii. Canon have a good track record on keeping things quiet.


----------



## ffxx (Aug 29, 2018)

A new mount with ZERO lenses. That's very realible. =d


----------



## Stuart (Aug 29, 2018)

ffxx said:


> A new mount with ZERO lenses. That's very realible. =d


So EF compatible. 
I hate waiting, even if i can't afford it. Does the body sound too small ?


----------



## CanoKnight (Aug 29, 2018)

If it's really [email protected] , then afaiac it's another piece of garbage from Canon. Canon's intention above everything else is to protect their more expensive line video cameras. Canon can go F themselves.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

"Possible EF compatibility."

Someone is trolling us.

- A


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

> RF Mount (New mount, possible EF compatibility?)
> Similar ergonomics to the EOS M50
> Slightly larger body than the EOS M50
> Will compete with the Sony A7 III & Nikon Z6



yes, yes yes. That would be fully in line with my "highly esoteric"  expectations. 

No problem, if Canon decides to call new mount lenses "RF" instead of "EF-X". Although RF sounds like a "Rangefinder" acronym to me. 


PS: maybe I posed as an inside source and sent those "specs" to CR guy  ... just joking, would never do that.


----------



## ken (Aug 29, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Can’t believe Canon has held info this tight a few days prior to announcement which makes me very skeptical there will be an announcement on 5 Sept.



Here's how you do it. "If this leaks ahead of announcement, no bonuses for anyone." 

It works.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Can’t believe Canon has held info this tight a few days prior to announcement which makes me very skeptical there will be an announcement on 5 Sept.




Could still happen, but yes. Also the EF-M 32 prime announcement has me thinking we might see an M5 II (or possibly even higher end EF-M rig) instead of a FF announcement.

- A


----------



## .jan (Aug 29, 2018)

ffxx said:


> A new mount with ZERO lenses. That's very realible. =d


Launching an entirely new mount with no new lenses, because the entire back catalog of existing EF lenses is fully compatible would be an unprecedented power move.


----------



## bitm2007 (Aug 29, 2018)

ffxx said:


> A new mount with ZERO lenses. That's very realible. =d



Sounds like Canon may be releasing their FF mirror less earlier than planned in response to the announcement of the Nikon Z6 and Z7.


----------



## fox40phil (Aug 29, 2018)

2 card slots...eye AF, IBIS, DP, and high MP EVF(>5MP)!!


----------



## zonoskar (Aug 29, 2018)

Zero lenses.... would Canon make a mount that is able to extend to get the EF flange distance and collapse to give the RF flange distance? Rumors did say the mount would be sexy.


----------



## sowlow (Aug 29, 2018)

RF like retrofocus?


----------



## OmegaLimit (Aug 29, 2018)

The "R" is for "Rickroll".


----------



## amorse (Aug 29, 2018)

If this takes EF, an LP-E6, and is similar in size to an M50 (but I'd assume thicker for the EF flange requirements?) then this could make a perfect backup/secondary camera for me. That could have a really nice niche alongside Canon's current offerings.


----------



## jeffpoker (Aug 29, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Can’t believe Canon has held info this tight a few days prior to announcement which makes me very skeptical there will be an announcement on 5 Sept.



Yeah I'd be surprised if this was in fact the new FF mirrorless. Holding on to such juicy info is almost impossible. But who knows


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

.jan said:


> Launching an entirely new mount with no new lenses, because the entire back catalog of existing EF lenses is fully compatible would be an unprecedented power move.


 
People have been assuming it will be an R-to-EF adapter. Maybe these early models have option of 2 adapters that fit to the body? So on the face of it, the camera rolls out with an EF mount, which is basically a mount that protrudes the required flange distance for EF lenses to work. But there are a set of internal connections that enable the entire mount to be removed and an R mount inserted as and when the R lenses become available? 
Maybe this will be a factory retro-fit because of the weather-sealing required.
Once the R lenses come out the bodies will be available in R or EF.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

Arr


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 29, 2018)

fox40phil said:


> 2 card slots...eye AF, IBIS, DP, and high MP EVF!!



Give us this option please even if you price it the same as A7RIII/Z7.


----------



## justawriter (Aug 29, 2018)

R stands for "Replaceable" as Canon will take a page from Sony's book and introduce a new version every six months.


----------



## NicoN (Aug 29, 2018)

fox40phil said:


> 2 card slots...eye AF, IBIS, DP, and high MP EVF!!


I think Eye AF und Dual pixel AF are set in stone since the M50 has these features...


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

If ANY of this information from unknown sources is true, it doesn't necessarily mean no new lenses for a new mount. Rather, these unknown sources are simply not aware of any lens announcements at this time. If Canon can keep all this mirrorless stuff so secretive, I'm sure they can cover up the fact that some new lenses are coming.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> If ANY of this information from unknown sources is true, it doesn't necessarily mean no new lenses for a new mount. Rather, these unknown sources are simply not aware of any lens announcements at this time. If Canon can keep all this mirrorless stuff so secretive, I'm sure they can cover up the fact that some new lenses are coming.




But it's a 'compound tell' (aka obvious resultant) at work here:

Full EF mount = no need for new mirrorless lenses
Thin mount = there must be new lenses + an EF/EF-S adaptor
Which is why everyone is obsessing about the mount. It's the biggest secret for Canon in, what -- decades?

- A


----------



## amorse (Aug 29, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> People have been assuming it will be an R-to-EF adapter. Maybe these early models have option of 2 adapters that fit to the body? So on the face of it, the camera rolls out with an EF mount, which is basically a mount that protrudes the required flange distance for EF lenses to work. But there are a set of internal connections that enable the entire mount to be removed and an R mount inserted as and when the R lenses become available?
> Maybe this will be a factory retro-fit because of the weather-sealing required.
> Once the R lenses come out the bodies will be available in R or EF.


Or maybe the RF mount has the same mounting ring as an EF but RF lenses protrude well into the camera housing to get a lower flange distance (i.e. the mount is not at the end of the lens, but part way up the barrel to make up that flange difference). It could mean that the camera housing doesn't save size, but some RF lenses could be more like pancake lenses on the body so the mounted size is reduced (for lenses where that's possible i.e. wide angle, slow aperture). EF-S protrudes into the housing somewhat and the lenses are built so they won't mount on EF mount cameras - I wonder if they could do the same with RF but have a more pronounced protrusion into the body?

If this were the case, then weather sealing shouldn't be impacted, mount adapters wouldn't be needed, and the same size saving options could be possible. The only caveat here would be no using an adapter to mount mirrorless lenses from other systems to the Canon system (not that Canon would mind), unlike Nikon's mirrorless which now has the lowest flange distance and should be able to mount anything once adaptors are built.


----------



## acoll123 (Aug 29, 2018)

OmegaLimit said:


> The "R" is for "Rickroll".


Surveillance video of EOS R!!!!:


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

IMO, this sounds like some patents we have seen in the past where the EF mount would / could be used by two different lens types EF and a yet to be named other. Perhaps the RF mount is simply the same as an EF mount, that accepts EF lenses, and also accepts newer "RF" asynchronous protocol lenses that haven't been developed yet.


----------



## melgross (Aug 29, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> EOS M, R- why not just keep going through the alphabet?
> 
> Now, what does R stand for? Reflex (ironic), Resist (as in resist change), Resolution (not with 28MP, Retails for less than Sony?
> 
> None of these are very good but that’s all I can think of before I have my coffee.


It stands for “Retro”. They’re going back to the breech lock.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> IMO, this sounds like some patents we have seen in the past where the EF mount would / could be used by two different lens types EF and a yet to be named other. Perhaps the RF mount is simply the same as an EF mount, that accepts EF lenses, and also accepts newer "RF" asynchronous protocol lenses that haven't been developed yet.


It's entirely possible.


----------



## melgross (Aug 29, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> Sounds like Canon may be releasing their FF mirror less earlier than planned in response to the announcement of the Nikon Z6 and Z7.


Since we don’t know what Canon planned, we can’t say that. Maybe Nikon released their info early because they heard that Canon was going to release theirs.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 29, 2018)

amorse said:


> If this takes EF, an LP-E6, and is similar in size to an M50 (but I'd assume thicker for the EF flange requirements?) then this could make a perfect backup/secondary camera for me. That could have a really nice niche alongside Canon's current offerings.



I'd rather have it with a larger battery. Nikon's CIPA rating for the Z7 is less than 20% of the D850 and it can use the same battery.


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 29, 2018)

CanoKnight said:


> If it's really [email protected] , then afaiac it's another piece of garbage from Canon. Canon's intention above everything else is to protect their more expensive line video cameras. Canon can go F themselves.


Could not agree with this more. There's no real reason they can't do [email protected], shoot the z6 can do that. Dead in the water if they don't enable 120fps. Please don't screw this up Canon!


----------



## hmatthes (Aug 29, 2018)

I dearly hope that the EOS user interface (dials and top buttons) survive. The interface on M series is counterproductive compared to the professional, well honed, EOS interfaces.
Mount be damned, they will certainly not abandon the EF lenses and the shallow flange lenses will be additions. ,to necessarily replacements, for our investments.


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2018)

Random Orbits said:


> I'd rather have it with a larger battery. Nikon's CIPA rating for the Z7 is less than 20% of the D850 and it can use the same battery.


However, for me compatibility is everything! Right now I do have 3 cameras using the same LP-E6(N) battery and some more. I can use any battery to any camera. I think this is very flexible scheme.


----------



## tron (Aug 29, 2018)

CanonRumors Forum: The invasion of the DSLR videographers! Canon beware the end is coming


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

All of this talk about 1080p at 120fps....

I feel this is a MUST. This camera's main competitors both offer this feature and it's not a hard one to implement. Canon is crazy if they dont include it.

There are a few key points that I'm looking for in this new FF mirrorless and 1080p 120 is one of them. Sony A7III is my backup plan if this new camera system from Canon doesn't deliver.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

amorse said:


> Or maybe the RF mount has the same mounting ring as an EF but RF lenses protrude well into the camera housing to get a lower flange distance (i.e. the mount is not at the end of the lens, but part way up the barrel to make up that flange difference). It could mean that the camera housing doesn't save size, but some RF lenses could be more like pancake lenses on the body so the mounted size is reduced (for lenses where that's possible i.e. wide angle, slow aperture). EF-S protrudes into the housing somewhat and the lenses are built so they won't mount on EF mount cameras - I wonder if they could do the same with RF but have a more pronounced protrusion into the body?
> 
> If this were the case, then weather sealing shouldn't be impacted, mount adapters wouldn't be needed, and the same size saving options could be possible. The only caveat here would be no using an adapter to mount mirrorless lenses from other systems to the Canon system (not that Canon would mind), unlike Nikon's mirrorless which now has the lowest flange distance and should be able to mount anything once adaptors are built.




Yeah, we've kicked that around on another thread. Have a look if you haven't already.

The idea is certainly intriguing but has its drawbacks. I still contend offering a thin + full EF is preferable to this idea, or the idea of a variable flange distance. The latter two ideas are too risky to jam into a bedrock, foundational, structural component like this. Mounts need to be rock solid and simple, IMHO.

- A


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Could not agree with this more. There's no real reason they can't do [email protected], shoot the z6 can do that. Dead in the water if they don't enable 120fps. Please don't screw this up Canon!


I'm willing to bet a startling number of people couldn't even care one way or another about this, hard to call it DOA based upon a niche obscure feature that hardly anyone uses.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> All of this talk about 1080p at 120fps....
> 
> I feel this is a MUST. This camera's main competitors both offer this feature and it's not a hard one to implement. Canon is crazy if they dont include it.
> 
> There are a few key points that I'm looking for in this new FF mirrorless and 1080p 120 is one of them. Sony A7III is my backup plan if this new camera system from Canon doesn't deliver.


then get a Sony and deal with the Sony, and quit threatening going to sony like it means anything to us here 
DPAF has to work mighty fast to get 120fps to work btw, there's alot more to it then what you are thinking about.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> I'm willing to bet a startling number of people couldn't even care one way or another about this, hard to call it DOA based upon a niche obscure feature that hardly anyone uses.




I feel that way about Eye AF, IBIS, etc. but now if Canon doesn't have those things the world will end for some folks.

I will be reposting the attached many times in the weeks ahead, I'm sure. 

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> All of this talk about 1080p at 120fps....
> 
> I feel this is a MUST. This camera's main competitors both offer this feature and it's not a hard one to implement.



I’m not sure I like the idea of basing “must haves” one what competitors offer as opposed to what target market users want/need.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

hmatthes said:


> I dearly hope that the EOS user interface (dials and top buttons) survive. The interface on M series is counterproductive compared to the professional, well honed, EOS interfaces.
> Mount be damned, they will certainly not abandon the EF lenses and the shallow flange lenses will be additions. ,to necessarily replacements, for our investments.


actually the M5 is a clever and excellent way of delivering top side control changes on a small camera. ISO, WB, AF mode, Metering, etc can all be changed with your index finger.


----------



## miketcool (Aug 29, 2018)

EOS R = EOS Revolution

This is for the revolving adaptable mount that accepts EF-M and EF lenses.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> then get a Sony and deal with the Sony, and quit threatening going to sony like it means anything to us here
> DPAF has to work mighty fast to get 120fps to work btw, there's alot more to it then what you are thinking about.


It's not a threat towards anyone here in the slightest bit.

For me, I'm looking at a few key features on both the photo and video side. If they aren't available, I believe the A7III will better suit my needs and I will likely pick one up in that case because I've sold two of my three Canon cameras (just 6DII remaining) and have just three L lenses left. For me, it's a fairly easy switch due to the fact that I dont have a million EF lenses.

Make no mistake though, it is my preference to stay a Canon shooter. I just need some specific features that I'm not sure they'll deliver. We will see soon enough.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> It's not a threat towards anyone here in the slightest bit.
> 
> For me, I'm looking at a few key features on both the photo and video side. If they aren't available, I believe the A7III will better suit my needs and I will likely pick one up in that case because I've sold two of my three Canon cameras (just 6DII remaining) and have just three L lenses left. For me, it's a fairly easy switch due to the fact that I dont have a million EF lenses.
> 
> Make no mistake though, it is my preference to stay a Canon shooter. I just need some specific features that I'm not sure they'll deliver. We will see soon enough.


I for one would be perfectly happy if they left video off it all together, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be totally okay with it that way either. the demand of video specs should be second to stills.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I feel that way about Eye AF, IBIS, etc. but now if Canon doesn't have those things the world will end for some folks.
> 
> I will be reposting the attached many times in the weeks ahead, I'm sure.
> 
> - A


Canon will manage to piss off some niche cluster of users who will declare it DOA .. that's a certainty


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> I for one would be perfectly happy if they left video off it all together, and I'm sure I'm not the only one that would be totally okay with it that way either. the demand of video specs should be second to stills.


This is where I strongly disagree.

Why can't both coexist? The technology in the sensor and processor is already there... it makes no sense to me to leave out video.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> actually the M5 is a clever and excellent way of delivering top side control changes on a small camera. ISO, WB, AF mode, Metering, etc can all be changed with your index finger.




Yes, if Canon has a small (M50 / SL2 sized) and large (6D2/5D4 sized) FF mirrorless, they have a roadmap to success either way with ergonomics and controls.

I'm not convinced _this_ is an ergonomic recipe for success, however:


​
The notion that 'if a smaller body exists, only use slow/small native mount glass on it' is madness. People will do the above on day one (a certainty if the adaptor is available, which it should be), even if there are two form factors to choose from.

So Canon may not go all in on small. Nikon cloned Sony's 'same body shape for all price points' approach for what must be a host of reasons (cost reductions, similarity/familiarity of controls, etc.), and Canon may do the same -- but hopefully in a wiser way. (Big 5D chunky grip ftw! )

- A


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Yes, if Canon has a small (M50 / SL2 sized) and large (6D2/5D4 sized) FF mirrorless, they have a roadmap to success either way with ergonomics and controls.
> 
> I'm not convinced _this_ is an ergonomic recipe for success, however:
> 
> ...


That M5/M50 with EF glass looks ridiculous from an ergonomics perspective. I really hope they dont try to go this small with the new bodies.


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 29, 2018)

ken said:


> Here's how you do it. "If this leaks ahead of announcement, no bonuses for anyone."
> 
> It works.



If and only if 1) Everyone who has access to the information is eligible for a bonus, and 2) nobody offers the employees a compensation higher than the bonus.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> This is where I strongly disagree.
> 
> Why can't both coexist? The technology in the sensor and processor is already there... it makes no sense to me to leave out video.


actually it requires alot more to do 4k h.265 or uncompressed RAW out than what a still camera requires


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> That M5/M50 with EF glass looks ridiculous from an ergonomics perspective. I really hope they dont try to go this small with the new bodies.




They may -- they are so proud of the SL2 it seems. But I've posted this many times, but there really is zero drawback to a chunky grip. If an EOS M + 22 pancake can't fit in your pants pocket, FF sure as hell won't. 

Regardless of how thin vs full EF pans out, no matter how wide or tall it is, give it a chunky grip: you get comfort, stability, all the buttons + top LCD, and a big battery. So much win.

This is ugly as sin and not what I propose Canon design, but just to make a point about packing space in a bag:

​
The only drawback with the chunky grip is for the big outing travel photogs (e.g. safari, antarctica, etc) who want an EOS M (original) body footprint so they can pack it in minimal space with no lens attached. How many of us (not shooting 100% of the time with big teles) leave our kit broken down in our bags like that?

- A


----------



## melgross (Aug 29, 2018)

I’m curious as to what percentage of still camera users really shoot video with it. Sure, on forums we encounter people who do, or say they do, more than what most users do. But if they sell 250,000 cameras in a model, how many of those does it take for the manufacturer to believe they have to accommodate them? And further than that, what subset of these who do shoot video, shoot anything other than at the standard speed? Surely, that’s an even smaller number.

I don’t buy still cameras for video. In fact, these days, I rarely shoot video on anything other than my iPhone. Yes, go ahead and cringe at that, if you will. But after my daughter graduated from high school, I don’t find the need for big cameras and lenses for my video needs (and to be honest, despite my 5DmkIV, and good selection of lenses), I use my iPhone for most of my photos too. only when I really want high quality do I take the Canon out.

Most of my career was in shooting fashion/Tv Ads, and running a commercial photo lab in NYC, so I’m not coming from a low use background, either.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I feel that way about Eye AF, IBIS, etc. but now if Canon doesn't have those things the world will end for some folks.
> 
> I will be reposting the attached many times in the weeks ahead, I'm sure.
> 
> - A


One thing we can be sure about is that you will be posting many times in the weeks ahead.


----------



## docsmith (Aug 29, 2018)

EOS R … U kidding????


----------



## Aaron D (Aug 29, 2018)

I'd love to see them make one with the old EF mount AND a bigger sensor—so that it's a FF with your old lenses and a medium-ish format with new R (or whatever) lenses. They could update the electronics by putting new contacts on the opposite side of the circle...


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> I'm willing to bet a startling number of people couldn't even care one way or another about this, hard to call it DOA based upon a niche obscure feature that hardly anyone uses.


Sorry I didn't specify, I thought it was implicit, DOA for videographers, unless they're super invested in Canon glass, and even then can be adapted to other mirrorless bodies. Photographers obviously wouldn't and shouldn't care about that.
Hybrid users might not care as much, but the more video a hybrid users does video, the more they'll care.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’m curious as to what percentage of still camera users really shoot video with it. Sure, on forums we encounter people who do, or say they do, more than what most users do. But if they sell 250,000 cameras in a model, how many of those does it take for the manufacturer to believe they have to accommodate them? And further than that, what subset of these who do shoot video, shoot anything other than at the standard speed? Surely, that’s an even smaller number.
> 
> I don’t buy still cameras for video. In fact, these days, I rarely shoot video on anything other than my iPhone. Yes, go ahead and cringe at that, if you will. But after my daughter graduated from high school, I don’t find the need for big cameras and lenses for my video needs (and to be honest, despite my 5DmkIV, and good selection of lenses), I use my iPhone for most of my photos too. only when I really want high quality do I take the Canon out.
> 
> Most of my career was in shooting fashion/Tv Ads, and running a commercial photo lab in NYC, so I’m not coming from a low use background, either.



And that was Canon's point with the 5D4 - that if you want serious video get a video camera and camera, and their research apparently showed that in general people shooting video with DSLRs shot short segments of video to supplement their stills, not the other way round. I am cynical to some extent in that the processors they had could not handle the volume of FF 4k, and it did smack a bit of post-facto justification but my guess is that it did not worry Canon too much in making that decision.

Unfortunately most people now get their reviews from places like youtube with content driven by people who are, by definition vloggers who seem to value 4k very highly (even though most of them shoot 1080p) and because of that they get disproportionate voice in what they believe the 'average market' wants. And these same vloggers are often not professoinal reviewers so they pick on _topic du jour _things that are easily pointed out, and 4k, 60p/120p, whatever is part of that.


----------



## Tangent (Aug 29, 2018)

In North America Canon marketeting gave us the Canon Rebel. Now this new camera will be marketed in North America as the Canon Pirate. Rrrrr, me maties.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Sorry I didn't specify, I thought it was implicit, DOA for videographers, unless they're super invested in Canon glass, and even then can be adapted to other mirrorless bodies. Photographers obviously wouldn't and shouldn't care about that.
> Hybrid users might not care as much, but the more video a hybrid users does video, the more they'll care.


no, you're talking video people that do slo-mo which is a niche of a niche.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> If and only if 1) Everyone who has access to the information is eligible for a bonus, and 2) nobody offers the employees a compensation higher than the bonus.




Eventually something slips because Rome needs to prepare Gaul for the news. 

There are things they can do to keep everything in the electronic space -- photos, manuals, collaterals, etc. -- locked into a turnkey sort of system that is impossible to export without some bush-league screen cap action. They also can aggressively police and account for prototypes as they build everything from what I understand. And evaluators are (presumably) under death sentence sort of NDAs, one would presume.

But eventually it comes out. Somewhere in the chain, how the sausage is made is outside of the imperious direct control of Canon corporate. Cartons and the labeling upon them need to get made. Certifications need to be earned. Manuals need to get printed. Promo videos, tutorials, first look videos, etc. get made by DPR, B&H, etc. and then it's just a matter of time.

...and then Nokishita shows us what we're getting and CR Guy nails down the specs. 

- A


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> no, you're talking video people that do slo-mo which is a niche of a niche.


Yeah tell that to the wedding videographers... Not exactly niche of a niche.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Yeah tell that to the wedding videographers... Not exactly niche of a niche.


and yet again. the amount of wedding photographers that shoot video and on top of that shoot slow motion video of the needs of 120fps that don't already have a solution to do so and on top of that are small enough of a shop to not use a proper video camera with proper video ergonomics,etc are certainly a niche of a niche


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 29, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> and yet again. the amount of wedding photographers that shoot video and on top of that shoot slow motion video of the needs of 120fps that don't already have a solution to do so and on top of that are small enough of a shop to not use a proper video camera with proper video ergonomics,etc are certainly a niche of a niche


Wedding photographer != Wedding videographer
Wedding videography is a niche, just like anything else. If you're a wedding videographer in 2018, and you're cinematic/artistic at all, I guarantee you they're shooting at least in 60fps for a majority of their footage, sans any parts that are spoken. So no, not niche of a niche..


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Yeah tell that to the wedding videographers... Not exactly niche of a niche.



And my guess is that they are taking advantage of something in the camera they have bought, and the ability to shoot 120fps slow mo is highly (nay, 
extremely) unlikely to be any part of the buying decision. 
I am not denying some use it, but am questioning the importance of it to the market. I use the focus bracketing on my Panasonic camera but I would not buy a camera on that basis alone.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 29, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Wedding photographer != Wedding videographer
> Wedding videography is a niche, just like anything else. If you're a wedding videographer in 2018, and you're cinematic/artistic at all, I guarantee you they're shooting at least in 60fps for a majority of their footage, sans any parts that are spoken. So no, not niche of a niche..


moving the goal posts or attempting to?
and again, this is getting tiresome. the need for 120fps is a niche. period. and videographers that want to use a stills camera with consumer grade codecs and lackluster ergonomics for video instead of getting a proper video camera with video ergonomics and great codecs tailored for the medium?
it's most certainly a niche (of the buying public) of which a niche would be those that needed 120fps instead of 60fps slo motion video.
I know there's this all consuming concept of thinking that your needs are those needs of the general buying public but canon with thier massive marketshare has ALREADY demonstrated that having good video isn't necessary to sell cameras.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 29, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’m curious as to what percentage of still camera users really shoot video with it. Sure, on forums we encounter people who do, or say they do, more than what most users do. But if they sell 250,000 cameras in a model, how many of those does it take for the manufacturer to believe they have to accommodate them? And further than that, what subset of these who do shoot video, shoot anything other than at the standard speed? Surely, that’s an even smaller number.
> 
> I don’t buy still cameras for video. In fact, these days, I rarely shoot video on anything other than my iPhone. Yes, go ahead and cringe at that, if you will. But after my daughter graduated from high school, I don’t find the need for big cameras and lenses for my video needs (and to be honest, despite my 5DmkIV, and good selection of lenses), I use my iPhone for most of my photos too. only when I really want high quality do I take the Canon out.
> 
> Most of my career was in shooting fashion/Tv Ads, and running a commercial photo lab in NYC, so I’m not coming from a low use background, either.



I dont know man, but the amount of video footage that is being uploadede every day to youtube alone, is staggering. Moste of it might be shot on phones, but I will bet you that a huge amount is shot on still-cameras. Video is a growing market. It bewilders me that canon isn't pushing there video features more. 120 frames is wicket useful to anybody trying to make video, with a high production value on a budget. It could be that I have blinders on because of the kind of work that I do, but I dont think it is without reason that people keep bringing up 4k and 1080p,120 farms/s.

Just look at these stats: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/youtube-statistics/

400 hours of video uploaded every minut


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 29, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I am not denying some use it, but am questioning the importance of it to the market.


Fair point. All that I will say is this: Can I make a perfectly fine video topping out at 60fps? Sure, absolutely, I do it right now. Would I love 120fps to have more options on the editing board, hell yes! Will it decide on whether I want to upgrade to the new new canon or a different brand, for sure. I'm seriously weighing all of my options right now.
And maybe it's niche to you, but more and more people are getting into video, the niche of niche as was called is getting smaller and smaller. Personally I do photos + video. So being able to have all in one package is really important to me. I already have 2 pelicans worth of gear, not including light stands and whatnot that I have outside of my pelicans. So consolidating a video camera AND stills camera in one box is really important to me. The less stuff I have to carry the better, and thus I want the best bang for the buck in both worlds.
I don't think that's too much to ask.


----------



## NeverPlayMonopoly (Aug 29, 2018)

R for "Remember when you used to actually enjoy photography instead of sit on gear forums all day?"


----------



## RGF (Aug 29, 2018)

Could R be the same as R as 5DS R? 

2 card slots and a reasonably sized battery would be nice


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> ... Which is why everyone is obsessing about the mount. It's the biggest secret for Canon in, what -- decades?



yes, all the way back to 1987


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 29, 2018)

Is it safe to buy more sigma EF lens or wait until the announcement?


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Is it safe to buy more sigma EF lens or wait until the announcement?


I personally stopped buying lenses months ago and will not resume purchasing until the announcement.

If this new system offers what I'm looking for and I decide to stay with Canon, I will be picking up a 35mm f1.4L ASAP


----------



## Ditboy (Aug 29, 2018)

Maybe the new 300 and 600 are in the new mount.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

Just got the latest rumor from an unknown source!

EOS *RF* = "EOS *R*ebel *F*ullframe" 

It will be really small and come at USD/€ 999 MSRP  

Yay!


----------



## SaP34US (Aug 29, 2018)

I think it be 20% larger than the M50 or the M5 which means 5.52x4.2x 2.76 or 5.52x4.2x 2.88. That is about the same size as both the Z cameras and A7III.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 29, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Is it safe to buy more sigma EF lens or wait until the announcement?



BUY NOW! Who could possibly wait one whole week for an announcement? Spend, spend, spend ... that lens is calling you!


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

Etienne said:


> BUY NOW! Who could possibly wait one whole week for an announcement? Spend, spend, spend ... that lens is calling you!


 I was originally going to post something like this but decided not to. Somehow I knew it would be said eventually. lol


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’m curious as to what percentage of still camera users really shoot video with it. Sure, on forums we encounter people who do, or say they do, more than what most users do. But if they sell 250,000 cameras in a model, how many of those does it take for the manufacturer to believe they have to accommodate them? And further than that, what subset of these who do shoot video, shoot anything other than at the standard speed? Surely, that’s an even smaller number.
> 
> I don’t buy still cameras for video. In fact, these days, I rarely shoot video on anything other than my iPhone. Yes, go ahead and cringe at that, if you will. But after my daughter graduated from high school, I don’t find the need for big cameras and lenses for my video needs (and to be honest, despite my 5DmkIV, and good selection of lenses), I use my iPhone for most of my photos too. only when I really want high quality do I take the Canon out.
> 
> Most of my career was in shooting fashion/Tv Ads, and running a commercial photo lab in NYC, so I’m not coming from a low use background, either.




Agree with you -- I never use my SLR to shoot video. I use my iPhone.

But have you been to this site called [checks glasses] ...Youtube?  

Vloggers, product reviewers, social media folks, budding internet personalities, etc. by the truckoads are carving out their niche online, and they (largely) aren't doing it with GoPros or phones. A solid ILC with strong video (and we can define that a thousand ways) is in demand. Whether they need a FF product to do that, however, is something we could surely debate. Perhaps an M50, 80D, etc. would be an easier move for them, but I'm guessing if they shoot enough it would spur interest in FF.

- A


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 29, 2018)

It's only natural for Canon to take *R* seeing that Nikon chose *Z* and Leica already had *Q*. Canon, of course, also has *C* so things make perfect sense.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Agree with you -- I never use my SLR to shoot video. I use my iPhone.
> 
> But have you been to this site called [checks glasses] ...Youtube?
> 
> ...


FF for youtube videos and other video work that is intended to be high quality is a good option. The low light performance and image quality of the FF sensor makes a big difference... I've used both.

The one exception is the 6DMII in which case the low light performance is much better than crop but the image quality is the same at best and in some cases lower. (I have a 6DM2 and am speaking from first hand experience)


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> I personally stopped buying lenses months ago and will not resume purchasing until the announcement.
> 
> If this new system offers what I'm looking for and I decide to stay with Canon, I will be picking up a 35mm f1.4L ASAP



Sigma 135 1.8 Art/Sigma 105 1.4 would work well with Sony if Canon FF mirrorless is lackluster.


----------



## Adelino (Aug 29, 2018)

bitm2007 said:


> Sounds like Canon may be releasing their FF mirror less earlier than planned in response to the announcement of the Nikon Z6 and Z7.


Canon would not release something early just in response to a competitor. They barely respond to competitors as it is.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> And that was Canon's point with the 5D4 - that if you want serious video get a video camera and camera, and their research apparently showed that in general people shooting video with DSLRs shot short segments of video to supplement their stills, not the other way round. I am cynical to some extent in that the processors they had could not handle the volume of FF 4k, and it did smack a bit of post-facto justification but my guess is that it did not worry Canon too much in making that decision.



I'm not a ringer on video, but it seems things went like this:

1) 5D2 launched. Mad consumer ILC video making phenomenon ensues. 
2) Canon does some financial soul-searching as to how best to make money off of this. 
3) Canon launches the Cinema EOS line.
4) The 5-series does not make a major video leap forward with the 5D3 -- quite possibly to avoid stealing Cinema EOS premium dollars. Yet that camera sells brilliantly over a long period of time.
5) Canon says 'I knew it' and realizes what the 5-series is for: it is for stills first and foremost, but it's no slouch if you need high quality video.
6) The 5D4 gets some huge stills IQ upgrades but somewhat limited 4k. To Canon's credit, they left the AA filter in to not truly enrage the video world.

I see the 5-series as a diplomat that has to speak both languages, but it has a mother tongue, and that language is stills.

I don't say that to blow off video specs or concerns there -- it's just my read on where Canon's priorities are.

- A


----------



## nchoh (Aug 29, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I dont know man, but the amount of video footage that is being uploadede every day to youtube alone, is staggering. Moste of it might be shot on phones, but I will bet you that a huge amount is shot on still-cameras. Video is a growing market. It bewilders me that canon isn't pushing there video features more. 120 frames is wicket useful to anybody trying to make video, with a high production value on a budget. It could be that I have blinders on because of the kind of work that I do, but I dont think it is without reason that people keep bringing up 4k and 1080p,120 farms/s.
> 
> Just look at these stats: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/youtube-statistics/
> 
> 400 hours of video uploaded every minut



I watch MSNBC online thru Youtube. There is typically 10 or more uploads of the same show. I don't know how may uploads there really are as NBC actively pulls them down. I have searched for music on YouTube and for each legit video there are XX number of illegal shares.

After you subtract all the copies that are being uploaded, how many new content is actually uploaded?

I regularly watch some photography, homesteading, survival, hiking music and car videos on Youtube, so Youtube automatically suggest new channels for me to watch. I don't see too many new channels nor too many independent videos being shot. Most of what I see are Youtubers who are making a living from YouTube videos and consistently put out content. These guys spend the time and money to make good productions. For the outdoors type channels, they mostly have drones to capture different perspectives. It seems to me that they are willing to spend the money to make the money - but they are few and far between. Casual users who post on Youtube who do slo-mo... I'll keep my eyes open but I don't recall seeing any.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Is it safe to buy more sigma EF lens or wait until the announcement?




If that lens focuses well on a DPAF SLR in Liveview (or adapted on M5 / M6), one would think you are fine to buy it.

- A


----------



## ketilring (Aug 29, 2018)

R for Retracted/Retractable. 

I think the mount will be a native EF-mount, but new RF lenses wil be able to retract into the mount.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Sigma 135 1.8 Art/Sigma 105 1.4 would work well with Sony if Canon FF mirrorless is lackluster.




Who do you trust more?

A7 + an adaptor from either Sigma or Metabones that may / may not have a licensed AF routine


Canon + an adaptor Canon made that will drive DPAF identically to a native EF mount
That's a no-brainer to me -- unless Sigma licensed Sony's AF vs. Sigma reverse engineering Canon's. 

- A


----------



## Antono Refa (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Eventually something slips because Rome needs to prepare Gaul for the news.
> 
> There are things they can do to keep everything in the electronic space -- photos, manuals, collaterals, etc. -- locked into a turnkey sort of system that is impossible to export without some bush-league screen cap action.



Canon can prevent people from taking photos of the screen with a smartphone? Impressive!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

Antono Refa said:


> Canon can prevent people from taking photos of the screen with a smartphone? Impressive!




No, that's always possible. I'm saying they could be living in a system in which screencaps, cell phone pics, etc. are the only way to export anything. 

- A


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 29, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> It's only natural for Canon to take *R* seeing that Nikon chose *Z* and Leica already had *Q*. Canon, of course, also has *C* so things make perfect sense.



Other than they are all letters of the alphabet, it makes no sense.
Add to it that Canon claimed R as meaning Resolution.
C meaning Cinema. 
Why would a <30 mp body use a R?


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 29, 2018)

R is for Renaissance 
A new Canon, no holding back on technology . 24mp at 20FPS, eye focus, silent shutter, EF compatible mount
Or R is for the Real world
New mount with adapter, 28mp, 6.5 FPS, no eyefocus, inferior focusing system.
I can’t wait to find out


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 29, 2018)

amorse said:


> Or maybe the RF mount has the same mounting ring as an EF but RF lenses protrude well into the camera housing to get a lower flange distance (i.e. the mount is not at the end of the lens, but part way up the barrel to make up that flange difference). It could mean that the camera housing doesn't save size, but some RF lenses could be more like pancake lenses on the body so the mounted size is reduced (for lenses where that's possible i.e. wide angle, slow aperture). EF-S protrudes into the housing somewhat and the lenses are built so they won't mount on EF mount cameras - I wonder if they could do the same with RF but have a more pronounced protrusion into the body?
> 
> If this were the case, then weather sealing shouldn't be impacted, mount adapters wouldn't be needed, and the same size saving options could be possible. The only caveat here would be no using an adapter to mount mirrorless lenses from other systems to the Canon system (not that Canon would mind), unlike Nikon's mirrorless which now has the lowest flange distance and should be able to mount anything once adaptors are built.



But then the throat diameter starts to limit lens design. I don't think Canon wants to do that with short back focus lens designs.


----------



## Michael Clark (Aug 29, 2018)

CanoKnight said:


> If it's really [email protected] , then afaiac it's another piece of garbage from Canon. Canon's intention above everything else is to protect their more expensive line video cameras. Canon can go F themselves.



Canon's reply:

"If you want a real video camera for a still camera price, get it from someone else. Thanks for asking, though."


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> R is for Renaissance
> A new Canon, no holding back on technology . 24mp at 20FPS, eye focus, silent shutter, EF compatible mount
> Or R is for the Real world
> New mount with adapter, 28mp, 6.5 FPS, no eyefocus, inferior focusing system.
> I can’t wait to find out




I have never seen stock in a very specific feature climb so high in value in such a short period of time as Eye AF.

I've never used it before, but can someone convey to me how it went from being a neat new feature to 'if Canon's next camera doesn't have it, I'm setting my house on fire'?

- A


----------



## crashpc (Aug 29, 2018)

Fullstop


> Just got the latest rumor from an unknown source!
> 
> EOS *RF* = "EOS *R*ebel *F*ullframe"
> 
> It will be really small and come at USD/€ 999 MSRP



That is unlike Canon, but It would certainly lure me out for FF again.


----------



## stevelee (Aug 29, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> Wow, only hold the lens while strapping the camera to your body?
> 
> Jack


No, you leave the camera at home and use the lens remotely.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 29, 2018)

nchoh said:


> I watch MSNBC online thru Youtube. There is typically 10 or more uploads of the same show. I don't know how may uploads there really are as NBC actively pulls them down. I have searched for music on YouTube and for each legit video there are XX number of illegal shares.
> 
> After you subtract all the copies that are being uploaded, how many new content is actually uploaded?
> 
> I regularly watch some photography, homesteading, survival, hiking music and car videos on Youtube, so Youtube automatically suggest new channels for me to watch. I don't see too many new channels nor too many independent videos being shot. Most of what I see are Youtubers who are making a living from YouTube videos and consistently put out content. These guys spend the time and money to make good productions. For the outdoors type channels, they mostly have drones to capture different perspectives. It seems to me that they are willing to spend the money to make the money - but they are few and far between. Casual users who post on Youtube who do slo-mo... I'll keep my eyes open but I don't recall seeing any.



I think it is mostly the very popular stuff that gets re-uploaded. I am guessing that the re-oploads only comprise a relatively small fraction of the actual 400 hours a minut, worth of uploads. But lets say re-uploads were 50% of all uploads. 200 hours a minut, is still staggering and that is on youtube alone.

You mention droneshots as being popular. The DJI Maveric drone is actually capable of 120 frames/s in 1080p, so they thought it was important enough to incorporate. The Iphone has been capable of 240 frames/s since version 6, and I see a lot of those super slo-mo videos on instagram, from people my age and younger. I call that pretty casual use of slo-mo. 

Now I know High frame rates are a lot harder to implement on larger, high megapixel sensors. But to say that the utility of slo-mo is to niche to prioritise in a high end DSLR or Mirrorles , really clashes with my experience as a creator and a consumer of media content. 

But I guess we will never know, less we conduct a thorough study


----------



## knight427 (Aug 29, 2018)

This is wrong. The enthusiast camera will be A10, the pro camera will be z8. The mount will be 97.5 mm wide with a 1mm backspace to allow unprecedented lens designs. A 49mm f/0.6 lens will be delivered to your home on the announcement day if you've behaved well on the internets. The sensor, using patented Schrodinger filter technology will allow simultaneous exposure bracketing.* The advanced DIGIC Skynet processor with new machine learning software will learn your shooting habits and eventually take control of your camera and perform photo shoots without you even being present!**


I'd bet my entire Sony lens collection on it. 

*unfortunately, only the exposure you observe first will be retained
**Canon recommends that you keep sharp objects and weapons safely stored and out of reach of your camera


----------



## Jim Saunders (Aug 29, 2018)

R for Round, what else?

Jim


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I have never seen stock in a very specific feature climb so high in value in such a short period of time as Eye AF.
> 
> I've never used it before, but can someone convey to me how it went from being a neat new feature to 'if Canon's next camera doesn't have it, I'm setting my house on fire'?
> 
> - A



I think it makes sens, as much as eye AF is af feature uniq to mirrorless. So one of the points in getting a mirrorless is to get this kind of functionality. If it is not included I think you are right to be a bit bummed out. Just my opinion.


----------



## knight427 (Aug 29, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I think it makes sens, as much as eye AF is af feature uniq to mirrorless. So one of the points in getting a mirrorless is to get this kind of functionality. If it is not included I think you are right to be a bit bummed out. Just my opinion.



Personally, I can't wait for dual FF sensor cameras so they can simulate bokeh.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 29, 2018)

ecpu said:


> This is where I strongly disagree.
> 
> Why can't both coexist? The technology in the sensor and processor is already there... it makes no sense to me to leave out video.




they can co-exist. As long as i get to buy Pure stills cameras. Hybrid Stills+Video should be offered as a "special version" for some cameras, with excellent video specs and consequently higher price for dual capability. It would hopefully also end the forums howling re. "no 4k video", "nerfed Codec", etc. 

For my use, video recording is a negative. It causes design choices in cameras, that are detrimental to stills capture. Sensors and all need to be optimized for extended periods of full-bore video capture with large heat dissipation. Red "Record-Video" buttons in all sorts of places disturb my clean user interface. Video-stuff clutters my menus without user being able to totally remove/suppress those options. Thanks, but no thanks. "Pure stills camera" for me please. Don't understand, why CaNiSo do not offer those. I think it is a much larger niche than those who really need/want stills+video.


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Who do you trust more?
> 
> A7 + an adaptor from either Sigma or Metabones that may / may not have a licensed AF routine
> 
> ...


Canon obviously, but Sigma latest lens perform just as well as native lens. Just watch some Dustin review. He mentioned there might be some Sigma licensing. It's conspiracy theory but it works well.


----------



## Uneternal (Aug 29, 2018)

R could stand for retract as the new Canon will possibly have a mount that moves outwards when an EF lens is attached.
Remember some rumor said the new EOS will have "a sexy solution" to adapt EF lenses.
Sounds to me like something movin in and outwards maybe ...


----------



## Hector1970 (Aug 29, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I think it makes sens, as much as eye AF is af feature uniq to mirrorless. So one of the points in getting a mirrorless is to get this kind of functionality. If it is not included I think you are right to be a bit bummed out. Just my opinion.


Sony's implementation of it is very good. That's my only experience with it. I could see it being very useful . It's a nice use of technology. If they could add a bird focus that would be handy too.


----------



## jmoya (Aug 29, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon's reply:
> 
> "If you want a real video camera for a still camera price, get it from someone else. Thanks for asking, though."


This is the same debate that people had when the 6d mark II was rumored and then released. The lack of 120fps on video and 4K. People were losing their shit and telling people to go screw themselves and switch canon to something else or buy a dedicated video camera. Those people are dumb! Why switch or get a video camera for something that all other manufacture camera companies offer already and have so for years. We just would like canon to catch up with the times. That's all. At least 120 on 1080 would make this perfect. We are in the film making youtube and instagram world. Where photography and video is blended into one and traveling light is essential.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 29, 2018)

Hector1970 said:


> Sony's implementation of it is very good. That's my only experience with it. I could see it being very useful . It's a nice use of technology. If they could add a bird focus that would be handy too.



I actually dont think bird focus sounds to to fare fetched as a future feature


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 29, 2018)

Uneternal said:


> R could stand for retract as the new Canon will possibly have a mount that moves outwards when an EF lens is attached.
> Remember some rumor said the new EOS will have "a sexy solution" to adapt EF lenses.
> Sounds to me like something movin in and outwards maybe ...



That would be sad, since one of the main draw of mirrorless is fewer moving parts. Remove one moving component and develop and add an entirely new one.


----------



## jmoya (Aug 29, 2018)

I don't care how much this thing is I just hope it does video well. We already know canon kills it on the photo side but the video has been lacking. Please give us a workable 4k and atleast 120fps at 1080 for video. The 1dx II is too damn big to haul around all the time. Flippy screen would be nice.


----------



## CanoKnight (Aug 29, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon's reply:
> 
> "..a real video camera for a still camera price.."



Who decides what is a "still camera price" or a "real video camera price" ? You're obviously not familiar with the free market. The world has moved on while Canon, like some of their apologists, have been sleeping under a rock.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Fair point. All that I will say is this: Can I make a perfectly fine video topping out at 60fps? Sure, absolutely, I do it right now. Would I love 120fps to have more options on the editing board, hell yes! Will it decide on whether I want to upgrade to the new new canon or a different brand, for sure. I'm seriously weighing all of my options right now.
> And maybe it's niche to you, but more and more people are getting into video, the niche of niche as was called is getting smaller and smaller. Personally I do photos + video. So being able to have all in one package is really important to me. I already have 2 pelicans worth of gear, not including light stands and whatnot that I have outside of my pelicans. So consolidating a video camera AND stills camera in one box is really important to me. The less stuff I have to carry the better, and thus I want the best bang for the buck in both worlds.
> I don't think that's too much to ask.



And that is it right there. The vast majority of Canon sales do not go to people with 2 pelicans of gear who are looking to reduce that to one and a half pelicans of gear. 
And although you would 'love' 120fps, what percentage of your output actually uses it? 

And yet is people such as yourself who probably posts on youtube, concentrating on an output that is a minority of what you shoot, which give the distorted impression that video is so important to the market. And yet it is you who is the out-of-normal user.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> they can co-exist. As long as i get to buy Pure stills cameras.




Here's the last significant 'pure stills' camera from a major manufacturer:


And by last, I mean the last flippin one the world ever will see.

I respect Fullstop's comment about messing with buttons and controls -- a fair insight (albeit a fairly picky one). I ultimately think this is a referendum on:

What we want to read about here (many of us tune out when 10:2:2 or codecs or video crop get cited). For some, seeing video comments is similar to hearing a different language on the radio and immediately changing the channel.


Whether or not a 'pure stills' or heavily stills-flavored camera should still have an AA filter. (To a still person who isn't shooting fabrics or screen doors all day, the AA filter becomes the concession they wish Canon would stop making to video folks.)
But video is simply not going away, esp. as we (someday) move into an era of mostly mirrorless ILCs, pulling stills from better and better quality video, etc.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 29, 2018)

jmoya said:


> I don't care how much this thing is I just hope it does video well. We already know canon kills it on the photo side but the video has been lacking. Please give us a workable 4k and atleast 120fps at 1080 for video. The 1dx II is too damn big to haul around all the time. Flippy screen would be nice.



What - you mean you can' t take decent video with any camera out there? I suggest it is your skills rather than the camera that is lacking.


----------



## CanoKnight (Aug 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm not a ringer on video, but it seems things went like this:
> 2) Canon does some financial soul-searching as to how best to make money off of this.
> 3) Canon launches the Cinema EOS line.
> - A



Actually Red was a big factor behind the cinema EOS line. Red made a big splash in 2007 which had Hollywood enamored and Canon looking at their own success with the 5D2 a year later, reasoned there was a big untapped market for pro video in Red's price range. That's when they decided to downplay video in their prosumer dslrs going forward. But the world has changed. Today there are brilliant products from Sony and Panasonic that do both photo and high quality video while Canon keeps recycling the same s***.


----------



## mixxinmel (Aug 29, 2018)

man i really hope they dont drop the ball like Nikon did with the Z6 and Z7. They need to get this one right or else Sony will be gaining my money. But i will wait and see what they do and if nothing but disappoint us like they have done in the past. We as Canon users want Eye Auto Focus, Dual Card Slots, EF mount Natively or with adapter, In body Stabilization and Canons color science and also Focusing system of the Canon 5D Mark 4. Do this and im sure we all will be Happy Campers.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

mixxinmel said:


> man i really hope they dont drop the ball like Nikon did with the Z6 and Z7. They need to get this one right or else Sony will be gaining my money. But i will wait and see what they do and if nothing but disappoint us like they have done in the past. We as Canon users want Eye Auto Focus, Dual Card Slots, EF mount Natively or with adapter, In body Stabilization and Canons color science and also Focusing system of the Canon 5D Mark 4. Do this and im sure we all will be Happy Campers.




'Satisfy my list of demands and everyone will be all right.'

This sounds more and more like a hostage situation as we get closer to launch. 

- A

P.S. Welcome to CR!


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 29, 2018)

mixxinmel said:


> man i really hope they dont drop the ball like Nikon did with the Z6 and Z7. They need to get this one right or else Sony will be gaining my money. But i will wait and see what they do and if nothing but disappoint us like they have done in the past. We as Canon users want Eye Auto Focus, Dual Card Slots, EF mount Natively or with adapter, In body Stabilization and Canons color science and also Focusing system of the Canon 5D Mark 4. Do this and im sure we all will be Happy Campers.



I'm a Canon user and couldn't care less about eye AF or in body IS. And no, everyone would not be a happy camper. You meant that *you* would be a happy camper. I'm already a happy camper.

We've got another "ship jumper" here.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm a Canon user and couldn't care less about eye AF or in body IS. And no, everyone would not be a happy camper. You meant that *you* would be a happy camper. I'm already a happy camper.



Just curious from the M50 users: how slick/competent/effective is the Eye AF on that camera? How does it do with large aperture primes? Is it a good presumption that technology will scale well to FF? Do you use it often?

- A


----------



## JordanRushing (Aug 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm already a happy camper.


Then why are you on a thread about a new camera if you're already happy with what you have?


----------



## cgc (Aug 29, 2018)

amorse said:


> Or maybe the RF mount has the same mounting ring as an EF but RF lenses protrude well into the camera housing to get a lower flange distance (i.e. the mount is not at the end of the lens, but part way up the barrel to make up that flange difference). It could mean that the camera housing doesn't save size, but some RF lenses could be more like pancake lenses on the body so the mounted size is reduced (for lenses where that's possible i.e. wide angle, slow aperture). EF-S protrudes into the housing somewhat and the lenses are built so they won't mount on EF mount cameras - I wonder if they could do the same with RF but have a more pronounced protrusion into the body?
> 
> If this were the case, then weather sealing shouldn't be impacted, mount adapters wouldn't be needed, and the same size saving options could be possible. The only caveat here would be no using an adapter to mount mirrorless lenses from other systems to the Canon system (not that Canon would mind), unlike Nikon's mirrorless which now has the lowest flange distance and should be able to mount anything once adaptors are built.



You have just summarized what I have been thinking in the last weeks. The Canon mount could be wide enough for that use. Only wide angle lenses take advantage of short flange distances: these lenses could be redesigned for "the new mount" as you say. The rest of the current Canon collection, including standard zooms, is already OK.

In fact, a Sony mirrorless with the Canon adapter is bulkier compared to any Canon DSLR. The following example demonstrates this: despite the Sigma 35 Art is *1 mm longer* compared with the Canon 24-70 F4L, the Canon system is overal shorter and with much better ergonomics!. Since Sony lenses aren't at all smaller compared to Canon ones (except extreme wide angles) there is not much of an advantage, if any...


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 29, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm a Canon user and couldn't care less about eye AF or in body IS. And no, everyone would not be a happy camper. You meant that *you* would be a happy camper. I'm already a happy camper.
> 
> We've got another "ship jumper" here.





ahsanford said:


> Just curious from the M50 users: how slick/competent/effective is the Eye AF on that camera? How does it do with large aperture primes? Is it a good presumption that technology will scale well to FF? Do you use it often?
> 
> - A



I'm not an m50 user, but on the Sony, I use it nearly every time I'm framing with people. It's not perfect, but it does make things much easier overall. Especially as I usually shoot landscapes, so I able to worry less about where the focus point is, and more on getting a better composition. 

The ibis is also excellent to have, I really hope Canon implement this in their ff mirrorless. I'd be hesitant to get a new Canon without it


----------



## greymuth (Aug 29, 2018)

What if RF == "Reduced-flange EF" -- the same mounting ring and electrical as EF with an reduced flange distance (say 12 mm shorter)?
If you attach a EF lens, you will still get infinity focus but with reduced near-focus range. If you need the full focus range, just add an extension tube.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Aug 29, 2018)

I like the "R" designation. I've shot Canon since the FD days and have often referred to the company as Pirates. So maybe it's really Arrrrrrr.....


----------



## vangelismm (Aug 29, 2018)

Eye AF is the solution for the bad AF spread points in FF DSRL´s. At least for wide open portraits.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 29, 2018)

Isaacheus said:


> I'm not an m50 user, but on the Sony, I use it nearly every time I'm framing with people. It's not perfect, but it does make things much easier overall. Especially as I usually shoot landscapes, so I able to worry less about where the focus point is, and more on getting a better composition.


But does it work any better than any other face detection with hybrid autofocus sensors?


----------



## tmc784 (Aug 29, 2018)

I wont be obsessed on mirrorless cameras, I love DSLR.


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 30, 2018)

Kit. said:


> But does it work any better than any other face detection with hybrid autofocus sensors?



I haven't been able to try it on the Canon 5dmk4 in stills yet, so can't compare them directly - I'd assume they're close but not the same, but mostly as Canon have come out with an eye AF in the m50, as well as the standard face detection. 

Using the back screen on the 5dmk4 for portraits is difficult (clumsy?), but for video it has been decent in face detection


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Then why are you on a thread about a new camera if you're already happy with what you have?




What -- forums are only group therapy for the aggrieved who don't get what they want? 

Some people may want to chat about the technology that might be coming. Or they might want to understand what all the mirrorless fuss is about.

- A


----------



## ken (Aug 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I'm a Canon user and couldn't care less about eye AF or in body IS. And no, everyone would not be a happy camper. You meant that *you* would be a happy camper. I'm already a happy camper.
> 
> We've got another "ship jumper" here.



Ugh. Intolerant responses like this make me wish there was a "mute" button so that I don't have to see responses from specific posters.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

ken said:


> Ugh. Intolerant responses like this make me wish there was a "mute" button so that I don't have to see responses from specific posters.


Doesn't "Ignore" button do what you want?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I think it is mostly the very popular stuff that gets re-uploaded. I am guessing that the re-oploads only comprise a relatively small fraction of the actual 400 hours a minut, worth of uploads. But lets say re-uploads were 50% of all uploads. 200 hours a minut, is still staggering and that is on youtube alone.
> 
> You mention droneshots as being popular. The DJI Maveric drone is actually capable of 120 frames/s in 1080p, so they thought it was important enough to incorporate. The Iphone has been capable of 240 frames/s since version 6, and I see a lot of those super slo-mo videos on instagram, from people my age and younger. I call that pretty casual use of slo-mo.
> 
> ...



I don't think it's in doubt that 120fps+ is a niche - as in literally only a small fraction of the total video currently produced and shared online is filmed that way. I happen to love the creative possibilities of high framerate video, but I don't see much non-phone content out there apart from a few dedicated 'slow motion footage of interesting things' people. I'm intrigued, what are you personally filming at 120-240fps?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I have never seen stock in a very specific feature climb so high in value in such a short period of time as Eye AF.
> 
> I've never used it before, but can someone convey to me how it went from being a neat new feature to 'if Canon's next camera doesn't have it, I'm setting my house on fire'?
> 
> - A



I was just thinking this. It seems to be the latest buzzword. I don't doubt it's of use - for some people, in some situations - but the fact nobody mentioned it a year ago and now it's a must-have on every wishlist is rather puzzling. Seems like once DPR and a few others latch on to something, all the forum dwellers follow suit, regardless of whether they use the feature


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Yeah tell that to the wedding videographers... Not exactly niche of a niche.



I was just at the wedding of the son of a friend. This was a very high end wedding ($20,000 for the band!). They had video, and all of it was shot with - surprise... video cameras. Now, isn’t that amazing? Pros use the best equipment for the job.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I dont know man, but the amount of video footage that is being uploadede every day to youtube alone, is staggering. Moste of it might be shot on phones, but I will bet you that a huge amount is shot on still-cameras. Video is a growing market. It bewilders me that canon isn't pushing there video features more. 120 frames is wicket useful to anybody trying to make video, with a high production value on a budget. It could be that I have blinders on because of the kind of work that I do, but I dont think it is without reason that people keep bringing up 4k and 1080p,120 farms/s.
> 
> Just look at these stats: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/youtube-statistics/
> 
> 400 hours of video uploaded every minut



Of course, there’s a lot of video on You Tube. That’s what it’s for, after all. But I’d guess that most is shot with a smartphone, a video camera, or a small fixed lens still/video camera. I’d be willing to bet that very little is shot with a DSLR, or an ILC mirrorless.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Then why are you on a thread about a new camera if you're already happy with what you have?



Maybe he's tired of people jumping in with "if it doesn't have feature X I'm swapping to Sony!" (or even "Canon is *******!"). You know, balancing out the crazy.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Agree with you -- I never use my SLR to shoot video. I use my iPhone.
> 
> But have you been to this site called [checks glasses] ...Youtube?
> 
> ...


As I replied to another post, I believe, from what I see there, and I know a lot of guys on YouTube, that most of it is shot with phones, video cameras, and small still/video cameras with fixed lenses. go Pros are also used. I’ve seen very few shot with an ILC of any kind, but it’s not zero either.


----------



## crashpc (Aug 30, 2018)

I have read very strong opinions adressing photo purists, that video functions help to put prices down, and that economies of scale are in action, making the camera "unnecessarily" very multipurpose device. Now I hear very strong opinions that you can't have good video function in your camera.

Something is not right here. You can't have it both ways. I start to believe that Canon actually adds more nails to its coffin, by not adding functions and features to the function of their device eventually.
Hello Nokia! ;-)


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 30, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> IMO, this sounds like some patents we have seen in the past where the EF mount would / could be used by two different lens types EF and a yet to be named other. Perhaps the RF mount is simply the same as an EF mount, that accepts EF lenses, and also accepts newer "RF" asynchronous protocol lenses that haven't been developed yet.



I think it's absolutely impossible. If Canon releases a new mount, even fully EF-compatible, they also release a couple of lenses for it.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

crashpc said:


> I have read very strong opinions adressing photo purists, that video functions help to put prices down, and that economies of scale are in action, making the camera "unnecessarily" very multipurpose device. Now I hear very strong opinions that you can't have good video function in your camera.


Some video specs require sensor and DSP performance not needed for photo and/or may result in non-reliable operations (overheating).



crashpc said:


> Something is not right here. You can't have it both ways. I start to believe that Canon actually adds more nails to its coffin, by not adding functions and features to the function of their device eventually.
> Hello Nokia! ;-)


A week ago I replaced my old Sony with a new Nokia - and I actually like its decent size and lack of bloatware.


----------



## tron (Aug 30, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I think it's absolutely impossible. If Canon releases a new mount, even fully EF-compatible, they also release a couple of lenses for it.


Maybe their perception of time is different so it is OK to release new lenses on a much later day


----------



## ecpu (Aug 30, 2018)

Good photo specs and good video specs OR SONY!! lol. but seriously though.


----------



## Bennymiata (Aug 30, 2018)

Hundreds of posts arguing about something that doesn't even exist yet and bashing people about non-existant products.

Grow up guys.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 30, 2018)

Bennymiata said:


> Hundreds of posts arguing about something that doesn't even exist yet and bashing people about non-existant products.
> 
> Grow up guys.



Isn't that what the internet's for? lol


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I think it's absolutely impossible. If Canon releases a new mount, even fully EF-compatible, they also release a couple of lenses for it.




Please clarify what 'fully EF compatible new mount' means to you:

If you mean what everyone else is doing -- thin flange distance plus EF adaptor -- then yes. 100% they need a few new lenses a launch. Hopefully they are lenses that make the size savings pop and are not clones of higher end EF glass (which would send EF users into a panic that EF is going away, even with an adaptor in the mix).


If you mean it's straight up identical physically to EF but it secretly has fancy/improved lens communications, I'd wonder why they did it, have a jillion questions about how this isn't fragmentation of the mount for future lenses a la Nikon. Yes, they could put out a new EF-Fancy 24-70 f/2.8 Special AF to show this off, but I'd just be scratching my head why they did.


If you mean weird new mount that receives two different kinds of lenses, like the EF-X concept or a variable/actuated flange distance, then yes, some nestled/tucked-in lenses would be in order.
But if it's just straight EF, I would argue no new lenses need to be made: kit the damn thing with the 24-105L II or something. In fact, it might be best not to put out new glass at launch. There's no better way to hammer home that EF will be money on this new system than to kit EF with it and show how perfectly it works.

- A


----------



## Isaacheus (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I have never seen stock in a very specific feature climb so high in value in such a short period of time as Eye AF.
> 
> I've never used it before, but can someone convey to me how it went from being a neat new feature to 'if Canon's next camera doesn't have it, I'm setting my house on fire'?
> 
> - A



Even having it in one of my cameras, it's a bit overblown on the internet. It's very useful yes but it's not perfect. 

If Canon don't put it on their next cameras, it'd be a bummer, considering the m50 but that wouldn't be the factor that makes or breaks it for my case


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Then why are you on a thread about a new camera if you're already happy with what you have?



Because I like to read. I don't see what reading a thread has to do with whether I am happy, or not, with what I already have. Your "logic" is very strange. You know? A little curiosity goes a long way in this world. Try it sometimes... just because.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2018)

ken said:


> Ugh. Intolerant responses like this make me wish there was a "mute" button so that I don't have to see responses from specific posters.


Please ignore me. Please do. I'll get over it.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I dont know man, but the amount of video footage that is being uploadede every day to youtube alone, is staggering. Moste of it might be shot on phones, but I will bet you that a huge amount is shot on still-cameras. Video is a growing market. It bewilders me that canon isn't pushing there video features more. 120 frames is wicket useful to anybody trying to make video, with a high production value on a budget. It could be that I have blinders on because of the kind of work that I do, but I dont think it is without reason that people keep bringing up 4k and 1080p,120 farms/s.



Yeah they just want something they don't really need. That is, after they purchase a camera with [email protected], they'll use it once or twice just to have fun with slow motion and that'd be it. I agree it may be a decisive feature for many people but in reality maybe 1% of customers really *need* [email protected]



Frederik_Bo said:


> Just look at these stats: https://expandedramblings.com/index.php/youtube-statistics/
> 
> 400 hours of video uploaded every minut


 And all that video is in [email protected]?


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Please clarify what 'fully EF compatible new mount' means to you:
> 
> If you mean what everyone else is doing -- thin flange distance plus EF adaptor -- then yes. 100% they need a few new lenses a launch. Hopefully they are lenses that make the size savings pop and are not clones of higher end EF glass (which would send EF users into a panic that EF is going away, even with an adaptor in the mix).
> 
> ...



I was responding to an implied statement somewhere above in the thread that the new mount would be backward-compatible with EF, it'd take EF lenses natively but would be called differently and would also take new lenses incompatible with old EF mount. So it was close to your (2) or (3) case.
That is, I can't imagine Canon releasing a new mount and not having already developed lenses for it.


----------



## JBSF (Aug 30, 2018)

Well I think that RF means “Reverse/Forward.” The body will have a little stick shift on the back, and you will shift up or down to select ISO. In months it will be such a hot feature that all Sony fanboys will jump ship and buy Canon. This is in the secret Canon road map that ONLY I HAVE SEEN.


----------



## Refurb7 (Aug 30, 2018)

The R stands for "Really?" As in, really good, or really bad. We'll see which!


----------



## mppix (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Please clarify what 'fully EF compatible new mount' means to you:
> 
> If you mean what everyone else is doing -- thin flange distance plus EF adaptor -- then yes. 100% they need a few new lenses a launch. Hopefully they are lenses that make the size savings pop and are not clones of higher end EF glass (which would send EF users into a panic that EF is going away, even with an adaptor in the mix).
> 
> ...



I believe the EF-X concept (shall we call it RF? - its safe to assume it won't be ER) remains an intriguing option for the follwing reasons
- Huge lens selection available form 11mm to 600mm (or if you want to count up to the 1200mm..)
- Few new "intruding" lenses needed (likely all <=35mm)
- A LOT* of people will pick one up as B or C camera, in part work out the new tech
- No need to convince people that new lenses are coming (see Nikon)
And finally
- If they don't release new "intruding" lenses now, they can always move to slim mount if the experiment fails.

This is risk minimization and leveraging corporate strengths 101. I don't see why Canon would ever do it differently.

* I'd go so fare to guess that EF compatibility can give Canon N.1 spot in FF-MILC next year. This camera is very likely to itch every FF shooter indipendent of spec (well except the extreme ones).


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> 'R' stands for 'Ready to stuff it to Transpo1 and AvTvMFullstop and we'll show them how to make a camera'





Mikehit said:


> And that was Canon's point with the 5D4 - that if you want serious video get a video camera and camera, and their research apparently showed that in general people shooting video with DSLRs shot short segments of video to supplement their stills, not the other way round. I am cynical to some extent in that the processors they had could not handle the volume of FF 4k, and it did smack a bit of post-facto justification but my guess is that it did not worry Canon too much in making that decision.
> 
> Unfortunately most people now get their reviews from places like youtube with content driven by people who are, by definition vloggers who seem to value 4k very highly (even though most of them shoot 1080p) and because of that they get disproportionate voice in what they believe the 'average market' wants. And these same vloggers are often not professoinal reviewers so they pick on _topic du jour _things that are easily pointed out, and 4k, 60p/120p, whatever is part of that.



Canon’s “point” with the 5D4 was twofold: 1) we don’t want to include 4K video functionality that would cannibalize our other products 2) Even if we did, we don’t think 4K sells cameras. 

Both points were wrong, and they have basically now admitted this by putting 4K in more products moving forward. It remains to be see whether a FF mirrorless will supply FF 4K in a manner which will appeal to content producers. 

Vloggers, by the way, influence buying decisions for many. And 4K has penetrated the market more than expected. 60p is more specialized but still necessary for many content creators. 120fps is standard on many prosumer ILCS now. (Not Canons yet, unfortunately.)


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 30, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> moving the goal posts or attempting to?
> and again, this is getting tiresome. the need for 120fps is a niche. period. and videographers that want to use a stills camera with consumer grade codecs and lackluster ergonomics for video instead of getting a proper video camera with video ergonomics and great codecs tailored for the medium?
> it's most certainly a niche (of the buying public) of which a niche would be those that needed 120fps instead of 60fps slo motion video.
> I know there's this all consuming concept of thinking that your needs are those needs of the general buying public but canon with thier massive marketshare has ALREADY demonstrated that having good video isn't necessary to sell cameras.



Admit it- you’re just pissed off because people are talking about video instead of photos. Like it or not, stills cameras have/are becoming hybrid cameras for both. Many content creators use them that way. 

Just because YOU do not, just means the market is moving on from your very narrow definition of it. 

Canon was the one who broke that ground in the first place with the 5DII. Then they lost their way because they wanted to sell high end Cinema EOS cameras. Nothing wrong with that. Except Sony then ate into their cinema camera line with better specs at better prices. 

If Canon wants to regain that market, they better start with video on their stills cameras, because that’s where beginning filmmakers start.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> And my guess is that they are taking advantage of something in the camera they have bought, and the ability to shoot 120fps slow mo is highly (nay,
> extremely) unlikely to be any part of the buying decision.
> I am not denying some use it, but am questioning the importance of it to the market. I use the focus bracketing on my Panasonic camera but I would not buy a camera on that basis alone.



And yet, in an era when even our iPhones can shoot 240fps 1080p, doesn’t it make sense for camera manufacturers to compete with what many average smartphone owners can do? After all, including these features just encourages more people to see a reason to buy cameras, which is good for the industry overall. Not to mention, hybrid photographers/videographers on a budget will make purchasing decisions on value and price and are likely only buying 1-2 cameras. 

Value, by the way, is commonly known in business as how much usefulness a product can deliver for its price to the consumer. If this particular niche which you dismiss needs that feature, Canon may want to include it, since it costs them next to nothing and can only increase the value and sales of their product. 

Not to mention: Joe X may buy a Sony instead of a Canon because it has FF 4K and 120fps for his videography needs but you, being a photographer, are still going to buy a Canon if it includes the same features. Therefore, why not include it? It will only result in a few dollars to you of increased R&D cost passed through to the retail price but will make a world of difference to those that need it.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

mppix said:


> I believe the EF-X concept (shall we call it RF? - its safe to assume it won't be ER) remains an intriguing option for the follwing reasons
> - Huge lens selection available form 11mm to 600mm (or if you want to count up to the 1200mm..)
> - Few new "intruding" lenses needed (likely all <=35mm)




I love any concept that discourages Canon from making a boatload new lenses for the new mount. This is one of them.

So something like this naturally stops Canon from overdoing it -- a 24-70 f/2.8 shaving an inch isn't worth developing / producing / stocking / maintaining an entirely new model to go alongside the EF one. So much like you said above, with this concept only slow/wide glass would really lead to eye-popping size savings, and hopefully Canon would have the discipline to not build anything more than that (and focus on new EF glass).

I am concerned if Canon pulls a Nikon and rolls out this:

​
Canon's not typically in the roadmap business (they didn't do it with EOS M if memory serves), but even the _implication_ the above (i.e. cloning staple F mount pro glass into the Z mount) is in the works would be troubling. I want them to subdivide the lens FL / aperture universe to 'stuff that will make a noticeably smaller rig without a mirror' and 'stuff that will not'. Leave EF to serve the latter!

- A


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Please ignore me. Please do. I'll get over it.



"
*CanonFanBoy*
*Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.*

Psssst... its happening.


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> As long as i get to buy Pure stills cameras. Hybrid Stills+Video should be offered as a "special version" for some cameras, with excellent video specs and consequently higher price for dual capability.



I'll try my best to answer.

Nikon had their Df but that was a video-capable camera that just had a missing record button - not what you're after.

What you're really asking for is a new, stills-dedicated sensor. It'll be insanely expensive compared to current cameras as they currently take advantage of massive economies of scale 

If (and I find this unlikely) a company does this and it sells well, they'll split their market which removes some of those economies of scale from their video-capable camera. They'll be priced out of much of the market and the resulting drop in revenue will cut into r&d leading to lacklustre products and the company's eventual collapse.

If they do it and it doesn't sell well the opportunity cost of all that money they invested means the resulting drop in revenue will cut into r&d leading to lacklustre products and the company's eventual collapse.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> I was just at the wedding of the son of a friend. This was a very high end wedding ($20,000 for the band!). They had video, and all of it was shot with - surprise... video cameras. Now, isn’t that amazing? Pros use the best equipment for the job.



The question is - are you actually doing weddings? If not, then your reply is as much informed, as a wishful thinking of @rrcphoto. And we might also differ by regions, right? 20K USD wedding? I can tell you, that here in CZK, photographers earn something like 500-600 USD usually, top ones, something like 1200 USD. Typical wedding budget might be 5K USD.

We are actually doing weddings. Typical wedding external services are DJ, videographer, photographer. It is something like 10-20% of videographers doing it using a dedicated videocamera. I don't even say "profi" camera, as some guys are using just a rather consumber video cameras. Last month, 3 weekends, we could see a 70D, 80D and Panasonic GH2. Videographers are slowly getting into stabilisers, drones. SW used mostly PowerDirector, Sony Vegas and the likes - no Premiere, no Resolve. We are not talking a Hollywood productions here. And don't let me even start on the proper scene lightning aspects of your so called "pros".

So - if ppl doing a wedding business tell you what is important to them, I find it quite ignoratnt to claim, it is a niche or that the feature is not needed. Noone wants a dedicated camera, if we are very close to just have it all in terms of one package.


----------



## Megapixel (Aug 30, 2018)

Who really cares what's its called does it make a difference to the image it produces?


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2018)

fox40phil said:


> 2 card slots...eye AF, IBIS, DP, and high MP EVF!!



I thought we are talking about Canon. No?


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2018)

bokehmon22 said:


> Give us this option please even if you price it the same as A7RIII/Z7.



You are greedy. you gotta be "Canon Realistic"


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2018)

miketcool said:


> EOS R = EOS Revolution
> 
> This is for the revolving adaptable mount that accepts EF-M and EF lenses.



I really Wish R stands for Revolution. I am talking about real revolution not what the Canon fan boys things as revolution


----------



## goldenhusky (Aug 30, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Wedding photographer != Wedding videographer
> Wedding videography is a niche, just like anything else. If you're a wedding videographer in 2018, and you're cinematic/artistic at all, I guarantee you they're shooting at least in 60fps for a majority of their footage, sans any parts that are spoken. So no, not niche of a niche..



Listen you got to understand Canon fans knows everything, and I mean everything in the world and Canon always knows everything better than the whole world combined you know why because they are #1. If a Canon fan says nobody should be using a DSLR or a mirroless camera to shoot videos you just have to throw away all your DSLRs and mirrorless camera that you shoot videos with and go buy the $33000 EOS C700FF. If you don't spend $33k on a body to shoot video you are not smart period . Very importantly you should not have any opinions against what Canon fans thinks is correct if you do you gotta be banned from opening your mouth. If anyone criticizes Canon's foolish decision and their products that person is put on death row immediately . Please keep in mind if Canon fans does not need a feature no one in the world should be asking for that even if all Canon's competitors offer those. You have to go buy competitors product just because Canon fans think so.


----------



## archiea (Aug 30, 2018)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



I know I’m gonna get a lot of hate for this, even some death threats, probably meet a terrible painful end....but I hope the make an R Mount!

1) R mount plus adapter = full speed EF mount!
2) R mount opens use of old FD glass...
3) native R mount optimises design of flange distance for future updates, i.e. nikon’s plans for the Z mount.
4) optimize solutions to Ray Angle issues that plague digital sensors with wide angle lenses.
5)opens up third party lens fun and spfx lens

New era for canon as the EF electronic mount was, so its important canon does it right!

This bellyaching that there are no new lenses off the bat. Yes the M has been slow, but its a consumer platform. Hobbiest have the ef11-22 wide angle, 28mm macro , F2 22mm prime, and various zoom ranges. With the new ef-m prime coming, its got enough for its market. No less that what ef-s mount have.

Big things:
1) flippy screen
2) two card slots
3) 3.5 -4.2 million pixel evf
4) dual pixel focus
5) touch screen with touch drag
6) real EOS software and bits for speed
7) fast wireless with upload while you shoot.
8) traditional tethered USB3
9) hdmi out 4K
10) m5 button layout with programmable buttons
11) good battery, perhaps using the 5D battery size!!!!
12) fast fastfast! None if the M5 slowness with native flashes or button response.
13) $3400 price tag to ensure we get the above...


----------



## bhf3737 (Aug 30, 2018)

JordanRushing said:


> Fair point. All that I will say is this: Can I make a perfectly fine video topping out at 60fps? Sure, absolutely, I do it right now. Would I love 120fps to have more options on the editing board, hell yes! Will it decide on whether I want to upgrade to the new new canon or a different brand, for sure. I'm seriously weighing all of my options right now.
> And maybe it's niche to you, but more and more people are getting into video, the niche of niche as was called is getting smaller and smaller. Personally I do photos + video. So being able to have all in one package is really important to me. I already have 2 pelicans worth of gear, not including light stands and whatnot that I have outside of my pelicans. So consolidating a video camera AND stills camera in one box is really important to me. The less stuff I have to carry the better, and thus I want the best bang for the buck in both worlds.
> I don't think that's too much to ask.



If you are after quality of your final video product, more frames does not mean better quality.
(1) More resolution, (2) more sensitivity, (3) more bit rate, (4) more bit depth, and (5) better codec mean better quality, period. 
More frames only contribute to special effects/looks (slow motion, jagged effect, etc.) that you may want to have and from this perspective, it is a very niche usage. 
Photo-oriented cameras from any manufacturer you name it, do not offer ALL 5 in one place. If you are after better quality the only option is a dedicated video camera.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> And yet, in an era when even our iPhones can shoot 240fps 1080p, doesn’t it make sense for camera manufacturers to compete with what many average smartphone owners can do? After all, including these features just encourages more people to see a reason to buy cameras, which is good for the industry overall. Not to mention, hybrid photographers/videographers on a budget will make purchasing decisions on value and price and are likely only buying 1-2 cameras.
> 
> Value, by the way, is commonly known in business as how much usefulness a product can deliver for its price to the consumer. If this particular niche which you dismiss needs that feature, Canon may want to include it, since it costs them next to nothing and can only increase the value and sales of their product.
> 
> Not to mention: Joe X may buy a Sony instead of a Canon because it has FF 4K and 120fps for his videography needs but you, being a photographer, are still going to buy a Canon if it includes the same features. Therefore, why not include it? It will only result in a few dollars to you of increased R&D cost passed through to the retail price but will make a world of difference to those that need it.


there are plenty of trade offs to high framerate shooting. Professional camera companies usally make sure it is done right or pretty good before they implement such features. (sometimes they dont liek the overheating sony products) Just because a cellphone does it doesnt mean a camera with a bigger sensor with different codecs and processors can handle it properly for professional use on large screens. ALso it might increase the cost of the production of camera.


----------



## Woody (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I am concerned if Canon pulls a Nikon and rolls out this:
> View attachment 179987



Agreed. Nikon's mistake is not knowing what consumers want.

Owners of interchangeable lens cameras want a suitably large sensor. The Nikon 1 MILC sensors were too small (for a rather expensive set-up).

Now, owners of MILCs desire a small and lightweight package. Nikon's Z mount is too big; their simple 50 mm f/1.8 lens now weighs 400 g (and again, cost a lot more)!

Sigh... such a pity.


----------



## Sharlin (Aug 30, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> Other than they are all letters of the alphabet, it makes no sense.
> Add to it that Canon claimed R as meaning Resolution.
> C meaning Cinema.
> Why would a <30 mp body use a R?



The letters in my post are links, you might want to take a look. It was just a silly math joke.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> If a Canon fan says nobody should be using a DSLR or a mirroless camera to shoot videos you just have to throw away all your DSLRs and mirrorless camera that you shoot videos with and go buy the $33000 EOS C700FF. If you don't spend $33k on a body to shoot video you are not smart period



that is not my position and generally also not of most other "non video" posters here.

i understand that "large-sensored" video equipment - cameras and "cine" lenses - is "prohibitively expensive" for many users and uses. of course 1500 - 3000 usd/€ FF-sensored hybrid stills/video cameras are very attractive to video users in addition to needing only 1 set of gear for video and stills images. fair enough, no problem.

what i dont like are the constant demands for *each and every* single new camera to be "filled to the gills" with "all the latest and greatest video features" even when
1. vast majority of purchasers will never capture (serious) video ever
2. some of those video features are at the expense of "best possible stills image quality" and user interface for stills shooters - especially in cameras with mirrors in lightpath, that are "not naturally-born video recording devices
3. video users not willing to pay a cent for dual use cameras, oh no they want "maximum 4k video in every camera from entry level Rebel, EOS M all the way to 5D class" ... "for free".

because of this clamoring we all are getting mostly "sub-optimal" products:
* video users get stills cameras with "less than ideal video features" and complain
* stills shooters have to pay for and get video features in hardware (eg sensor, imaging pipeline, heat management, control layout...) and software (eg codecs, menu system, ...) they dont need and are not conducive to best stills image IQ and shooting experience.

simple solution to this dilemma would be so easy: separate "video enabled" versions for some/many/all cameras. basic model is "stills, video only as needed for mirrorfree operation (EVF, liveview/main display) but no recording, no video out".

plus an enhanced "hybrid" version with max. technically possible video capabilities added - available for those who really need/want it - at a fair, higher price. a 25-33% "video surcharge" should cover additional costs for hardware, software, development needed for video and would still be a fair price for dual-use functionality.

we would then also quickly see, whether "video/hybrid" users are just demanding "free lunch all the time" or are willing to put their wallets where their mouth is. 

in this context it would be very interesting to see (ratio of) unit sales numbers for Sony A7S models versus "A7 base model" and A7R versions. 

my guess is, that A7s models account for less than 10% of units sold of the respective camera generation. it might be 25% if A7/R models would have "video out". don't think real market demand for "hybrid/convergence" is more than that in this category of imaging gear (consumer/prosumer level).


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I was just thinking this. It seems to be the latest buzzword. I don't doubt it's of use - for some people, in some situations - but the fact nobody mentioned it a year ago and now it's a must-have on every wishlist is rather puzzling. Seems like once DPR and a few others latch on to something, all the forum dwellers follow suit, regardless of whether they use the feature



When someone like Jason Lanier gets hold of the Sony cameras recently he raves about the sensor and eye AF. It gets disproportionate airtime and becomes a meme.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Then they lost their way because they wanted to sell high end Cinema EOS cameras.



So now when a manufacturer produces a body that you do not want, it is called 'losing their way'?
The 5D2 gave them a view on which way the market was headed and they made a decision based on that feedback - and their decision was that if people were serious about video they would buy into a dedicated video system. Whether you agree with that decision is one thing, but just because you do not agree with it does not necessarily mean they are 'losing their way'. 
And I know you hate looking at sales figures as a judgement as to whether they got their marketing decision right, but the Cxxx system has been successful and since the introductoin of the 5D2 theyhave increased and consolidated their market share. 

So it looks to me like _at the time_ their decision was the correct one.
The next question is whether the market place has changed and it seems it has. The success of a company is how quickly and effectively they can change with it. In the product development cycle the growth of DSLR-based video is still very young (not even one of Canon's lifecycles) so I suggest you hold fire before accusing them of 'losing their way'.


----------



## Stuart (Aug 30, 2018)

Last year on the 5th Sept they announced the Photo Marathon - https://asia.canon/en/consumer/PhotoMarathon2017/news?contentType=PRESS_RELEASE&max=30
and this year a printer app will be available from the 5th Sept - https://www.therecycler.com/posts/canon-launches-new-instant-mini-printer/

I do hope its a mirroless 6Dmk2 but ...


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I don't think it's in doubt that 120fps+ is a niche - as in literally only a small fraction of the total video currently produced and shared online is filmed that way. I happen to love the creative possibilities of high framerate video, but I don't see much non-phone content out there apart from a few dedicated 'slow motion footage of interesting things' people. I'm intrigued, what are you personally filming at 120-240fps?



Well in early september I will be shooting a couple of short fashion films for a lokal cloathing brand. As I need slo-mo and my dayli camera for stilles is a Canon 6D, I will now have to rent a camera. It might not Sound like a big deal, but everything is on a very tight budget, so renting equipment is a real constraint for me. I will probably be renting a Sony a7iii and a dji ronin, though if the price difference isn’t to big I will go for a canon c200.

So I guess I am that exact guy that Sony is trying to lure away from canon. I do both stills and video and I do a lot of stuff for small companies that can’t afford big productions.


----------



## -pekr- (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> Well in early september I will be shooting a couple of short fashion films for a lokal cloathing brand. As I need slo-mo and my dayli camera for stilles is a Canon 6D, I will now have to rent a camera. It might not Sound like a big deal, but everything is on a very tight budget, so renting equipment is a real constraint for me. I will probably be renting a Sony a7iii and a dji ronin, though if the price difference isn’t to big I will go for a canon c200.
> 
> So I guess I am that exact guy that Sony is trying to lure away from canon I do both stills and video and I do a lot of stuff for small companies that can’t afford big productions.



I have considered Blackmagic pocket camera, considered it being professional, as it comes from the video guys. And then I was told by canonites, that it might not have enough of a dynamic range. Now they seem to have new version with 4K, slow mo, 13 stops DR etc., for 1200$. I wonder, if that might be a good alternative? I know it is 4/3" only, but that might be relative to the whole ecosystem and needs for a wedding videos. As for stabiliser, we will go for Ronin-S, or Crane 2.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> I was just at the wedding of the son of a friend. This was a very high end wedding ($20,000 for the band!). They had video, and all of it was shot with - surprise... video cameras. Now, isn’t that amazing? Pros use the best equipment for the job.



Well I have been on professional productions that used a 5d mark II back when it was the hot video DSLR. 2 weeks ago I was on 2 music videos, produced by universal music, and we shot those on Panasonic GH 5 cameras. I don’t think everything is as black and white as you make it out to be.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Yeah they just want something they don't really need. That is, after they purchase a camera with [email protected], they'll use it once or twice just to have fun with slow motion and that'd be it. I agree it may be a decisive feature for many people but in reality maybe 1% of customers really *need* [email protected]
> 
> 
> And all that video is in [email protected]?



No but if only a fraction of that market uses that feature it is still a huge market. 
Just like landscape photography is only a fraction of the total stills market. That does not keep canon from adding features that are useful to landscape photographers, in to their cameras, like bracketing and a tilt screen.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

-pekr- said:


> I have considered Blackmagic pocket camera, considered it being professional, as it comes from the video guys. And then I was told by canonites, that it might not have enough of a dynamic range. Now they seem to have new version with 4K, slow mo, 13 stops DR etc., for 1200$. I wonder, if that might be a good alternative? I know it is 4/3" only, but that might be relative to the whole ecosystem and needs for a wedding videos. As for stabiliser, we will go for Ronin-S, or Crane 2.



I don’t think black magic is a bad choice. They are really easy to use, unlike Sony and they can do raw if you need that. Personally I make a lot of solo run and gun type stuff so I think I will go for something with both autofocus and IBIS.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> No but if only a fraction of that market uses that feature it is still a huge market.
> Just like landscape photography is only a fraction of the total stills market. That does not keep canon from adding features that are useful to landscape photographers, in to their cameras, like bracketing and a tilt screen.



What 'features' are unique to landscpe photography?


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

archiea said:


> I know I’m gonna get a lot of hate for this, even some death threats, probably meet a terrible painful end....but I hope the make an R Mount!
> 
> 1) R mount plus adapter = full speed EF mount!
> 2) R mount opens use of old FD glass...
> ...



This guy gets it


----------



## jolyonralph (Aug 30, 2018)

One thing that bugs me...

With DSLRs the APS-C cameras can use full-frame lenses. If we see an eventual shift two TWO mirrorless mounts, one for APS-C (EF-M) and one for FF (RF) then we'll lose that advantage. Cheaper FF lenses (eg 50mm) that should be idea for the APS-C world won't be compatible.

Now, if the RF mount is just a rebranding of the EF-M mount for lenses that are full frame, and RF lenses fit and work on EF-M mount cameras, then that's not a problem.

Of course, both can use EF lenses with suitable adaptors, so it's not necessarily the biggest problem. But it does add a level of confusion to the Canon lens range.


----------



## MartinF. (Aug 30, 2018)

"R" for "retractable" - a sensor that can be moved closer to the mount to shorten flange distrance with "EF-R" lenses, but can also take EF lenses OR "retactable" for a protuding rear element on EF-R lenses, but a mount that also can take native EF lenses.
My quess is that Mirrorless from Canon will not require an adaptor but will be either an EF-S like (EF-R) solution or a moveable sensor.
Extra space between rear lens element and sensor could be used for at curtain that protect the sensor during lens changes.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> What 'features' are unique to landscpe photography?



Very few features are unique to any genre of photography, but som are way more useful in some genres then others.
I don’t know how often bracketing is used, but it is a feature that is especially useful if you want to do HDR landscape shots.
I don’t think it is unreasonable for the minority of people who does this kind of photography, to expect things like bracketing to be a standard feature.

I think the same goes for the more advanced video features. You might not be needing 120 frames all the time, but if you shoot, som what varied video content, chances are you are going to need it sometimes.


----------



## fullstop (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I don’t think it is unreasonable for the minority of people who does this kind of photography, to expect things like bracketing to be a standard feature.



agreed. 1) It costs close to nothing to implement and 2) it does not get in the way of stills image quality and 3. does not negatively impact camera handling for stills capture and 4) expands stills capture functionality. 



Frederik_Bo said:


> I think the same goes for the more advanced video features. You might not be needing 120 frames all the time, but if you shoot, som what varied video content, chances are you are going to need it sometimes.



not agreed. Because
1) it is not cheap to implement and cost for it has to be paid by *all* purchasers including majority of never-video users
2) it causes compromises in sensor and camera design that are either directly detrimental to optimal stills image quality or at least the money could be saved or better spent on more advanced "stills features and IQ".
3) it gets in the way of camera handling for stills capture. Unnecessary buttons ["marked in red stupid record video button in the most annoying of places for example] and unnecessarily clutter in menu system. All the way down to the tiniest details ... e.g. the "Video mode" position on some camera mode dials is wasted on folks like me.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> "
> *CanonFanBoy*
> *Bipolar. When it is happening I don't realize it.*
> 
> Psssst... its happening.



Don't worry, unlike some around here I have the negative pole tied behind my back. There won't be any jumping... unlike those who threaten jumping around here all the time.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

fullstop said:


> agreed. 1) It costs close to nothing to implement and 2) it does not get in the way of stills image quality and 3. does not negatively impact camera handling for stills capture and 4) expands stills capture functionality.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well it seems to me that, it is a cost bennifit analysis then. What are the costs to implementing video, in the relation to the benefits? Are there any synegies? You do a great job at outlining the potential downsides of implementing video, but what about all the upsides. I bet that there are great benefits from mergin the technologies, now and ind the future. For instance, global electronic shutters, which are of great benefit in videocameras might work there way in to stills cameras faster then they otherwise would have. This could lead to true silent shooting, higher frame rates and such. There are properly similar benefits to stills shooting, that come from the added heat dispersion, needed for video. (one could imagine that the bette cooling, would have a positive effect on noise, but I dont know)
When you have a professional mirrorless camera, you are so close to also having build a semi pro videocamera, that it seems foolish from a cost bennifit perspective not to make it some what of a hybrid. 

I might be a little more sympathetic to your plight, if camera manufactures were starting to add, xlr inputs, SDI out and SD harddisc readers to stills cameras. But they are not.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

mppix said:


> - Huge lens selection available form 11mm to 600mm (or if you want to count up to the 1200mm..)



Don't forget the 800L!


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So now when a manufacturer produces a body that you do not want, it is called 'losing their way'?
> The 5D2 gave them a view on which way the market was headed and they made a decision based on that feedback - and their decision was that if people were serious about video they would buy into a dedicated video system. Whether you agree with that decision is one thing, but just because you do not agree with it does not necessarily mean they are 'losing their way'.
> And I know you hate looking at sales figures as a judgement as to whether they got their marketing decision right, but the Cxxx system has been successful and since the introductoin of the 5D2 theyhave increased and consolidated their market share.
> 
> ...



Nah, I won’t- they lost their way, their momentum and their leadership with regards to DSLR video. 

Canon’s risk averse culture prevented them from leading the way with FF video in DSLRs and MILC and now they are playing catch up in that regard. 

Now they will risk cannibalizing their DSLRs to get the MILC money and one hopes they finally see the value of FF 4K in a stills hybrid body to meet the specs of competitors. 

Just because you don’t like the truth, doesn’t make it go away.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Canon’s “point” with the 5D4 was twofold: 1) we don’t want to include 4K video functionality that would cannibalize our other products 2) Even if we did, we don’t think 4K sells cameras.



This is supposition - we don't know for sure what their reasoning was. My guess would be either they didn't think it was a priority on a 5 series camera when it was launched, and perhaps some technical details about heat dissipation or data thoughput.



transpo1 said:


> Both points were wrong, and they have basically now admitted this by putting 4K in more products moving forward.



Even if your suppositions above _were_ correct, this conclusion does not necessarily follow. If they didn't think it was necessary when the 5D4 was launched, that doesn't mean things haven't changed in the meantime (or even that they had an internal roadmap for introducing it in future models even back then). And if it was a technical challenge, maybe they've solved it.



transpo1 said:


> And yet, in an era when even our iPhones can shoot 240fps 1080p, doesn’t it make sense for camera manufacturers to compete with what many average smartphone owners can do?



First, you do realise that some things are easier to implement on a phone? A tiny sensor with a big computer attached - less heat generated, and much more processing power. People who claim that because a phone can do X, every high end camera should also do it seem to have no conception of the difference in how those devices work (not to mention, just because a phone has a spec, doesn't mean the output quality matches that of a dedicated camera). Second, on a more general point: *high end *ILC cameras are not competing with camera phones for the most part. People in the market for a 5D4 or even a 6D2 are considering spending thousands of dollars on a big, heavy, complicated device - they either have a need that only this type of device can fulfil, or they have enough money that it does't matter. And virtually everyone buying these cameras already has a phone anyway.


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> Very few features are unique to any genre of photography, but som are way more useful in some genres then others.
> I don’t know how often bracketing is used, but it is a feature that is especially useful if you want to do HDR landscape shots.
> I don’t think it is unreasonable for the minority of people who does this kind of photography, to expect things like bracketing to be a standard feature.


Bracketing was a standard feature since film photoghraphy for cameras that were able to take burst shots, where it was _not_ used for HDR landscapes.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> Well it seems to me that, it is a cost bennifit analysis then.



I think it's fair to assume everything in Canon's cameras is subject to a cost-benefit analysis (and every other manufacturer too!). A great deal of the arguing on these forums can be boiled down to - some people think that, however odd a decision may seem to us, the company has looked into it and decided that including or exclusing a feature was (or wasn't) worth the cost for the benefit - while others (I'm not talking about you incidentally, this is a general point; the people tending to throw around terms like 'fanboy') think it's a big conspiracy, and Canon are somehow cynical or mean or even stupid.

Fundamentally, we all have slightly different needs and desires, and no device can satisfy them all.


----------



## ecpu (Aug 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't worry, unlike some around here I have the negative pole tied behind my back. There won't be any jumping... unlike those who threaten jumping around here all the time.


There will be jumping to Sony if this camera doesn't deliver... for me at least. I've already sold two of my three canon bodies and most of my lenses. I'm ready to go, but would prefer to stay if they deliver a good camera that works for me for both photo and video work.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I think it's fair to assume everything in Canon's cameras is subject to a cost-benefit analysis (and every other manufacturer too!). A great deal of the arguing on these forums can be boiled down to - some people think that, however odd a decision may seem to us, the company has looked into it and decided that including or exclusing a feature was (or wasn't) worth the cost for the benefit - while others (I'm not talking about you incidentally, this is a general point; the people tending to throw around terms like 'fanboy') think it's a big conspiracy, and Canon are somehow cynical or mean or even stupid.
> 
> Fundamentally, we all have slightly different needs and desires, and no device can satisfy them all.



I could not agree more  Companies do make mistakes though. So I think there is room for discussion. After all, the camera market is not static. Big companies that was nonce household names, have been relagated to small time players, gone bankrupt or have been taken over by the competition. One could argue, that Canon and Nikon has been doing something wrong for years, given that Sony has mannaged to gain a foodhold in the Pro Photography market.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Canon’s “point” with the 5D4 was twofold: 1) we don’t want to include 4K video functionality that would cannibalize our other products 2) Even if we did, we don’t think 4K sells cameras.


you have absolutely no clue on this. it's just as likely as they were not able to implement 4k h.264 on DIGIC 6 which was the DIGIC available to them, that MJPEG was the only way around that.

2) is correct, Canon didn't NEED 4K to sell cameras the last 4 years where have you been?


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Nah, I won’t- they lost their way, their momentum and their leadership with regards to DSLR video.
> 
> Canon’s risk averse culture prevented them from leading the way with FF video in DSLRs and MILC and now they are playing catch up in that regard.
> 
> ...



But ... is your truth true? Not sure in these times... Well, Sony cannibalized their fixed mirror cameras/ E mount with their ML products, didn't they? And obviously, they survived that. 

In fact, I like the idea of having an "R" camera line, so people could say: "eRrrrrr ... ist this rRreally a Canon?"  

Seriously, I'd love to have a ML camera that doesn't feed spec-fetishists but just is a good tool for taking images and shooting video.

Looking back in Canon's history, they performed always in a strange mix between periods of technological leadership and periods of stubborn conservatism. Same with Nikon, even more, in fact. We shouldn't forget here that Canon e.g. advanced CMOS sensor technology when nearly every other manufacturer used CCD sensors, because CMOS technology was regarded as too noisy.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> Well I have been on professional productions that used a 5d mark II back when it was the hot video DSLR. 2 weeks ago I was on 2 music videos, produced by universal music, and we shot those on Panasonic GH 5 cameras. I don’t think everything is as black and white as you make it out to be.


Didn't Mad Max:Fury Road use 5D II's in their filming? I think they used them as a relatively cheap camera capable of capturing some of the action scenes where the camera could be destroyed.


----------



## rrcphoto (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> they will risk cannibalizing their DSLRs to get the MILC money


they started to do that WAY before the full frame mirrorless. The EF-M has been eating into their Rebel sales quite a bit. however it's certainly not proven that Canon cares to protect the DSLR sales in anyway, I think they are just as happy to sell you any camera. They are quite proud for instance, of the M50 acceptance in the marketplace.


----------



## memoriaphoto (Aug 30, 2018)

Of course you will be able to run EF lenses on it...


fox40phil said:


> 2 card slots...eye AF, IBIS, DP, and high MP EVF!!



This...


----------



## maxfactor9933 (Aug 30, 2018)

they just need to ditch the mirror and leave the camera body as it is. 
maybe some build in ND filters or polarise filters instead of mirror mechanism. 

just look at the sony lenses. they have adaptor literally welded to every single lens. I rather to have only one adaptor welded to my body. if you think properly it will be lighter and smaller.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

Kit. said:


> Bracketing was a standard feature since film photoghraphy for cameras that were able to take burst shots, where it was _not_ used for HDR landscapes.



Sorry if I was not clear. I did not mean to say that bracketing is only for HDR landscape photography. I was trying to say that it is a function, which is especially useful when doing landscape photography and that it is a camera function which most photographers properly only use on a fraction of there photos.

My point was that, it would not make much sens for the people who never or very seldom use bracketing, to complaint about the inclusion of this feature in a camera. The same as I dont think it makes much sens for people to complaint about the inclusion of advanced video features, because it is not a feature that is used all the time, by everybody. 

Prehaps I could have used a better feature as a analogy, but bracketing was the one that sprang to minde.


----------



## Frederik_Bo (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> Didn't Mad Max:Fury Road use 5D II's in their filming? I think they used them as a relatively cheap camera capable of capturing some of the action scenes where the camera could be destroyed.



Sounds right


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 30, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Don't worry, unlike some around here I have the negative pole tied behind my back. There won't be any jumping... unlike those who threaten jumping around here all the time.




its just as easy to ignore those types of comments


----------



## snappy604 (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> Sounds right



egads.. I cringe to think 5d MkIIs are cheap enough to destroy.


----------



## Sibir Lupus (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> People have been assuming it will be an R-to-EF adapter. Maybe these early models have option of 2 adapters that fit to the body? So on the face of it, the camera rolls out with an EF mount, which is basically a mount that protrudes the required flange distance for EF lenses to work. But there are a set of internal connections that enable the entire mount to be removed and an R mount inserted as and when the R lenses become available?
> Maybe this will be a factory retro-fit because of the weather-sealing required.
> Once the R lenses come out the bodies will be available in R or EF.



You bring up a good possibility for the mount. Another idea I've had is similar but the the EF mount would be more of a drop-in adapter with glass to reduce the flange distance down to a mirrorless camera flange distance (16mm, 18mm, etc). The mount can then be changed out by the user to another mount for new native FF mirrorless lenses (rumored RF lenses) and/or a possible PL cinema lenses mount.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

ha ha ha, So, like the rumors had suggested, canon *might* officially have to support two mirrorless mounts with lenses (and whatever EF refreshes it has to get out of the way), or ditch EF-M 

Well, if so, they have their work cut out for them while Nikon/Sony focus only on one mirrorless mount. 

Oh I can't wait to see if this pans out to be true. But it makes perfect sense. Canon's EF mount would produce mirrorless bodies with a snout and it only seemed inevitable for them to go to a new mount while everybody else was doing the same. There is not going to be a better time to play catchup to SLR lens lineups than when Sony/Nikon are doing the same.

exciting times.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Nah, I won’t- they lost their way,



Considering the commercial success of Canon products I would say the general public disagree with you.


----------



## Respinder (Aug 30, 2018)

Oh god - I hope these rumors are not true. To me, if the "new mount" doesn't somehow support EF, this is going to be a disastrous decision. If Canon wants to be serious about a brand new mount, then they would need to come in with bodies that are truly a mirrorless-interpretation of current DSLR bodies. This is exactly what I appreciated about the Nikon Z - to me its got the best body design I've ever seen for mirrorless. My assumption as some had suggested was that Canon would stick to a more traditional DSLR body or a "slim DSLR" body, but a body more akin to the EOS-M isn't going to be doing any favors. This will just end up being another EOS-M series.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> I could not agree more  Companies do make mistakes though. So I think there is room for discussion. After all, the camera market is not static. Big companies that was nonce household names, have been relagated to small time players, gone bankrupt or have been taken over by the competition. One could argue, that Canon and Nikon has been doing something wrong for years, given that Sony has mannaged to gain a foodhold in the Pro Photography market.



Companies make mistakes of course, but some of the regulars on these forums have been listening for years to people popping up and saying Canon are wrong, and going the way of Nokia etc - but they have maintained or even improved their position (sales, revenue, etc). As for letting Sony in - there's no robust evidence that Sony has taken market share from Canon as opposed to other manufacturers. Of course one could argue that without Sony, Canon might have an even bigger share - but given they've continued to be the biggest camera seller thoughout the Sony era, I think they evidence such as it is does not favour that interpretation. Nikon - harder to say, and I have no insight into their position.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

Offhand (so that I don’t have to do it) does anyone have the specs for the diameter of Nikon’s new mount and Canon”s EOS mount, as well as the respective flange distances?

I’m now curious as what physical advantages Nikon’s Mount may offer, if any, other than a thinner body, which doesn’t mean much to me.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> egads.. I cringe to think 5d MkIIs are cheap enough to destroy.


To be fair, the film was released in 2014, so they must have been filming in 2012/2013 and by that time 5Dii would be a generation behind. Compared to traditional video cameras used for feature films, 5Dii's would be a bargain! What I find most interesting is 5DII's had video specs that were up to the task - Canon is often criticized for video capabilities, but here the cameras are being used for a specialty need in a feature film and I don't hear anyone complaining about the video quality in Mad Max.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> Offhand (so that I don’t have to do it) does anyone have the specs for the diameter of Nikon’s new mount and Canon”s EOS mount, as well as the respective flange distances?
> 
> I’m now curious as what physical advantages Nikon’s Mount may offer, if any, other than a thinner body, which doesn’t mean much to me.


Pretty sure it's the following (I've included EF-M since that could set precedent for what Canon selects as their flange distance for a new mount):
EF diameter - 54mm; flange - 44mm
Z diameter - 55mm; flange - 16mm
EF-M diameter - 47mm; flange - 18mm


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Admit it- you’re just pissed off because people are talking about video instead of photos. Like it or not, stills cameras have/are becoming hybrid cameras for both. Many content creators use them that way.
> 
> Just because YOU do not, just means the market is moving on from your very narrow definition of it.
> 
> ...


I think it’s simplistic to just think that Canon slacked on video for its still cameras because it wanted to sell higher priced video cameras.

There’s no question that Canon does want to sell higher priced video product. But Canon is also the worlds leading lens maker for professional and commercial video. I asked them a number of years ago why they wouldn’t make somewhat higher end professional video cameras when buying their top model, at the time. They told me that they didn’t want to alienate their commercial video camera manufacturer customers.

That was some time ago. The industry has changed with RED, and others, so now they do.

What some people here aren’t giving voice to is that professionals would almost always prefer equipment designed specifically for a function, rather than some device that isn’t ideal for anything. Video will always be a clumsy add-on for a still camera, no matter how good it is.

Remember that Canon has a top end still/video model, based on the 1D series, and it’s never sold well. That could be an indication to them, that despite the hype by some, serious video on a quality still camera, because doing it right costs more, isn’t something that enough people want.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> Pretty sure it's the following (I've included EF-M since that could set precedent for what Canon selects as their flange distance for a new mount):
> EF diameter - 54mm; flange - 44mm
> Z diameter - 55mm; flange - 16mm
> EF-M diameter - 47mm; flange - 18mm



Thanks. I appreciate that. So what I see from that is that Nikon’s New mount is actually a mm smaller in diameter. That’s interesting, as we read that the mount is so big.

Supposedly, the fact that it’s so much closer gives an advantage, but only if lenses don’t protrude into the mount as Leica M lenese do. So for lens making and image quality, as well as lens speed goes, there’s no actual advantage to Nikon’s new mount vs Canon’s.

I can also see why Canon states that their EF-M mount isn’t suited to FF.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> Well I have been on professional productions that used a 5d mark II back when it was the hot video DSLR. 2 weeks ago I was on 2 music videos, produced by universal music, and we shot those on Panasonic GH 5 cameras. I don’t think everything is as black and white as you make it out to be.


I didn’t say it wasn’t done. But it’s still unusual.


----------



## AJ (Aug 30, 2018)

R. How boring and uninspired. Eos, Elan, and Rebel are much more interesting names.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

Respinder said:


> Oh god - I hope these rumors are not true. To me, if the "new mount" doesn't somehow support EF, this is going to be a disastrous decision.




It will have a full EF mount or it will have a thinner-than-full mount and come with an EF adaptor -- either way EF glass will work well with it on day one. That's a take-it-to-the-bank certainty. The #1 design input of this new platform.



Respinder said:


> My assumption as some had suggested was that Canon would stick to a more traditional DSLR body or a "slim DSLR" body, but a body more akin to the EOS-M isn't going to be doing any favors. This will just end up being another EOS-M series.




...with a FF sensor. So, not EOS-M at all as far as lenses and output goes. I appreciate Canon might not deliver the other form factor aspects each of us want -- it might be too big or too small for some folks. But provided they get the mount right, there always can be more bodies to follow that sort out the form factor.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> Offhand (so that I don’t have to do it) does anyone have the specs for the diameter of Nikon’s new mount and Canon”s EOS mount, as well as the respective flange distances?
> 
> I’m now curious as what physical advantages Nikon’s Mount may offer, if any, other than a thinner body, which doesn’t mean much to me.




I want to say the throat diameter for Nikon Z is 55mm and Canon EF is 54mm. So Nikon is gonna party like it's 1987 with their new toy. Expect them to attempt a few lenses that go to ludicrous speed. I'm less curious about their 58 f/0.95 as it's manual focus only, but there is a 50 f/1.2 in the pipeline, surely with AF.

Flange distances I couldn't tell you. 

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> Pretty sure it's the following (I've included EF-M since that could set precedent for what Canon selects as their flange distance for a new mount):
> EF diameter - 54mm; flange - 44mm
> Z diameter - 55mm; flange - 16mm
> EF-M diameter - 47mm; flange - 18mm



Key constant in all of these mirrorless systems: you save about 25mm (i.e. 1 inch) in thickness compared to the SLR. That appears to be a universal trend with these rigs. They must be about an inch thinner.

They don't have to be, of course, and in Canon's case there is a legitimate case to go full EF with FF mirrorless. But the face value first impression of not doing this is painful market-wise. The 'you have to make it smaller', 'I want to adapt lenses', etc. simply must be served. So I still contend a thin mount will happen on day one, but doing both thin and full EF is a masterstroke if they position things correctly.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> Thanks. I appreciate that. So what I see from that is that Nikon’s New mount is actually a mm smaller in diameter.



Other way around. Nikon is 1mm _larger_ diameter than EF.

That doesn't unlock anything super magical. I see this new mount as simply one capable of doing fast standard primes (f/1.0, f/1.2) like Canon has been able to do for a long time.

Mirrorless does however (we presume) eliminate the mirrorbox, which is believed to clip the bokeh balls on some Canon large aperture glass (85 f/1.2L II, 85 f/1.4L, etc.). So mirrorless + advanced focusing technology + ultra-large aperture glass might fare better than it did with SLRs (in general, Canon could do the same).

Many people have said that the clipped bokeh is something 'you cannot unsee' once you see it, so now I plague you with this curse. Samples from PP (from an 85 f/1.2L II) are readily on display here.

- A


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

Frederik_Bo said:


> One could argue, that Canon and Nikon has been doing something wrong for years, given that Sony has mannaged to gain a foodhold in the Pro Photography market.


One could argue that if a company of Sony's size buys photo business from Konica Minolta, it may be able to manage to let that business recover.



Frederik_Bo said:


> My point was that, it would not make much sens for the people who never or very seldom use bracketing, to complaint about the inclusion of this feature in a camera. The same as I dont think it makes much sens for people to complaint about the inclusion of advanced video features, because it is not a feature that is used all the time, by everybody.


My point was that bracketing as a feature does not need to be _added_. It has been "always" there. Moreover, a typical bracketing implementation is not optimized for HDRs.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Other way around. Nikon is 1mm _larger_ diameter than EF.
> 
> That doesn't unlock anything super magical. I see this new mount as simply one capable of doing fast standard primes (f/1.0, f/1.2) like Canon has been able to do for a long time.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I somehow read that wrong. Still, 1mm means little. Bokeh is complex. I don’t think flange difference is going to make a difference. Again, Leica has been doing this for 100 years. Usually their bokeh is very good, but not always.


----------



## jmoya (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> What - you mean you can' t take decent video with any camera out there? I suggest it is your skills rather than the camera that is lacking.


Wow. ok. So people who want 120 fps on video don't know how to shoot video? All that matters is that I take better video and photos than you and I'm sure I do. You're one of the slow ones on this forum too I bet.


----------



## amorse (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Key constant in all of these mirrorless systems: you save about 25mm (i.e. 1 inch) in thickness compared to the SLR. That appears to be a universal trend with these rigs. They must be about an inch thinner.
> 
> They don't have to be, of course, and in Canon's case there is a legitimate case to go full EF with FF mirrorless. But the face value first impression of not doing this is painful market-wise. The 'you have to make it smaller', 'I want to adapt lenses', etc. simply must be served. So I still contend a thin mount will happen on day one, but doing both thin and full EF is a masterstroke if they position things correctly.
> 
> - A


I think these bodies *can* be an inch thinner, but looking at Sony's a7Riii, their sensor position in the body appears to be a bit further off the back based on the sensor symbol. Canon's body appears to have less used space behind the sensor:



I'm guessing that technically Sony's full frame mirrorless body could be even thinner than it currently is, but as with many things - just because you can doesn't mean you should!


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> I think these bodies *can* be an inch thinner, but looking at Sony's a7Riii, their sensor position in the body appears to be a bit further off the back based on the sensor symbol. Canon's body appears to have less used space behind the sensor:




Yeah, I stared at this prior post's pic (forgive me, I'm terribly at linking stuff from other pages in this new quoting system -- think was from page 6 or 7 of this thread) for quite some time to figure this out...




...and then I looked at the focal plane indicator and it made sense. Sony might shave an inch off the mount compared to EF, but they might have a good 1/4-1/2" more stuff behind the FP indicator than a Canon SLR does.

You learn something every day!

- A


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> I'm guessing that technically Sony's full frame mirrorless body could be even thinner than it currently is,


If it has unused empty space in it.


----------



## ahsanford (Aug 30, 2018)

amorse said:


> I'm guessing that technically Sony's full frame mirrorless body could be even thinner than it currently is





Kit. said:


> If it has unused empty space in it.




You're both right. It can be thinner because it _was_ thinner:




Look at the added thickness behind the step down from the top plate to the back -- the surface where you see Menu and C3 in the A7R2. All the A7s got thicker over time, presumably due to all those cameras were being asked to do -- 4K + IBIS + higher throughput surely put a higher cooling burden on the camera. 

I highly, highly doubt they didn't just leave an air gap in there with that added thickness. It's either added cooling features, additional processing horsepower, or possibly something to do with the addition of IBIS.

- A


----------



## bokehmon22 (Aug 30, 2018)

goldenhusky said:


> You are greedy. you gotta be "Canon Realistic"


+ $500 Canon tax. I'll take it!


----------



## Kit. (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> You're both right. It can be thinner because it _was_ thinner:


One can argue that Olympus Stylus Epic (with a 35/2.8 full frame lens) was more than 1 cm thinner than A7 (without a lens).


----------



## Go Wild (Aug 30, 2018)

Sorry if this was already mentioned, but i can´t see no reference to video codec, does anyone know if Canon will stick with the MJPEG or will they change the codec. I like mjpeg but it creates monstruous files....


----------



## dak723 (Aug 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> I think it's fair to assume everything in Canon's cameras is subject to a cost-benefit analysis (and every other manufacturer too!). A great deal of the arguing on these forums can be boiled down to - some people think that, however odd a decision may seem to us, the company has looked into it and decided that including or exclusing a feature was (or wasn't) worth the cost for the benefit - while others (I'm not talking about you incidentally, this is a general point; the people tending to throw around terms like 'fanboy') think it's a big conspiracy, and Canon are somehow cynical or mean or even stupid.
> 
> Fundamentally, we all have slightly different needs and desires, and no device can satisfy them all.



In addition to cost-benefit analysis, the other important factor is feasibility. Things like 4k (in the past) and 120 fps video (now) may not be feasible for Canon to implement due to processing speed/heat issues. When people compare the specs of a phone compared to a camera, they only show their ignorance because things are feasible in a phone that aren't in a camera. Others in the past have mentioned that DPAF may need additional speed and power to implement compared to camera systems that don't have it. So just because Sony has it, doesn't mean that Canon can have it. Not even getting into the issue of patents, which allows some companies to have features or lead in some areas while others fall behind.

Of course, the ignorant will continue to believe that Canon just doesn't want YOU to have every feature that YOU want.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> This is supposition - we don't know for sure what their reasoning was. My guess would be either they didn't think it was a priority on a 5 series camera when it was launched, and perhaps some technical details about heat dissipation or data thoughput.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ahh, but things have “changed in the meantime,” as Canon execs have admitted they are now willing to risk cannibalizing DSLR sales to go after MILC money (then they released the M50 with crippled 4K, but 4K nonetheless, so they could market it as such.) 

Maybe you’re well off, so you can’t understand that some people will always have to choose between a $800-1000 phone that takes okay pictures and video, or a $1800-2000 camera. I’m lucky in this regard, but economics plays a role for many in these purchasing decisions. 

As for heat dissipation, I doubt that was the issue- Canon’s either been lazy and/or has shown no interest in implementing high specced video in their cameras for quite some time.


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

It seems to me that if your main product lines are seeing falling sales, and therefore, profits, because that R&D, marketing and start-up costs remain about the same whether you’re selling 50,000 units of a model a year, or 500,000, that you would be very happy to canabilize those sales in favor of product lines that are increasing in sales, or have the potential to increase in sales.

Too many companies are so afraid of the unknown that they would rather do nothing until they sink beneath the waves than risk doing something to decrease their current product sales.

When Steve Jobs was asked if he was afraid that the newly introduced iPhone would canabilize the record iPod sales Apple was having, his response was:

I’d rather we canabilize our sales than another company do it. That was paraphrased, which is why I didn’t put into quotes. But you get the idea.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> Yeah, I somehow read that wrong. Still, 1mm means little. Bokeh is complex. I don’t think flange difference is going to make a difference. Again, Leica has been doing this for 100 years. Usually their bokeh is very good, but not always.


there are plenty of samples of the 50mm f1.0 where the bokeh is negatively affected by intrusions of the mirror box but you can also see the same problem on f/1.2 lenses to a lesser extent. It makes for ugly artifacts in particular point light sources that creates the "spheres". Similar to "cat's eye", but worse....much, much, worse because the spheres are clipped in unnatural ways with weird angles and geometric intrusions.
https://fstoppers.com/gear/ultimate-lens-bokeh-canon-50mm-f10-5059
yuck.

a broad mount that is closer to the sensor will not have these problems, and I suspect the 58mm f/0.95 will have much less instances of box intrusion. Cat's eye is inevitable however, but that is not as distracting. Nikon engineers also said they picked the dimensions and flange to make designs easier, more telecentric, and/or that require less light bending or arriving at sharper angles on the sensor edges. Some of this may be more evident once there are more high end lenses on the Z mount, as I doubt you'll notice much different on the rather conservative 1.8 primes. 

Also in the same interview, they indicated there may be faster glass coming, so maybe that patent for the 52mm f/0.9 is one of those lenses in the roadmap that Nikon didn't write anything on and just left a slot.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> As for heat dissipation, I doubt that was the issue- Canon’s either been lazy and/or has shown no interest in implementing high specced video in their cameras for quite some time.



Maybe because of the heat issue...? Do you always ignore the obvious, preferring instead theories of conspiracy and deceit?
Have you seen the cooling system on the Cxxx series? That is how it is done on _proper _video cameras.

I think the real success behind Sony is not the sensor but the processor that allows it all to happen and can do so more efficiently which means less heat and they can put in 4k more easily - I am not saying they have it sussed because there are still reports about overheating albeit not as commonly as before.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> It seems to me that if your main product lines are seeing falling sales, and therefore, profits, because that R&D, marketing and start-up costs remain about the same whether you’re selling 50,000 units of a model a year, or 500,000, that you would be very happy to canabilize those sales in favor of product lines that are increasing in sales, or have the potential to increase in sales.
> 
> Too many companies are so afraid of the unknown that they would rather do nothing until they sink beneath the waves than risk doing something to decrease their current product sales.
> 
> ...


yeah. hubris has a lot to do with decisions here. Canon and Nikon to some extent are still dreaming in DSLR days. Sony found a foothold and any good dominant player would never allow another to dictate the direction of a market. Sony is now calling the shots and they are THE frame of reference for what amounts to the smartphone equivalent of our industry, while Nikon and Canon are like blackberry still boasting about their marketshare in keyboard phones too afraid to kill that as it would accelerate the migration away from markets they control into markets where there is another rival with a lead XD.

say what you will about sony, but they are playing by the apple playbook here and are putting Nikon and Canon in a position unthinkable even just a few years ago. I hope we have a 3 way race in the end, but I think sony is not done doing damage to the status quo.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> yeah. hubris has a lot to do with decisions here. Canon and Nikon to some extent are still dreaming in DSLR days.



I see. That is why Canon makes the best selling mirrorless camera?


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I see. That is why Canon makes the best selling mirrorless camera?


and Samsung sells more cameras in phones overall. But we're talking full frame. Where is canon mirrorless full frame? hence the hubris. ok so you beat sony at the market sony abandoned. great job! You know who everybody talks about, sony. why? because they are perceived as the leader in FF, and that's not wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> say what you will about sony, but they are playing by the apple playbook here and are putting Nikon and Canon in a position unthinkable even just a few years ago. I hope we have a 3 way race in the end, but I think sony is not done doing damage to the status quo.


Yeah, a few years ago Sony had ~13% of the ILC market share. Today, they have...wait for it...~13% of the ILC market share. Cleary, Sony is doing the unthinkable and seriously damaging the status quo. 

Maybe if I send you a dollar via PayPal, you can use it to go buy a clue.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yeah, a few years ago Sony had ~13% of the ILC market share. Today, they have...wait for it...~13% of the ILC market share. Cleary, Sony is doing the unthinkable and seriously damaging the status quo.
> 
> Maybe if I send you a dollar via PayPal, you can use it to go buy a clue.


so what are your thoughs on the new mount rumors? or should I send you two dollars to buy a nice plate of crow to eat?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> and Samsung sells more cameras in phones overall. But we're talking full frame. Where is canon mirrorless full frame? hence the hubris. ok so you beat sony at the market sony abandoned. great job! You know who everybody talks about, sony. why? because they are perceived as the leader in FF, and that's not wrong.



You said that Canon were living in the past with DSLR, and conveniently ignore they have the best selling mirrorless on the market. But it seems your definition of DSLR stops with FF cameras which enables you to conveniently ignore all the research and development they are doing in the mirrorless field and will bring to their FF camera.. 

Are you really that desperate to make a point?


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 30, 2018)

ecpu said:


> There will be jumping to Sony if this camera doesn't deliver... for me at least. I've already sold two of my three canon bodies and most of my lenses. I'm ready to go, but would prefer to stay if they deliver a good camera that works for me for both photo and video work.



But here's the point, I think: Nobody cares. Choose whatever you prefer. Nobody cares. All the foot stomping and breath holding until blue changes nothing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> so what are your thoughs on the new mount rumors? or should I send you two dollars to buy a nice plate of crow to eat?


So you treat rumors as facts, but ignore actual facts. I rescind my offer of sending a dollar, it would clearly be a waste of money.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> You said that Canon were living in the past with DSLR, and conveniently ignore they have the best selling mirrorless on the market. But it seems your definition of DSLR stops with FF cameras which enables you to conveniently ignore all the research and development they are doing in the mirrorless field and will bring to their FF camera..
> 
> Are you really that desperate to make a point?


I'm speaking of full frame mirrorless which IMO canon has not release to avoid cannibalizing FF sales such as 5D and 1DX. What is wrong with that? You can't take every ILC sale and equate it with each other as they are the same and pretend sony is no player. Unless you're blind to facts or neuro lol


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> The 'you have to make it smaller', 'I want to adapt lenses', etc. simply must be served.



Only if the potential customer base warrants the expense of putting out the product. I tend to agree they will do this in some form, but 'there seems to be a lot of people shouting about it online' isn't a compelling business model (they may or may not represent a genuinely large enough customer base). Adapting older lenses in particular is surely a tiny niche - it's good that can be done, but whether it's enough of a market to target specifically (rather than incidental) is another matter (and they'd much rather we bought new lenses - there's no profit to Canon in people buying old FD ones). I imagine your counterargument could be 'well there must be a market if Nikon and Sony have gone there', and it may be so - but Sony chose FF mirrorless to set themselves apart and carve out a niche; whether there's room in the long run for all three brands in the sector now Nikon has gone there (small body FF + lenses), we'll see (though I don't doubt Canon would feel they could crush the competition if they wanted).


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> So you treat rumors as facts, but ignore actual facts. I rescind my offer of sending a dollar, it would clearly be a waste of money.



I treat rumors as rumors but IF canon does release a new mount, I'll buy you lunch bud. Crow for you on me


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Ahh, but things have “changed in the meantime,” as Canon execs have admitted they are now willing to risk cannibalizing DSLR sales to go after MILC money (then they released the M50 with crippled 4K, but 4K nonetheless, so they could market it as such.)
> 
> Maybe you’re well off, so you can’t understand that some people will always have to choose between a $800-1000 phone that takes okay pictures and video, or a $1800-2000 camera. I’m lucky in this regard, but economics plays a role for many in these purchasing decisions.



Price is the most important determining feature in what people buy. If people can't afford e.g. a $2k camera and giving up the other features baked into DSLRs and MILCs (much larger sensor, interchangeable lenses with options from fisheye to macro to supertelephoto, professional flashguns, and all the rest) and find a phone does what they want, good for them - they are sensible to choose the cheaper option. But it doesn't mean your earlier points 'a phone can do X so a camera should too' (which ignore the reality of implementing certain things with a larger sensor) and (by implication) 'adding X (e.g. 120fps video) will make them competitive against phones' stand up to scrutiny. If we're talking about people specifically choosing a high end camera (which includes all FF options), then the phone is essentially irrelevant.



transpo1 said:


> As for heat dissipation, I doubt that was the issue- Canon’s either been lazy and/or has shown no interest in implementing high specced video in their cameras for quite some time.



That's an assertion based entirely on your opinion and dislike of Canon as a company. You're entitled to it - but let's not treat it as some sort of special insight or evidence that what you say is true.

Incidentally, you use the term 'cannibalising' which has become popular on here recently. Let's boil it down - Canon wants to sell as many cameras as possible, as profitably as possible, and they seem to have succeeded in that for many years. It upsets people that their pet features aren't always included - too bad. It doesn't mean their corporate strategy is wrong - it's clearly working! (And we don't see any seismic shift in sales despite what people keep claiming will happen).


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> I'm speaking of full frame mirrorless which IMO canon has not release to avoid cannibalizing FF sales such as 5D and 1DX. What is wrong with that? You can't take every ILC sale and equate it with each other as they are the same and pretend sony is no player. Unless you're blind to facts or neuro lol



Your point was not about FF, but about Canons seeming intransigence to mirrorless. I pointed out the fallacy in that. 
Now if you want to ignore very powerful evidence that Canon are in fact investing in mirrorless, and have been doing so for the last 5 years, then go ahead. 
Why is FF the be all and end all of photography for some people?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> I treat rumors as rumors but IF canon does release a new mount, I'll buy you lunch bud. Crow for you on me


Sure, sure...right after you point out where I stated that Canon _wouldn't _release a new mount for their FF MILC. 

Saved you some coin. You're welcome.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> You can't take every ILC sale and equate it with each other



Erm, why not? It's the same money going to the same company, why should it matter whether they're mirrorless or not? A sale is a sale.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Your point was not about FF, but about Canons seeming intransigence to mirrorless. I pointed out the fallacy in that.
> Now if you want to ignore very powerful evidence that Canon are in fact investing in mirrorless, and have been doing so for the last 5 years, then go ahead.
> Why is FF the be all and end all of photography for some people?


no, my point was about canon riding its position as the DSLR leader and thinking they could let sony's FF mirrorless go unanswered for this long, but OK, I'll accept I could have made that clearer. Regardless, the fact canon are (rumored) to be answering only proves my point. Granted, I did not clarify this was bout FF, but it is implicit, for sony never saw much success in APS-C and they are the sweetheart of the internet in FF. 

As for your later point about why are people obsessed about FF? it doesn't matter. Clearly the buzz is that. you can either accept it or not, but it doesn't change the fact the buzz is full frame, sony's A cameras and no matter what canon does, it is being compared and will be compared with sony. All you have to do is hang around youtube. FF mirrorless IS the hotness and sony is the sweethear/leader/king of it all. I don't particularly care for sony, but I'm not going to deny their status at this point.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sure, sure...right after you point out where I stated that Canon _wouldn't _release a new mount for their FF MILC.
> 
> Saved you some coin. You're welcome.


you said that you thought there was a higher chance they wouldn't release a new mount and there was a higher chance they'd stick with EF, and I simply point out that the rumors was that they would release a new mount.

I don't have a horse in the race for I've always discussed this canon "rumored" ER or whatever mount in that context, but IF they do release it, well, lunch is served bud. enjoy


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> no, my point was about canon riding its position as the DSLR leader and thinking they could let sony's FF mirrorless go unanswered for this long, but OK, I'll accept I could have made that clearer. Regardless, the fact canon are (rumored) to be answering only proves my point. Granted, I did not clarify this was bout FF, but it is implicit, for sony never saw much success in APS-C and they are the sweetheart of the internet in FF.
> 
> As for your later point about why are people obsessed about FF? it doesn't matter. Clearly the buzz is that. you can either accept it or not, but it doesn't change the fact the buzz is full frame, sony's A cameras and no matter what canon does, it is being compared and will be compared with sony. All you have to do is hang around youtube. FF mirrorless IS the hotness and sony is the sweethear/leader/king of it all. I don't particularly care for sony, but I'm not going to deny their status at this point.



What you are describing there is the latest meme running as a fad. Which is why it will be very interesting to see what happens in about a year's time when all three big players have F mirrorless and there is much less novelty about it all.
Most people want a name they trust, with gear that just does the job and does it well. And I think even the most ardent Sony fan still looks on CaNikon as still having a lead there. If Canon and Nikon can bring their more stable ergonomics to the table in their first iteration then I genuinely believe that all the claims about Sony superiority will fade pretty quickly when people realise they just enjoy using CaNikon much more and they can use their existing lenses. Things like eye AF (which has been pretty impressive in recent models) will start to look like a 'how badly do I need it' buying option rather like the 1Dx2 AF system or 15 fps shooting.

But your comment "thinking they could let sony's FF mirrorless go unanswered for this long " still makes the assumption that FF is the more important area of photography and that the only worthwhile research is done there. There were rumours about Canon's FF mirrorless back in mid 2015 - and my interpretation is that (a) they could not get it to the standard of their DSLRs so did not release it (unlike SOny who put out repeated half-assed models simply to get something out there) and (b) they continued their mirrorless development but not with the urgency that SOny had to simply to survive and (c) Canon, because they had the success of the DSLR to maintain revenue could afford to wait until they felt they had got it right.

Canon have known for years which way the market is going, they could afford to take their time and judge when they had to move. And judging their businsess acumen on one minor specialist area of the market (which FF is) is a failure to look a the bigger picture and be seduced by the youtube wannabes who have viewing revenue to earn.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Erm, why not? It's the same money going to the same company, why should it matter whether they're mirrorless or not? A sale is a sale.


It matters in the context of full frame mirrorless. Are you really this desperate? So if I talk about truck sales for ford, I need to talk about for sedan sales?

and yes, a sale is a sale, but in the FF market for mirrorless to deny sony has had a big impact is to be in denial as you are. (bottom graphic, credit Thom Hogan) Sales of FF in dollars. Additionally we know sony's revenue in dollars is growing:


From 2016 to 2017, Sony’s dollars increased 67%
From 2017 to 2018, Sony’s dollars increased 78% (same six-month period)
So if the industry breaks down numbers in FF to discuss FF, why should I bunch it all up under the umbrella of ILC. All that does is stick your head in the sand and fail to see the disruption sony has had over the status quo in FF sales, like Neuro is


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> and yes, a sale is a sale, but in the FF market for mirrorless to deny sony has had a big impact is to be in denial as you are.



I don't think anybody is denying the impact Sony has had. The question is, and always has been when Canon need to enter the market. You are clearly of the thinking that Canon have made grave error (some only a year ago were talking of it being fatal) in delaying the release so long. I am one who contends that as long as Canon do it right, they have quite a while to release it without long-term damage.

The panning that Nikon got with the V/J models at the same time as the MFT being released shows how getting it right is more important than just making it for the sake of it. And this applies to many, many industries.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> What you are describing there is the latest meme. Which is why it will be very interesting to see what happens in about a year's time when all three big players have F mirrorless and there is much less novelty about it all.
> Most people want a name they trust, with gear that just does the job and does it well. And I think even the most ardent Sony fan still looks on CaNikon as still having a lead there. If Canon and Nikon can bring their more stable ergonomics to the table in their first iteration then I genuinely believe that all the claims about Sony superiority will fade pretty quickly when people realise they just enjoy using CaNikon much more and they can use their existing lenses. Things like eye AF (which has been pretty impressive in recent models) will start to look like a 'how badly do I need it' buying option rather like the 1Dx2 AF system or 15 fps shooting.
> 
> But your comment "thinking they could let sony's FF mirrorless go unanswered for this long " still makes the assumption that FF is the more important area of photography and that the only worthwhile research is done there. There were rumours about Canon's FF mirrorless back in mid 2015 - and my interpretation is that (a) they could not get it to the standard of their DSLRs so did not release it (unlike SOny who put out repeated half-assed models simply to get something out there) and (b) they continued their mirrorless development but not with the urgency that SOny had to simply to survive and (c) Canon, because they had the success of the DSLR to maintain revenue could afford to wait until they felt they had got it right.
> ...



I don't disagree about your trust argument/youtube click bait, and I'm not defending "switchers logic" so you don't have to try to talk me into why a canon or Nikon body would appeal to its audience over a sony one. however there is a market for FF sensors and there is a GROWING market for FF mirrorless. We know this FACT not just from sony's revenue numbers, which are sales published sony (which btw, also canon/Nikon are missing on), but also the fact canon/Nikon are jumping in this new market regardless of what's going on in ILC overall (typically companies don't jump into shrinking markets). 

I disagree that just because I point out that canon was sleeping at the wheel of FF mirrorless that I'm saying that is the most important area in photography. However just because something is not the most important, doesn't mean it is trivial. FF dollars are growing and it is not growing for DSLR players as much as it is for sony. Is that important for photography? sure, but more important is that it is growing and sony is in the middle of it, not canon or Nikon.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> I don't think anybody is denying the impact Sony has had. The question is, and always has been when Canon need to enter the market. You are clearly of the thinking that Canon have made grave error (some only a year ago were talking of it being fatal) in delaying the release so long. I am one who contends that as long as Canon do it right, they have quite a while to release it without long-term damage.
> 
> The panning that Nikon got with the V/J models at the same time as the MFT being released shows how getting it right is more important than just making it for the sake of it. And this applies to many, many industries.


It would require a time machine to know if canon made an error or not. Time will tell. If, as you are suggesting, they were waiting for the right time, that is logical and I actually buy into that. But it is also possible to wait too long for your competition becomes entrenched and with enough lead that they will in fact remain the leader. I'm not saying sony is undefeatable at this point as some claim. However anybody dismissing sony at this point is ignoring the fact canon/Nikon let them build a huge amount of momentum, perceived leadership, undeniable native mirrorless lens advantage, and a heck of a lot of fans (on top of undeniable and undisputable revenue growth in FF)

I think a great gauge of canon's timing will be what they release. If the lens lineup is lackluster or non existent, if the product fails to meet the expectations to beat the market leader (sony), and if 10 years from now, sony retained the broadest lens lineup, most of the pro market, and all the hype, then yes, canon was asleep at the wheel.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> canon was sleeping at the wheel.



That really is the crux of it. You are talking of corporate ineptitude but you have no idea what decisions they made and why 
Have they recognised the importance of mirrorless? Yes. The M series shows that
Have they developed strong mirrorless products ? Yes. The M series shows that
Have they been developing FF mirrorless? Yes, the 2015 rumours and since point to that
Was there an urgent need to release FF mirrorless before now? No, I don't believe so
Have Canon now got a product worth releasing? It seems so
Has this timing harmed Canon? It does not seem so - other than speculation by keyboard executives 
What is your evidence of corporate ineptitude? FF sales from a relatively short period with three camera releases in quick succession against 2 players who have released nothing (Canon) or a model (the D850) that no-one can get hold of because of supply shortage. But Canon's imperative is to sell products: they literally do not care if it is FF, APS-C, mirrorless or DSLR. Sony, however are a one-trick pony (look guys we have FF mirrorless) - one hell of a trick admittedly but we will see what power that has over then next 12-18 months. 

OK, that last bit was bit inflammatory, but let us look at the APS-C market. What impact are their Axxxx series having? I hardly hear about them but that is because they are up against DSLR in the same price bracket. There is a very high risk Sony will have the same issue in FF by the time the second generation CaNikon come around. 
I genuinely want Sony to succeed because I think 3 players stops a cosy relationship forming in the market but I am also cautious about over-elaborating what Sony can do when people limit their view of the market to one small sector with only one player (so far).


----------



## melgross (Aug 30, 2018)

psolberg said:


> there are plenty of samples of the 50mm f1.0 where the bokeh is negatively affected by intrusions of the mirror box but you can also see the same problem on f/1.2 lenses to a lesser extent. It makes for ugly artifacts in particular point light sources that creates the "spheres". Similar to "cat's eye", but worse....much, much, worse because the spheres are clipped in unnatural ways with weird angles and geometric intrusions.
> https://fstoppers.com/gear/ultimate-lens-bokeh-canon-50mm-f10-5059
> yuck.
> 
> ...


I still don’t see the problem. A lot of what is being talked about is just poor lens design. We see that with whatever choice is made. Getting the rear element nearer to the sensor isn’t a problem either way.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> That really is the crux of it. You are talking of corporate ineptitude but you have no idea what decisions they made and why
> Have they recognised the importance of mirrorless? Yes. The M series shows that
> Have they developed strong mirrorless products ? Yes. The M series shows that
> Have they been developing FF mirrorless? Yes, the 2015 rumours and since point to that
> ...



Are you really going to try to strawman your way here with that? won't work. I don't think they are inept. It think they are suffering from hubris. Sleep at the wheel is just a cliché, an internet phrase. It doesn't mean they are inept, just that they are late  so please don't strawman into: if they do something wring they can't be inept. Clearly they are not infallible either.

So let's talk about your points: M. Successful yes, in some markets like japan, but what happens now and what happens world wide?. IF a new mount comes in and you bought into the M system, are you screwed? Is there an adapter (so you have to buy two adapters, one for EF and one for ER? can you even do that?). So if in fact there is a new mount, I don't see all this calmed and calculated decision you're talking about with M. In fact, all the opposite, are they going to produce lenses for 3 mounts now? This grand vision doesn't seem so grand.

Also if M was such a hit, why wouldn't have it been at FF? how can you say canon wouldn't be THE sony right now with all the press, and the fans, and THE benchmark by which all are measured and with 20 some native lenses. Would this not be in fact better? and if in fact this is better, then why didn't they do it? why were they late? Sony didn't get there with perfection. They got there by being first, not late.

FF development, yes, rumors point to that and they are old. Undeniable. Without seeing the actual product you cannot tell what took so long. I think you are betting on some sort of golden unicorn or something they had in a lab and it is finally ready. I'm more skeptical, and I think canon is a heck of a lot more protectionist of its 5D and 1DX babies similarly to what happened to the 5D and its video feature set 

Has the timing harmed them? Impossible to say either way. But undeniably it has allowed sony to raise and generate revenue, market share, market buzz, fans, audience, lens lineup (native mirrorless). And this happened because canon/Nikon failed to prevent it as they were both late.

Sales of FF, you say they are relatively short, but they are at a key inflection. the market is shrinking for everybody. canon Nikon have stated repeatedly. so players are going upstream to where growth is. and where is growth? FF mirrorless among other places. Enough for sony to boast a pretty good chunk over 3 years of an otherwise declining market. That's no "short" time.

I don't dispute canon has done well in EF-M. And precisely drives my "what if" they had gone FF. IMO they'd be the "sony" and just about owing that market.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 30, 2018)

melgross said:


> I still don’t see the problem. A lot of what is being talked about is just poor lens design. We see that with whatever choice is made. Getting the rear element nearer to the sensor isn’t a problem either way.


have you seen the rear element on that lens? it is flush with the mount as back as it can. How are you getting it closer with the electronic pins in the way? And mounting it would be a pain, just asking for it to get chipped/scratched.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/50mm-f1/D3S_0277-rear.jpg

if anybody has a 50 1.0 or 1.2 lens, and a sacrificial FF camera, they could rip off the mirror and box mechanism and see if that clears the path well enough to avoid the ugly clipped bokeh.


----------



## scyrene (Aug 31, 2018)

psolberg said:


> It matters in the context of full frame mirrorless. Are you really this desperate? So if I talk about truck sales for ford, I need to talk about for sedan sales?
> 
> and yes, a sale is a sale, but in the FF market for mirrorless to deny sony has had a big impact is to be in denial as you are. (bottom graphic, credit Thom Hogan) Sales of FF in dollars. Additionally we know sony's revenue in dollars is growing:
> 
> ...



Your original quotation was as follows:



psolberg said:


> yeah. hubris has a lot to do with decisions here. Canon and Nikon to some extent are still dreaming in DSLR days. Sony found a foothold and any good dominant player would never allow another to dictate the direction of a market. Sony is now calling the shots and they are THE frame of reference for what amounts to the smartphone equivalent of our industry, while Nikon and Canon are like blackberry still boasting about their marketshare in keyboard phones too afraid to kill that as it would accelerate the migration away from markets they control into markets where there is another rival with a lead XD.
> 
> say what you will about sony, but they are playing by the apple playbook here and are putting Nikon and Canon in a position unthinkable even just a few years ago. I hope we have a 3 way race in the end, but I think sony is not done doing damage to the status quo.



You didn't mention FF or mirrorless specifically. You made the general statement that Sony are 'calling the shots' and that Nikon and Canon are stuck in the past. Now if you meant only this segment then fine, be clearer next time - I see you've since clarified this.

Sony only leads in FF mirrorless - and nobody denies that - because neither Nikon nor Canon released cameras in that segment until now (edit: Sony may continue to dominate after all three have entered the segment, but that remains to be seen). It's pretty easy to be the winner in a race where you're the only competitor. It was a smart move - but they had to because their DSLR business - which they subsequently ditched - was going nowhere. But if you really believe that Sony is the Apple of cameras then you are deluded. Sony is still trailing a long way behind Canon in sales overall - even if their FF revenues are increasing - and doesn't appear to be gaining much from Canon. FF will always be a minority of camera sales whether mirrorless or not, so the idea that they will bankrupt their rivals with this is absurd.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2018)

psolberg said:


> you said that you thought there was a higher chance they wouldn't release a new mount and there was a higher chance they'd stick with EF, and I simply point out that the rumors was that they would release a new mount.
> 
> I don't have a horse in the race for I've always discussed this canon "rumored" ER or whatever mount in that context, but IF they do release it, well, lunch is served bud. enjoy


The rumor here is, "_RF Mount (New mount, *possible EF compatibility*?)_." If the new mount is EF compatible, I don't care if it's called RF, EF-Q, or Bob...it's a mount that natively accepts EF lenses, and that's an EF mount. 

That's consistent with the previous rumor of a 'sexy solution' and either the idea of a Z-moving sensor (R for retracting) or lenses that protrude into the space in the body formerly occupied by the mirror box (R for recessed). In either case, it would be analogous to EF-S – the camera mount would accept EF lenses (and possibly EF-S with automatic cropping) and accept RF lenses, RF lenses would not physically mount on DSLRs (like EF-S lenses don't mount on FF DSLRs). 

Crow for one please, I won't be joining you. 

Well, based on this rumor at least. More likely isn't certainly, so there's certainly a reasonable chance for a completely different mount, like the EF-M scenario. Incidentally, I have argued that is very possible, provided thenew mount is such that a simple adapter can mount those new lenses on EOS M bodies, for an EF lens/APS-C DSLR analogous upgrade path.


----------



## melgross (Aug 31, 2018)

psolberg said:


> have you seen the rear element on that lens? it is flush with the mount as back as it can. How are you getting it closer with the electronic pins in the way? And mounting it would be a pain, just asking for it to get chipped/scratched.
> 
> http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/images/50mm-f1/D3S_0277-rear.jpg
> 
> if anybody has a 50 1.0 or 1.2 lens, and a sacrificial FF camera, they could rip off the mirror and box mechanism and see if that clears the path well enough to avoid the ugly clipped bokeh.


It depends on the lens.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 31, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Your original quotation was as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I already said why I didn't mention FF originally. I also clarified it later. But in case you didn't read, yes, this thread is about FF mounts/sensors and bodies, so I was speaking of that. I already clarified it so I'm not going to continue doing that repeatedly. Ultimately, the disruption has in fact happened in FF as per market stats I posted on dollars share of FF sales (versus units) as well as growth of sony's FF business. So Sony ARE in fact calling the FF mirrorless shots and you admit it as you say, they are the only ones effectively in the race. Everybody compares anything to them therefore. I said Nikon/canon are stuck in DSLR land. They are. That is their focus in ILC: they make more DSLRs than mirrorless IL bodies, that's a fact too. How many DSLR models canon have vs EOS-M? Clearly they are DSLR first and focus on that by FAR, unlike sony's ILC strategy where essentially their SLRs are a dead end.

I don't disagree that Sony has a first mover lead which is what you are referring to when you point out that it is easy to win when you're the only competitor! precisely! because canon/Nikon are missing, aka, late, aka what I was referring to  so in fact you agree with me in this point.

Do I believe sony is the Apple? no. I said they are playing by the Apple book, which they are. Are they as good as apple? not a point anybody is making. So please stop making strawman arguments as it reeks of desperation to make a point nobody is making. It is pathetic. weak and to be honest annoying. If you want to discuss without strawmen, I'm more than open to. But if not, don't bother to even reply as it is clear when you pull out the strawman.

Lastly you say that they don't appear to be gaining much from Canon. And yes, if you compare canon's overall business and if you compare canon's share in the shrinking segments that are outside FF where sony effectively doesn't compete as aggressively. I don't think Sony is focused on winning the shrinking markets. They are trying to win on a growing market: FF mirrorless. Again look at the graph (repost from my earlier post, credit Thom Hogan): Canon HAS lost dollar share here, in this market, and that's undeniable and irrefutable. Off course that doesn't mean canon cannot gain ground.

and BTW, I never said they will go bankrupt. Please stop with the strawman arguments. It is pathetic and completely uninteresting. You're not going to make any point of any sense this way.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2018)

psolberg said:


> I So Sony ARE in fact calling the FF mirrorless shots and you admit it as you say, they are the only ones effectively in the race. Everybody compares anything to them therefore. I said Nikon/canon are stuck in DSLR land. They are. That is their focus in ILC: they make more DSLRs than mirrorless IL bodies, that's a fact too. How many DSLR models canon have vs EOS-M? Clearly they are DSLR first and focus on that by FAR, unlike sony's ILC strategy where essentially their SLRs are a dead end.


Sony _was_ focused on APS-C MILCs (after they ran away from the DSLR market). What happened to Sony's APS-C MILC market share after the EOS M launched? Keep in mind that, as you state, MILCs were not Canon's focus. But now that Canon has actually stated their intent to expand focus on MILCs...well, if I were in charge of Sony's Imaging division, I'd be concerned. Very concerned. As a Sony customer I'd also be concerned, given Sony's historical penchant for abandoning markets where they don't remain competitive. I think we're seeing that with their APS-C MILCs, in the last three years they've released two of them, and 5 FF models.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The rumor here is, "_RF Mount (New mount, *possible EF compatibility*?)_." If the new mount is EF compatible, I don't care if it's called RF, EF-Q, or Bob...it's a mount that natively accepts EF lenses, and that's an EF mount.
> 
> That's consistent with the previous rumor of a 'sexy solution' and either the idea of a Z-moving sensor (R for retracting) or lenses that protrude into the space in the body formerly occupied by the mirror box (R for recessed). In either case, it would be analogous to EF-S – the camera mount would accept EF lenses (and possibly EF-S with automatic cropping) and accept RF lenses, RF lenses would not physically mount on DSLRs (like EF-S lenses don't mount on FF DSLRs).
> 
> ...



Since we started this discussion, CR has posted a Hypothesis on that just like every site has for months. Yes, that is what we discussed back when the new mounts rumors were showing up: re-use the EF mount vs new mount plus adapters. I've admitted many times that is possible hey do both. Hell, I've argued Nikon/canon might end up releasing something like a 1D or 5D or D5 or D850 without the mirror AND still do a mirrorless small form factor attack on sony with a new mount for the small/size concerned folk. They can certainly do both.

BTW, when I made the point that "based on rumors", there could be a new mount and it was possible you ripped into that. But now, that you do the same, you claim such a thing is even REASONABLE (your own words), yet you accused me of treating rumors as facts...but that's exactly as you are doing now using a rumor, on a rumor site, on a thread about a rumor. Suddenly that' s reasonable? Off course it is! The only people who would think otherwise are ...YOU!, Who complains about rumor theorycrafting and turns around...and rumor theorycrafts lol. You may not end up eating crow, or may yet do, but watching your logic leaps has been amusing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2018)

psolberg said:


> BTW, when I made the point that "based on rumors", there could be a new mount and it was possible you ripped into that. But now, that you do the same, you claim such a thing is even REASONABLE (your own words), yet you accused me of treating rumors as facts...


Actually, my point was that you were treating a rumor as fact, but were misrepresenting that rumor (or at best, ignoring the part of it that didn't fit your pet hypothesis). Sort of like having your crow and eating it, too. So, thanks for playing.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sony _was_ focused on APS-C MILCs (after they ran away from the DSLR market). What happened to Sony's APS-C MILC market share after the EOS M launched? Keep in mind that, as you state, MILCs were not Canon's focus. But now that Canon has actually stated their intent to expand focus on MILCs...well, if I were in charge of Sony's Imaging division, I'd be concerned. Very concerned. As a Sony customer I'd also be concerned, given Sony's historical penchant for abandoning markets where they don't remain competitive. I think we're seeing that with their APS-C MILCs, in the last three years they've released two of them, and 5 FF models.



wow, did I say sony was not at some point focused on APS-C? no. Sony effectively bailed the NEX line and their APS-C futures not because the EOS-M. Just because canon found some success as of late (and beat sony in Japan), Sony has been focused elsewhere. Doesn't mean that history will repeat here because you fail to see the obvious difference: Sony is in a much stronger place with FF than they were in APS-C and unlike before, they are not going up-market from FF (at least not yet) to split their R&D. Indeed, back then, not only were they were devoting a lot of resources precisely to go FF in both sensors, bodies and optics but they were still lingering on those ******* alpha SLRs. So went for what made sense for them.

Well the niche snowballed into a big important area of growth.

So as of now, you say that sony commands a similar % in ILC share now vs a few years ago, but you off course omit the fact the slice of the pie in FF changed in favor of sony and to the detriment of Nikon/Canon. That's undeniable. You may not like it but sorry, that's how it is.

P.S. I don't give a damn if sony fails  so don't bother attacking them. yeah they could fail. there I said it.


----------



## psolberg (Aug 31, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Actually, my point was that you were treating a rumor as fact, but were misrepresenting that rumor (or at best, ignoring the part of it that didn't fit your pet hypothesis). Sort of like having your crow and eating it, too. So, thanks for playing.


I keep treating rumors as rumors in the rumors sections of the rumors forum. I never qualified anything as a new mount or sensor or lens as inevitable. We all rumor theorycraft here, you included, which is all the more hilarious when I see you obviously rumor crafting as facts, fact picking, yet ripping anybody who does lol. I don't care if you're even wrong about the new mount and turns out it is a new flange and new lenses and an adapter (although I'd find it amusing). I'm more interested in what canon will do and this "magical" solution.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 31, 2018)

psolberg said:


> I keep treating rumors as rumors in the rumors sections of the rumors forum. I never qualified anything as a new mount or sensor or lens as inevitable.


Well, yes...except when you suggested I 'eat crow' based on a rumor. But hey, you rewrite history all you want. I'm out.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 31, 2018)

This is all so much fun!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 31, 2018)

psolberg said:


> Are you really going to try to strawman your way here with that? won't work. I don't think they are inept. It think they are suffering from hubris. Sleep at the wheel is just a cliché, an internet phrase. It doesn't mean they are inept, just that they are late  so please don't strawman into:



I'm not creating a straw man at all. If you are unable to use the English language properly then don't be surprised if people misinterpret what you say. 
If you are saying they took a valid (at the time) decision that later proved to be incorrect that is a different matter



psolberg said:


> So let's talk about your points: M. Successful yes, in some markets like japan, but what happens now and what happens world wide?. IF a new mount comes in and you bought into the M system, are you screwed? Is there an adapter (so you have to buy two adapters, one for EF and one for ER? can you even do that?). So if in fact there is a new mount, I don't see all this calmed and calculated decision you're talking about with M. In fact, all the opposite, are they going to produce lenses for 3 mounts now? This grand vision doesn't seem so grand.


If you bought into the M system, you are not screwed. The M system is APS-C - if people needed FF they would have bought 5D/6D/1D. The M system can use the EF lenses so why are they screwed?



psolberg said:


> Also if M was such a hit, why wouldn't have it been at FF?


At the time, Sony did not have FF either - and for 3 years after introducing FF Sony's initial v1 and v2 cameras were pretty much along the lines of 'nice sensor but otherwise horrendous'. 
And why should it have been FF? This comes back to your apparent obsession with the only mirrorless that matters is FF. 



psolberg said:


> how can you say canon wouldn't be THE sony right now with all the press, and the fans, and THE benchmark by which all are measured and with 20 some native lenses. Would this not be in fact better? and if in fact this is better, then why didn't they do it? why were they late? Sony didn't get there with perfection. They got there by being first, not late.


You keep using this word 'late'. Just because they were not first does not mean they were 'late'. 
Look at what Sony did - released half assed camera with recognised bugs, then fixed it by releasing another camera a year later fixing the bugs that should not have been there in the first place. It rankled Sony users and that is not how Canon does works. 
Also you make the simplistic assumption that because one company has a product another company must be able to respond immediately with a similar (or better) product. It sounds like you have never been involved in product development with all the decision chains and barriers that come up.



psolberg said:


> I think you are betting on some sort of golden unicorn or something they had in a lab and it is finally ready.


Nope. I am expecting a solid but unexciting product released just to give Canon users an excuse not to move to Sony. I think the second iteration will be much closer to Sony's third generation



psolberg said:


> Has the timing harmed them? Impossible to say either way. But undeniably it has allowed sony to raise and generate revenue, market share, market buzz, fans, audience, lens lineup (native mirrorless). And this happened because canon/Nikon failed to prevent it as they were both late.


That tedious word 'late' again. 
The simple fact is that Sony had to move from DSLR to mirrorless because they could not make enough money against CaNikon. They moved to APS-C mirrorless and got smoked pretty quickly when Canon released their M system. Fact is, the big money is made not with FF but with the APS-C where millions buy them. Sure the A7/A9 create buzz but when people go into the shop and look at the APS-C 1200D and the APS-C 6300 they do not see the massive savings in size and weight. The 'buzz' is being created in websites where people are interested in gear. 



psolberg said:


> I don't dispute canon has done well in EF-M. And precisely drives my "what if" they had gone FF. IMO they'd be the "sony" and just about owing that market.


I have no problem playing 'what if' - it is half the fun of rumours websites. But looking back with hindsight and at the decisions made at the time, and then accusing the company of lack of action serves zero purpose. 
Look at what the Sony execs said recently in an interview - they had a gem of a sensor and decided to go back into cameras _because they had the sensor_. They did not design the sensor to the camera but saw an opportunity with the product they had developed. I have said before that if it were not for the sensor, Sony would have a much lower share than they have now and if you look at the press for the first couple of generations, almost every review concentrated on the fantastic sensor with the camera functions almost an afterthought. 
And also Sony has a strong mobile phone division as well and believe that from this experience they understood the rise of video, not from production direction (as Canon had) but from social media and this is why they concentrated so heavily on video. 
So, no. I don't think Canon got their decisions wrong _at the time. _All companies make mistakes and the good ones react effectively (not necessarily quickly) when they need to to correct it.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Aug 31, 2018)

melgross said:


> What some people here aren’t giving voice to is that professionals would almost always prefer equipment designed specifically for a function, rather than some device that isn’t ideal for anything. Video will always be a clumsy add-on for a still camera, no matter how good it is.


I agree, a classic DSLR has a completely arkward form factor for longer video takes. Same with ML system cameras. That's what fueled the market for video rigs that look like a sort of LEGO Technic like solution to this problem.

That said, Stephen Soderbergh shot "Unsane" completely with an I-phone, what caused quite a stir, as you know. I can imagine that those poor victims in the team who really had to hold the smartphones for hours and hours steady enough to get the takes did have some trouble with their arms and backs in the evenings.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 31, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I have never seen stock in a very specific feature climb so high in value in such a short period of time as Eye AF.
> 
> I've never used it before, but can someone convey to me how it went from being a neat new feature to 'if Canon's next camera doesn't have it, I'm setting my house on fire'?
> 
> - A



 My 5D Mark III has eye AF. I just point one of those little red square focus thingies in my viewfinder at the subject's eye, attain AF, and shoot. As my subject moves and composition changes (that happens?) I simply use the auto-pan feature in my neck, hips and shoulders to reacquire the target.

Seriously, though... I'm with you.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 1, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Maybe because of the heat issue...? Do you always ignore the obvious, preferring instead theories of conspiracy and deceit?
> Have you seen the cooling system on the Cxxx series? That is how it is done on _proper _video cameras.
> 
> I think the real success behind Sony is not the sensor but the processor that allows it all to happen and can do so more efficiently which means less heat and they can put in 4k more easily - I am not saying they have it sussed because there are still reports about overheating albeit not as commonly as before.



Perhaps you misunderstood- I am disagreeing with you  

I believe they could have implemented FF 4K in the 5DIV if they had wanted and full APS-C 4K in the M50. Perhaps further testing and engineering tweaks may have been necessary but they simply _did not care _enough to implement them. 

Or, at worse, they were crippling the video capabilities to protect their _proper_ video camera line, as you called it. 

Either way, they can do better.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 1, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Price is the most important determining feature in what people buy. If people can't afford e.g. a $2k camera and giving up the other features baked into DSLRs and MILCs (much larger sensor, interchangeable lenses with options from fisheye to macro to supertelephoto, professional flashguns, and all the rest) and find a phone does what they want, good for them - they are sensible to choose the cheaper option. But it doesn't mean your earlier points 'a phone can do X so a camera should too' (which ignore the reality of implementing certain things with a larger sensor) and (by implication) 'adding X (e.g. 120fps video) will make them competitive against phones' stand up to scrutiny. If we're talking about people specifically choosing a high end camera (which includes all FF options), then the phone is essentially irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The more someone is using a product, let’s say in this case a MILC or DSLR, the better. If I have to reach for my phone during a shoot because it takes better video than my camera, that’s just dumb. Sony has more or less kept up with the video tech of iPhones, so Canon should try to do the same. It really is quite simple. 

And I am not the only one using “cannibalizing,” _Canon executives _used that earlier in the year when they spoke of stepping up their mirrorless entries in the market, which was a shift in strategy. With Sony’s rather good FF MILC 1H 2018 sales, we can see why Canon is interested in entering the FF MILC market. 

So, I am afraid you are wrong- their corporate strategy was slightly off, and now they are attempting to correct it. The truth hurts, but you’ll get over it.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 1, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> The more someone is using a product, let’s say in this case a MILC or DSLR, the better. If I have to reach for my phone during a shoot because it takes better video than my camera, that’s just dumb. Sony has more or less kept up with the video tech of iPhones, so Canon should try to do the same. It really is quite simple.
> 
> And I am not the only one using “cannibalizing,” _Canon executives _used that earlier in the year when they spoke of stepping up their mirrorless entries in the market, which was a shift in strategy. With Sony’s rather good FF MILC 1H 2018 sales, we can see why Canon is interested in entering the FF MILC market.
> 
> So, I am afraid you are wrong- their corporate strategy was slightly off, and now they are attempting to correct it. The truth hurts, but you’ll get over it.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 1, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Perhaps you misunderstood- I am disagreeing with you
> 
> I believe they could have implemented FF 4K in the 5DIV if they had wanted and full APS-C 4K in the M50. Perhaps further testing and engineering tweaks may have been necessary but they simply _did not care _enough to implement them.
> 
> ...



So you are admit that further testing may be have been necessary but Canon should have included it anyway?? Sony does that, but we know Canon does not. Sony are happy to release a camera that they know has overheating problems but Canon does not release products that risks crapping out at any time. It is a completely different approach to product design and release.

I know Canon exec has spoken about having to risk cannibalising sales of the higher models (I read that interview as well) but to apply that to every single decision you disagree with with is borderline moronic.


----------



## melgross (Sep 1, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I agree, a classic DSLR has a completely arkward form factor for longer video takes. Same with ML system cameras. That's what fueled the market for video rigs that look like a sort of LEGO Technic like solution to this problem.
> 
> That said, Stephen Soderbergh shot "Unsane" completely with an I-phone, what caused quite a stir, as you know. I can imagine that those poor victims in the team who really had to hold the smartphones for hours and hours steady enough to get the takes did have some trouble with their arms and backs in the evenings.



Those films, and there have been a few of them now, as well as the Tv shows, are usually filmed with what are equivalent to the SteadyCams I used when shooting Tv commercials long ago, but far smaller. Some of it is also shot on tripods. So there’s no doubt that cameras not designed specifically for something can be used. For a special look, that will be the case. Sometimes a tiny smartphone is liberating, and in certain situations, far less intimidating. But for the large majority of work, specialized equipment will always be preferred, until some time when technology enables everything to be merged

But most of us here can remember the dawn of the digital photography age, where there was much written about how not needing a film canister and a wind mechanism and all the resulting space being taken up with it, would result in new camera forms that were much more efficient, lighter, smaller, etc.

So while, for a few years, we did see some very odd shapes and functionality, after a while, the forms developed over the better part of a century came back to dominate, and even to completely eliminate all of those new experiments in form and function. The same is true for still vs video cameras. A still camera is terrible for video because it’s not designed to be used for that. The same thing in the opposite direction for video. Nobody proposes that shape for still photography, for good reason.


----------



## melgross (Sep 1, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> The more someone is using a product, let’s say in this case a MILC or DSLR, the better. If I have to reach for my phone during a shoot because it takes better video than my camera, that’s just dumb. Sony has more or less kept up with the video tech of iPhones, so Canon should try to do the same. It really is quite simple.
> 
> And I am not the only one using “cannibalizing,” _Canon executives _used that earlier in the year when they spoke of stepping up their mirrorless entries in the market, which was a shift in strategy. With Sony’s rather good FF MILC 1H 2018 sales, we can see why Canon is interested in entering the FF MILC market.
> 
> So, I am afraid you are wrong- their corporate strategy was slightly off, and now they are attempting to correct it. The truth hurts, but you’ll get over it.



I’m wondering just how correct Sony is in their statement. They’ve done this a year ago, or so, and we’re shown to be using such skewed examples that their statement was very misleading. I’d be surprised if that weren’t true here too.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 1, 2018)

scyrene said:


>






scyrene said:


>



Haha, cute non-response


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 1, 2018)

melgross said:


> I’m wondering just how correct Sony is in their statement. They’ve done this a year ago, or so, and we’re shown to be using such skewed examples that their statement was very misleading. I’d be surprised if that weren’t true here too.



Perhaps for FF sales for 1 month but for the whole first half of 2018? That’s tougher to fake.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 1, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So you are admit that further testing may be have been necessary but Canon should have included it anyway?? Sony does that, but we know Canon does not. Sony are happy to release a camera that they know has overheating problems but Canon does not release products that risks crapping out at any time. It is a completely different approach to product design and release.
> 
> I know Canon exec has spoken about having to risk cannibalising sales of the higher models (I read that interview as well) but to apply that to every single decision you disagree with with is borderline moronic.



Further R&D before release. 

Cannibalization applies here rather directly given the context of the executive’s comments along with the M50 release and it’s inclusion of 4K video. 

Not hard to understand for thinking people.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 1, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Further R&D before release.
> 
> .



So you think they should have done more R&D before release then say they did not care enough to put it in the last release. They cared enough to not put it in until it was ready, and as it needed more R&D _to meet Canon standards_ so they did not put it in. Is that so hard for thinking people to understand?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 1, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Perhaps for FF sales for 1 month but for the whole first half of 2018? That’s tougher to fake.


Their statement is likely correct. But context is important…Canon has not released a FF ILC in quite some time, and for the first half of 2018 the D850 was unavailable from all major US online retailers. Meanwhile, Sony recently released two FF MILCs, one at $2K. Given the three major manufacturers are releasing FF MILC's this year, I wouldn't expect any announcements from Sony about full year sales.


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 1, 2018)

melgross said:


> So while, for a few years, we did see some very odd shapes and functionality, after a while, the forms developed over the better part of a century came back to dominate, and even to completely eliminate all of those new experiments in form and function. The same is true for still vs video cameras. A still camera is terrible for video because it’s not designed to be used for that. The same thing in the opposite direction for video. Nobody proposes that shape for still photography, for good reason.



I think we are in a transition period. The next generation will not use cameras or smartphones in the today's meaning anymore. Digital camera like devices will be so small and light (and very capable) that you can attach them not only to glasses, but nearly everywhere, or they are integrated in clothes etc. Light field technology will be mature, so there will no focusing will be needed anymore, you just can set a focus by post processing (or use infinite DoF).

Cameras with big (interchangeable) lenses and classic form factors will survive only in the analogue market, I guess. This market be like the vinyl market, driven by a small but stable group of enthusiasts.

But - maybe the future will be completely different...


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 2, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So you think they should have done more R&D before release then say they did not care enough to put it in the last release. They cared enough to not put it in until it was ready, and as it needed more R&D _to meet Canon standards_ so they did not put it in. Is that so hard for thinking people to understand?



They did not care enough to do the R&D to include it or did not want to include to risk cannibalizing. It’s either / or both. 

Now we have a reading problem.


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 2, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Their statement is likely correct. But context is important…Canon has not released a FF ILC in quite some time, and for the first half of 2018 the D850 was unavailable from all major US online retailers. Meanwhile, Sony recently released two FF MILCs, one at $2K. Given the three major manufacturers are releasing FF MILC's this year, I wouldn't expect any announcements from Sony about full year sales.



Quite possible- we will see  

Exciting times anyway- consumers will win in the end.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 2, 2018)

justaCanonuser said:


> I think we are in a transition period. The next generation will not use cameras or smartphones in the today's meaning anymore. Digital camera like devices will be so small and light (and very capable) that you can attach them not only to glasses, but nearly everywhere, or they are integrated in clothes etc. Light field technology will be mature, so there will no focusing will be needed anymore, you just can set a focus by post processing (or use infinite DoF).
> 
> Cameras with big (interchangeable) lenses and classic form factors will survive only in the analogue market, I guess. This market be like the vinyl market, driven by a small but stable group of enthusiasts.
> 
> But - maybe the future will be completely different...



And they'll just magically notice your favourite birdie and snap it's closeup with perfect eye focus.

Or it could be different - maybe no birdies or humans left.

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 2, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> They did not care enough to do the R&D to include it or did not want to include to risk cannibalizing. It’s either / or both.
> 
> Now we have a reading problem.



Perhaps you should learn to write clear and concise English?

Or they had done as much R&D as they could and still not solved the problems.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 2, 2018)

melgross said:


> Those films, and there have been a few of them now, as well as the Tv shows, are usually filmed with what are equivalent to the SteadyCams I used when shooting Tv commercials long ago, but far smaller. Some of it is also shot on tripods. So there’s no doubt that cameras not designed specifically for something can be used. For a special look, that will be the case. Sometimes a tiny smartphone is liberating, and in certain situations, far less intimidating. But for the large majority of work, specialized equipment will always be preferred, until some time when technology enables everything to be merged
> 
> But most of us here can remember the dawn of the digital photography age, where there was much written about how not needing a film canister and a wind mechanism and all the resulting space being taken up with it, would result in new camera forms that were much more efficient, lighter, smaller, etc.
> 
> So while, for a few years, we did see some very odd shapes and functionality, after a while, the forms developed over the better part of a century came back to dominate, and even to completely eliminate all of those new experiments in form and function. The same is true for still vs video cameras. A still camera is terrible for video because it’s not designed to be used for that. The same thing in the opposite direction for video. Nobody proposes that shape for still photography, for good reason.


Or,, as said many times for many products, form follows function.....


----------



## justaCanonuser (Sep 3, 2018)

Jack Douglas said:


> And they'll just magically notice your favourite birdie and snap it's closeup with perfect eye focus.
> 
> Or it could be different - maybe no birdies or humans left.
> 
> Jack



Well, I do hope that humans and birds (overall) are fit enough to adapt to this fast changing world. Dinosaurs like me, who still love analogue photography (me besides digital photography, I am no film snob), will be stuffed and displayed in the Vinyl- and Lomo-Museum 

But I really can imagine "AI" camera technologies coming up, sort of Alexa-like ones, that pest you with dictatorial decisions what you can shoot and what not (e.g. non-smiling faces) - just like those bloody autocorrection functions turn your texts into a da da like absurd statement while you are typing. Or the AI system is so perfect like in the movie "Her", so you fall in immortal love with your camera, forget your wife, family, friends... well, sounds like this has happened already in the age of mechanical film cameras, hasn't it?


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 3, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Perhaps you should learn to write clear and concise English?
> 
> Or they had done as much R&D as they could and still not solved the problems.



Here's the concise version for the reading challenged:

_Canon, the world's most renowned and profitable camera company cannot solve sensor heating dissipation problems with full frame 4K in its latest cameras due to sensor technology limitations while technologically more advanced competitors Sony and Nikon seem to have success in this area. _

That read right to you?


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 3, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Here's the concise version for the reading challenged:
> 
> _Canon, the world's most renowned and profitable camera company cannot solve sensor heating dissipation problems with full frame 4K in its latest cameras due to sensor technology limitations while technologically more advanced competitors Sony and Nikon seem to have success in this area. _
> 
> That read right to you?


Except Sony reportedly has not 'solved' it - but they have reduced its incidence. 
We have no idea about Nikon - how do you know when it has not been tested yet?

That read right to you?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Sep 3, 2018)

I read CR for the humour.

Jack


----------



## transpo1 (Sep 3, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Except Sony reportedly has not 'solved' it - but they have reduced its incidence.
> We have no idea about Nikon - how do you know when it has not been tested yet?
> 
> That read right to you?



Nope. I believe you're thinking of the new Nikon mirrorless but they already solved this issue with the D850: 

https://www.videomaker.com/article/...ffers-hybrid-shooters-the-best-of-both-worlds

So Nikon's solved the problem but Canon hasn't. 

How's that read?


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 3, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> Nope. I believe you're thinking of the new Nikon mirrorless but they already solved this issue with the D850:
> 
> https://www.videomaker.com/article/...ffers-hybrid-shooters-the-best-of-both-worlds
> 
> ...



I see not comment about no overheating, so all we can say is they did not mention either way. Yes, I am cyncial considering overheating is one of the hot topics. But, from that same article



> Autofocus in video mode is terrible. Even if you want to do something simple as tap the screen to focus on a specific point, you can’t rely on it. It's slow and inaccurate. For video, this is perhaps the weakest aspect of the D850.



So maybe they had to sacrifice something to reduce the processor workrate? I don't know.
However, that is in the D580 - we have not yet seen the 4k video in the Z6/Z7 to know the have solved the problem in a smaller body (which is really what hths is about).

Even if the Nikon D850 does not overheat, you are falling into the assumption that because one company has found a way it automatically follows that it is 'easy' and other companies must also be able to do it. That is almost puerile in its simplicity. I don't buy that just as Nikon has taken years to develop a half-usable video function/interface whereas Canon and Sony have had it for years.

Oh, and where is Sony's touch screen? The Canon 5DIV is apparently way ahead of Sony which is another indicator that different companies have different priorities.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2018)

jmoya said:


> This is the same debate that people had when the 6d mark II was rumored and then released. The lack of 120fps on video and 4K. People were losing their shit and telling people to go screw themselves and switch canon to something else or buy a dedicated video camera. Those people are dumb! Why switch or get a video camera for something that all other manufacture camera companies offer already and have so for years. We just would like canon to catch up with the times. That's all. At least 120 on 1080 would make this perfect. We are in the film making youtube and instagram world. Where photography and video is blended into one and traveling light is essential.




Canon: "Then buy from someone else. Thanks for asking."

I mean everyone would love to be able to buy a Rolex watch for $10, but Rolex is not going to sell you one for that. If another watch company sells a watch that keeps just as good time as the Rolex, then have at it.


----------



## jmoya (Sep 4, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Canon: "Then buy from someone else. Thanks for asking."
> 
> I mean everyone would love to be able to buy a Rolex watch for $10, but Rolex is not going to sell you one for that. If another watch company sells a watch that keeps just as good time as the Rolex, then have at it.


Why are you making this a money $$$ issue. I don't care the cost. I'd buy it if it were 3-4k or even more. Just have the features I want. Simple. Give it a simple 4k codec, dual card slots and 120fps at 1080. atleast 1080.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 4, 2018)

jmoya said:


> Why are you making this a money $$$ issue. I don't care the cost. I'd buy it if it were 3-4k or even more. Just have the features I want. Simple. Give it a simple 4k codec, dual card slots and 120fps at 1080. atleast 1080.



Rolex watches don't have many features that $10 digital watches do, either.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2018)

vangelismm said:


> Eye AF is the solution for the bad AF spread points in FF DSRL´s. At least for wide open portraits.



It's a solution for those who can't focus wide open without even more hand holding than vanilla AF provides. Some folks act as if no shallow depth of field portrait could possibly have ever been made before Eye EF!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2018)

CanoKnight said:


> Who decides what is a "still camera price" or a "real video camera price" ? You're obviously not familiar with the free market. The world has moved on while Canon, like some of their apologists, have been sleeping under a rock.





CanoKnight said:


> Actually Red was a big factor behind the cinema EOS line. Red made a big splash in 2007 which had Hollywood enamored and Canon looking at their own success with the 5D2 a year later, reasoned there was a big untapped market for pro video in Red's price range. That's when they decided to downplay video in their prosumer dslrs going forward. But the world has changed. Today there are brilliant products from Sony and Panasonic that do both photo and high quality video while Canon keeps recycling the same s***.



Also while Canon continues to sell roughly half of all ILCs sold worldwide.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 4, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Please clarify what 'fully EF compatible new mount' means to you:
> 
> If you mean what everyone else is doing -- thin flange distance plus EF adaptor -- then yes. 100% they need a few new lenses a launch. Hopefully they are lenses that make the size savings pop and are not clones of higher end EF glass (which would send EF users into a panic that EF is going away, even with an adaptor in the mix).
> 
> ...




Isn't that what all of these "window dressing" lens updates are really about? Just because Canon hasn't told us yet does not mean new lenses like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III aren't mostly about being compatible with new and upcoming camera bodies, such as the new FF ML. That's always the way Canon has done things. Secretly include the capability of working with upcoming products for 2-3 years before the new product is rolled out. How long has it been since the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II was introduced? Hmmmm...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 5, 2018)

Michael Clark said:


> Isn't that what all of these "window dressing" lens updates are really about? Just because Canon hasn't told us yet does not mean new lenses like the EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS III aren't mostly about being compatible with new and upcoming camera bodies, such as the new FF ML. That's always the way Canon has done things. Secretly include the capability of working with upcoming products for 2-3 years before the new product is rolled out. How long has it been since the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS II was introduced? Hmmmm...


Possibly, but I think more likely the ‘minor’ updates represent Canon moving their more popular lenses to fully automated production lines.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 5, 2018)

I think it is very likely *both*.


----------

