# The EOS 80D Replacement to be a Big Leap Forward [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 22, 2018)

```
<p>We’re hearing very little about new DSLRs from Canon, outside of a few mentions about the replacement for the EOS 80D.</p>
<p>We’re told that the next version of the camera will be a “big leap forward” for the line. With product cycles being longer, Canon is apparently aware that “future proofing” cameras will become an important part of their sales strategy.</p>
<p>The EOS 80D was <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/buyers-guide/canon-eos-80d/">announced 855 days ago</a> at the time of this post.</p>
<p>The same source also claims there’s a possibility that the EOS 80D replacement will not be called the “EOS 90D”, which is something we would find odd if true.</p>
<p>It sounds like a lot of marketing presentation information is at play here, as it’s all very vague. However, it does line up with some of the changes internally at Canon that we’ve heard about.</p>
<p>There is no mention of when the replacement for the EOS 80D will be announced.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## fullstop (Jun 22, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> <p>The same source also claims there’s a possibility that the EOS 80D replacement will not be called the “EOS 90D”, which is something we would find odd if true.</p>



why? before EOS 100D it is "end of the line" anyways. So why not change the numbering scheme in time and not when there really is no more alternative left? EOS 99D anyone? ;D


----------



## robinlee (Jun 22, 2018)

Well they better be true and proper leap forward this time round!

Thanks Sony.


----------



## Etienne (Jun 22, 2018)

To translate Canonspeak: "Future proof" = "Compete with Sony"


----------



## Lurker (Jun 22, 2018)

Are they confusing 7D III specs with an 80D successor? Combine the n0D and 7D lines? 

Doesn't seem like there's a lot of room to take a big leap forward on the 90D (or whatever) without killing the 7D II. I'd like the 7D III to come out first unless Canon is trying to get me to buy the 90D and then wow me again with the 7D III so I buy that too.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jun 22, 2018)

Will there finally be a 4K video implementation worth having? 

I remember back when the 80D was announced I was disappointing in the lack of 4K due to the A6300 release that was earlier. I thought it would be the last Canon to not have 4K or to offer horrendous implementations of it and here we are over two years later with just bad implementations available and some cameras still without.


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 22, 2018)

Canon's new BLF-10! (Big Leap Forward - 10)


----------



## snappy604 (Jun 22, 2018)

I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.

I had hoped to move to full frame but the 6D MkII seemed a step back. Hopefully this really is a leap forward... but damn it I want to move beyond crop!


----------



## GmwDarkroom (Jun 22, 2018)

Maybe they don't want to stomp on the legendary T90?

At any rate, I'm pleased to see this. I waffled on an 80D to replace my 60D, but really wanted a 7D2 with the 80D screen.


----------



## LensFungus (Jun 22, 2018)

“big leap forward” bla bla bla, that's just marketing talk. 

The 80D was a fine camera and the 80D replacement will also be a fine camera. The big question is what specs this new camera will get. Is Canon just trying to release something equal to existing older Sony cameras like the A6300 and A6500 or will they try to leapfrog them? With Canon being Canon there is a good chance that they will just release something equal which could end in the usual disappointment because according to the Sony rumor page we're getting slowly closer to the next generation of Sony A6xxx cameras.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2018)

Big leap forward? Really?

I'm guessing the 90D is going to be exactly what we think it is. 

This is -- at least to me -- one of the more straightforward sequels to predict: I think it's going to be an 80D with a newer sensor, 4K w/ working DPAF. (Am I nuts?)

- A


----------



## Matthew Saville (Jun 22, 2018)

If only Canon had been aware of this wild notion, "future proofing", when they decided on the 6D2...

/sarcasm.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2018)

Yada yada yada!

Nice to know by [CR2] that "something" will happen to the x0D line. 

But sorry CR, this piece of (miss-) information is so far away from any kind of being worthy of a rumor, that I'll just *yawn*.

I know, rumor business is hard sometimes, but without "spice" (bits of information) this is not worth one single molecule of salt (NaCl).

*yawn again*


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Yada yada yada!
> 
> Nice to know by [CR2] that "something" will happen to the x0D line.
> 
> ...



We won't see a 90D for just about another 12 months, so hearsay is all we can really go on right now.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Yada yada yada!
> ...


But good to know it's [CR2] : 

Sorry, but if you're right with the 12 months - I have no opinion on this - everything can/won't happen. 
(Of course the prototypes are built, and in field, but nothing is clear yet - except for some Canon people).

To me this is no piece of information, it isn't even a rumor, so you are right: _"hearsay"_ - no it isn't even that. 
And I haven't seen a [CR2] just for _"hearsay"_ since I've been reading here as of 2009.

Meh!

(and yet I haven't been prominent in bashing at Canon or even canonrumors - no! I appreciate this site and the forum, but this here is bo****)


----------



## Azathoth (Jun 22, 2018)

My guess:

Just a little bigger buffer
26 megapixels with perhaps 8 fps
30 fps 4K with DPAF
Maybe dual card slots but not likely

That's it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> We’re hearing very little about new DSLRs from Canon



That's because Canon knows mirrorless is the future and the DSLR is dead. They're switching entirely to mirrorless, all DSLR production will stop immediately. 

YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!!!!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 22, 2018)

I think they're going to have to do the 7DIII very soon after the 90D or whatever it will be called.

I'm assuming the 90D will be the DSLR version of the M5 Mark II as discussed earlier, ie:

28.3MP APS-C
[email protected] video with DPAF

Where does that leave the venerable 7D Mark II? Looking very sorry indeed


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Where does that leave the venerable 7D Mark II? Looking very sorry indeed



The 7-series has endured being one-upped by the XXD line before. The 70D got DPAF first and critically got a tilty-flippy -- something the 7D line has never had. The 80D got the on-sensor ADC architecture, which is something the 7-series has never had.

But this is to be expected:_ a lot of new tech happens in a 5+ year 7D lifecycle_. The premise of a 5+ year lifecycle product staying top-dog in all features in its sensor size for its entire lifecycle is virtually nil. The only way Canon could do that would be to very painfully/obviously nerf everything that gets released below the 7-series for 5 years. Canon tactically leaves things out of lesser cameras, sure, but they aren't going to stunt the growth of lesser crop cameras for a full five years just to make the 7D-line look great.

The trick is for the lesser products that scoop the 7-series (with new tech, new feature, etc.) never get access to things that the 7-series gets -- top top AF and tracking, super tough build and sealing, etc. The 1-series has always lorded some exclusive features over the 5-series. It works the same way for the 7-series vs. the XXD.

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ...
> They're switching entirely to mirrorless, all DSLR production will stop immediately.
> 
> YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST!!!!


LOL 

Thank you ;D 8)


----------



## SV (Jun 22, 2018)

Heard it will be called the EOS AR-90


----------



## RGF (Jun 22, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.
> 
> I had hoped to move to full frame but the 6D MkII seemed a step back. Hopefully this really is a leap forward... but damn it I want to move beyond crop!



that is why Canon needs to move the needle - get you to open your wallet and buy the 90D. 

Don't expect to see it


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 22, 2018)

Maybe it will become the EOS 8D


----------



## RGF (Jun 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > We’re hearing very little about new DSLRs from Canon
> ...



perhaps they will even a phone to the camera and make it small enough to put in your pocket. And call it an iP.. hold there is an iPhone


----------



## RGF (Jun 22, 2018)

It seems that Canon first seriously updates their top of line cameras and then the features get diluted and trickle down to lower end cameras. You can expect this to continue ..

the 90 D will be an 80D with slightly better bells and whistles. nothing more


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2018)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Wait, are you suggesting some sort of merger/acquisition between Canon and Apple? That sounds unlikely. But maybe if I write a 2,000 word forum post filled with RANDOMLY capitalized words, it will sound PLAUSIBLE. Especially if I sprinkle the post liberally with LEGALESE and TECHNOBABBLE and make promises I don't intend to keep. 

;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2018)

RGF said:


> It seems that Canon first seriously updates their top of line cameras and then the features get diluted and trickle down to lower end cameras. You can expect this to continue ..
> 
> the 90 D will be an 80D with slightly better bells and whistles. nothing more



Except Canon doesn't operate this way in crop like it does in FF.

FF: 1DX --> 5D3 --> 6D1 got launched in cadence and kept a similar refresh timing. So, they repeated that approach with the 1DX2 --> 5D4 --> 6D2, and one would think they would keep that structure in place for the _next_ revision.

But crop is quite different:

7-series: 5-ish year refresh
XXD-series: 3-ish year refresh
(slush of tweener rigs like the 760D, 77D, etc.): TBD, Canon is still feeling this market out
Rebel series: 2 year refresh (nowadays, used to be 1 year).

So, in this case, yes, the 7D3 and 90D appear to be slated to come out within 12 months of each other, so yes, Canon _could_ do the 1-Series --> 5-Series --> 6- Series trickle down thing -- but it's not consistent with past practice. I would not be surprised to see the 90D come out before the 7D3.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 22, 2018)

RGF said:


> the 90 D will be an 80D with slightly better bells and whistles. nothing more



For stills folks, I think you're right.

But some video folks would give their left nut for DPAF + 4K + tilty-flippy in a rig ~ $1200, even if it's crop. I think the 90D will be very attractive to video folks, even if lacks all the fine-print specifics some folks really want.

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 22, 2018)

RGF said:


> It seems that Canon first seriously updates their top of line cameras and then the features get diluted and trickle down to lower end cameras. You can expect this to continue ..
> 
> the 90 D will be an 80D with slightly better bells and whistles. nothing more



Actually, new features tend to arrive on lower end cameras, even powershots!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 22, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > the 90 D will be an 80D with slightly better bells and whistles. nothing more
> ...



People on stills orientated forums often lose track of video sensor sizes. An APS crop is effectively the same size as Super 35, the $30,000 body only C700 is a Super 35 sized sensor.


----------



## snappy604 (Jun 22, 2018)

RGF said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.
> ...



Sad thing is my wallet was ready for the 6d MkII when it came out... and now it's not :-/


----------



## dak723 (Jun 23, 2018)

Etienne said:


> To translate Canonspeak: "Future proof" = "Compete with Sony"



Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha!

The Sony love shown on this forum is unbelievable! Go buy a Sony and be happy!

That's what I did - and I am so happy that Canon makes cameras that are SO MUCH BETTER!

That cured me of the Sony-mania that runs rampant on the internet! A few days with a Sony and you will appreciate the ergonomics of Canon, the reliability of Canon and most of all the color quality of Canon.

But please, continue to troll the Canon forums! We can always use a good laugh!


----------



## HarryFilm (Jun 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



---

OK !!! NOW you're just getting annoying!

Here is the scoop! 

1) We were bought out! FOR A S&*^&LOAD of money!

2) it WAS NOT CANON !!!

3) I was able to FORCE the buyer to agree to some specific product terms 
which they were actually rather fine and pleased to agree with!
These are HARD CONTRACT TERMS and they are being adhered to!

4) A Very Large Sensor 65mm Medium Format COMBINED Stills and Video Camera
is coming out real soon now.....I ENSURED THE FOLLOWING ARE HAPPENING!

a) It has 8192 by 6144 pixels at a 4:3 aspect ratio with recording 
at multiple user-selectable common cinema and video aspect ratios.

b) It has 16-bits per colour channel with RGB + Depth Map Channel (64-bits pixel)

c) It shoots at 25 fps Burst rate 50 megapixels

d) It has a 6.xx microns per photosite Bayer Pattern sensor

e) It has 4:4:4 RAW and 4:4:4/4:2:2 at 14/12/10/8-bits 
per channel JPEG-2000/JPEG still photos with a depth map channel.

f) It has 4:4:4 RAW uncompressed, 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1 RAW 16/14/12/10/8-bits 
per channel + depth map video saved internally to removable SSD drives
(TWO SSD connectors) and via the HDMI/Display ports video out.

g) It has DCI 4k (4096 x 2160 pixels) 4:2:2 14/12/10/8-bits per channel
+ depth map INTERFRAME H.265 compressed video out with each frame 
fully sampled from the entire sensor at a full 60 fps. (Video is CLEAN 
on all output ports)

h) It has DCI 4K 120 fps 10 bit 4:2:2 video and DCI 4K 240 fps 4:2:0 8-bit 
video cropped from the middle of the sensor.

i) It has Date/Time/GPS Location and other user-definable Metadata Stamps 
on every still photo and every video frame or every GOP (group of frames) 
which is user selectable and streamed out live via USB-3.1 port.

j) It is low-light and low-noise-specific engineered BETTER THAN the Sony A7s2

h) It has a very ergonomic moveable/changeable grip and the body 
has a fullyrotating/swivelling OLED 2.7k Live View screen

i) Multiple lenses are coming out right from the starting gate! 
Both Zooms and Primes of VERY high quality! Lens prices will
be commensurate with quality of lenses.

j) Battery life for Stills AND Video is phenomenal because battery 
is much larger than most other systems

k) MUCH Cheaper than Hasselblad and Phase-One!


5) A series of large sensor Android smartphones (Four-thirds AND an APS-C 
at 28.4mm diagonal size) with 4K screens and 16 Gigabytes of SYSTEM RAM 
and 128 GB and 256 GB of built-in storage is coming out! One phone will 
have an interchangeable lens. I won't yet say which mount because that 
would be too obvious!) Stills are 20+ Megapixels 4:4:4/4:2:2 RAW/JPEG-2000/JPEG
and video is 4096x2160 at 60 fps 10 bits 4:2:2 Interframe H.265 encoded.

6) A DCI 8K (8192 by 4380 pixel) 65mm video/cinema camera 
is ALSO being introduced with details coming later.

SO THERE !!!!

P.S. YES they ALL use my codec!

P.S.2. YES I did take a check ride in that Bell 429 !!!

P.S.3 YES I have actual corporate APPROVAL to leak the specs here....


----------



## Etienne (Jun 23, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



The new Canon C700 FF is Full Frame 35mm US$ 33,000


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 23, 2018)

Etienne said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Yes, and the C700 is Super 35 and $28,000, further, many of the Cine lenses have a Super 35 31.5mm diameter image circle, yep the $70,000 50-1000mm lens won't even cover a 35mm "FF" sensor.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



But now he can claim special knowledge...... after all, who could have predicted that after the 10D, the 20D, the 30D, the 40D, the 50D, the 60D, the 70D, and the 80D, that the 80D would be replaced by a 90D. INCONCEIVABLE!


----------



## Durf (Jun 23, 2018)

Well, the 90D won't be able to cook me dinner or get me a beer out of the fridge, so I'll just keep using my good ole trustworthy and dependable 80D and cook my own dinner and get my own beer out of the fridge....


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2018)

Durf said:


> Well, the 90D won't be able to cook me dinner or get me a beer out of the fridge, so I'll just keep using my good ole trustworthy and dependable 80D and cook my own dinner and get my own beer out of the fridge....



They had a special Canadian version of the 90D which would get you a bear out of the fridge, which would then eat you for dinner..... but due to liability issues, it had to be cancelled......


----------



## Durf (Jun 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > Well, the 90D won't be able to cook me dinner or get me a beer out of the fridge, so I'll just keep using my good ole trustworthy and dependable 80D and cook my own dinner and get my own beer out of the fridge....
> ...



I've got bears walking around my cabin here almost on a daily basis, none of them will get me a beer!

One got my bird feeder a couple of weeks ago and I had it strung 20ft up from a tree, this bear had to do a suicide dive to get it but he did......I found it out back chewed to peices.
(But I do get some darn good bear pics here!)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2018)

Durf said:


> (But I do get some darn good bear pics here!)



I get some good beer pics here, too.


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > (But I do get some darn good bear pics here!)
> ...



Yes, but you have a 1DX.... the 80D has been nerfed by Canon and does not have beer mode.... 

The 7D2 has it, but it is a rather poor implementation of beer mode... after a couple of beers the pictures get noticeably softer, horizons are not level, and IS fails to keep the image steady.....


----------



## Durf (Jun 23, 2018)

Huh???? My 80D has beer mode.....you need to read the manual. (see pg 846 paragraph 37 & footnote 94)


----------



## WoodyWindy (Jun 23, 2018)

Don Haines said:


> <<deleting irrelevant other quotes...>>
> 
> But now he can claim special knowledge...... after all, who could have predicted that after the 10D, the 20D, the 30D, the 40D, the 50D, the 60D, the 70D, and the 80D, that the 80D would be replaced by a 90D. INCONCEIVABLE!


Let's not forget, though, that the EOS 10D followed the EOS D30 and EOS D60 (which I owned). Changing numbering schemes is not a new thing with Canon...


----------



## efmshark (Jun 23, 2018)

My expectations are quite low:


Canon will add 4K Video support but just crippled enough not to cannibalize the professional camcorder product lines.
For still photography, a new sensor with slightly improved resolution and slightly improved noise characteristics.
No major improvements in ergonomics, except maybe a higher resolution LCD display.

However, I would be very happy to be proven wrong with some major improvements like:


Hybrid viewfinder. Works as optical viewfinder when the mirror is in place, works as an OLED viewfinder when operating the camera in live view mode.
Completely new design backlit sensor with more than one additional stop dynamic range.
Fully electronic extra fast shutter that enables tripod-less HDR imaging and fast burst operation.
Better ergonomics for controlling exposure compensation and/or focus points.
Automatic lens AF calibration.
Focus peaking in live view and video modes.
Sensor based image stabilization. When combined with lens based image stabilization, provide 5 stops of effective IS.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 23, 2018)

I did not get the 80D because it felt cheap and lightweight to me, not like the solid feel of my old 40D's (I had 5 of them). Now, the 7 series gets the heavy duty bodies. It would be nice to see Canon step up when they put out the replacement. I bought a SL-2 instead of the 80D. I like it, but the lack of AFMA is sometimes a pain. I almost always use it in liveview where focus is more accurate.


----------



## Andreos (Jun 23, 2018)

"changes internally at Canon" ???

[CR0]


----------



## transpo1 (Jun 23, 2018)

Andreos said:


> "changes internally at Canon" ???
> 
> [CR0]



I hope so. If true, they’ve finally taken to heart what I’ve been saying on this forum for years- disrupt yourselves before the competition does it for you. (One could say they have been a little late to this party.)

And does “future proofing” mean 2.5x crop 4K with DPAF or ACTUAL, usable 4K? One hopes they’ve learned their lesson with the M50.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 23, 2018)

I just want the 5DS with wi-fi and a flippy screen... Ok and I would say give me all that stuffed into an SL2 body but I'm not going to ask for miracles.

What we need is a "6DS".
The 5DS has fantastic noise performance, in tests I think it looks better than the 5D4, there's really no need for on-chip ADC as long as Canon can keep a 50MP sensor performing the way that one does.
The 6D2 is a mess for sure, I have no idea how they managed that but if they can keep doing whatever they did with the 5DS they have a winning formula.
Give me that sensor in a tiny plastic body with a flippy screen (and two card slots, please)...
And then sell it for $2,000USD
 Please?
(That's something they can do now that it's an old sensor, right?)


----------



## MartinF. (Jun 23, 2018)

What if Canon tried a Mirrorless / hybrid technique in the XXD line. Ex. a 80D replacement, Mirrorless, but with EF /EF-S/EF-M mount or a DSLR (EF/ES-S) with a hybrid (OVF/EVF) viewfinder. - Or something along those lines.
(and by that of course come up with some new naming scheme)


----------



## Ozarker (Jun 23, 2018)

efmshark said:


> My expectations are quite low:
> ...just crippled enough not to cannibalize the professional camcorder product lines.



CanonFanBoy lets out a huge sigh, "There's that weird and illogical thinking again. There's that stupid word again. Why do people get so confused about market segmentation? Do they really believe somebody is going to buy an 80D to do what they really need a professional camcorder for? With those XLR outputs, ethernet connector, and all that? That tweeking the 4K on a DSLR is going to destroy another product line?" SMH.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jun 23, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> Sad thing is my wallet was ready for the 6d MkII when it came out... and now it's not :-/



Same. The 6DII was such a poor release it made me look at other brands. Canon can't continue with that approach. With most cameras that disappoint I often think it was a genuine mistake or a lack of technology at the time. With the 6DII it very much felt like Canon testing themselves as to how little they could offer for how much. With the 6DII it was more than intentionally crippled and that's very sad for someone who loved the original and was very excited for a second one.


----------



## BeenThere (Jun 23, 2018)

Future Proofing =. Send your old model back to Canon for a $50 credit on new model.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 23, 2018)

9VIII said:


> I just want the 5DS with wi-fi and a flippy screen... Ok and I would say give me all that stuffed into an SL2 body but I'm not going to ask for miracles.
> 
> What we need is a "6DS".
> The 5DS has fantastic noise performance, in tests I think it looks better than the 5D4, there's really no need for on-chip ADC as long as Canon can keep a 50MP sensor performing the way that one does.
> ...



The 5DS/R is comparable to the 5DIV for noise from about iso 600 to 6400, where the 5DS stops its native iso. But, at low iso the 5DIV is better. I do love the 5DSR and use it more frequently than my 5DIV. It does need a pair of DIGIC processors to cope with the amount of data to be processed which adds to the cost.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 23, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Same. The 6DII was such a poor release



The 6DII isn't a camera I would buy, but I think the reputation isn't well deserved. It's a significant upgrade.

* 26 mpx vs 20mpx

* 45 cross points vs 1 (plus 10 normal)

* DPAF

* Higher frame rate

If you were expecting the 6DII to be a 5DIV then guess what, the 5DIV is available for you!


Now, what Canon couldn't help is that Sony released their A7III at around the same price, and the A7III is a hard act to beat.


----------



## The Fat Fish (Jun 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Same. The 6DII was such a poor release
> ...



It also offered lower dynamic range and no ALL-I video. Sure, they are some upgrades but 5 years worth? No.

The 5DIV is very overpriced in my opinion. It's a $3300 priced camera now out spec'd by a $2000 competitor. This is the heart of the issue for Canon. They offer average features for a really high price meaning poorly featured cameras are also at a high price.

Canon appear to pitch their $3300 camera at the $2000 competitors instead of the $3300 competitors (A7RIII and D850).


----------



## Don Haines (Jun 23, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> The Fat Fish said:
> 
> 
> > Same. The 6DII was such a poor release
> ...


And despite being a “poor release”, it sells well and takes great pictures....


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 23, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Canon appear to pitch their $3300 camera at the $2000 competitors instead of the $3300 competitors (A7RIII and D850).



This is why a 5DSR II is sorely needed


----------



## tomscott (Jun 23, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.
> 
> I had hoped to move to full frame but the 6D MkII seemed a step back. Hopefully this really is a leap forward... but damn it I want to move beyond crop!



As someone who works professionally and owns the 70D 7DMKII 6DMKII, 5DMKIV and used twin 5DMKIII's for 4 years..

The 5DMKIV is the best but my favourite camera of the lot is the 6DMKII. If you like the 80d you will love the 6DMKII.

Don't believe the bad press in real life it is excellent. I pick the 6DMKII over the 5DMKIV in every situation I don't need twin slots which is pretty much everything but weddings and events. First choice for all my personal work.

Absolutely love it. The DR argument is BS really, its a far better than the 5DMKIII IMO.

As long as a 7D body is around it would stop me buying a crop, the crop cameras to me are fairly moot now anyway as with the 6DMKII at 26mp, 5DMKIV at 30 and the 5DSR at 50mp the benefit of crop is even more muddy unless you are on an extreme budget. I would take all of them over a 90D body, the 7D line is different as the only downside is the crop sensor otherwise the body is almost identical.


----------



## Durf (Jun 23, 2018)

tomscott said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.
> ...



I also shoot both the 80D and 6D2 and using these two cameras together is amazing and they pair so nicely and are so fun to use I personally have no desire what so ever to replace either one, not even with a better camera such as a 5D4.

The image quality I get out of these two cameras is extremely nice and I have no complaints.

All this negative internet crap about either one of these cameras is like blah blah blah and listening to fingernails running across a chalkboard.....


----------



## Generalized Specialist (Jun 23, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Same. The 6DII was such a poor release it made me look at other brands. Canon can't continue with that approach. With most cameras that disappoint I often think it was a genuine mistake or a lack of technology at the time. With the 6DII it very much felt like Canon testing themselves as to how little they could offer for how much. With the 6DII it was more than intentionally crippled and that's very sad for someone who loved the original and was very excited for a second one.



Same. I was itching for FF and would have jumped on the 6Dii when it came out but then I read it had the 80D's focus system in it, all focus points clustered in the middle. I think that's what did it for me, made me look at other brands and have since gotten a Sony and a Fuji. STILL have my 80D up for sale and STILL zero interest in it. Said it before and I'll say it again - a couple of years ago if I put any of my Canon stuff up for sale it was gone in days, now I'm getting no interest from anyone serious. I'd wager if I put my Sony up for sale I'd get a lot of interest and it would be gone soon. How times have changed.

Personally speaking, I am very interested in the next A6x00 and have zero interest in 90D. We can all be pretty sure Canon will offer only a few incremental improvements or features making it somewhere between the A6300 and A6500 in performance. Sony will release something that will be another powerhouse of a camera and offer everything they are capable of putting into a body. Canon? Not so much, can't blur the lines between the immediate model below or the model above.


----------



## Generalized Specialist (Jun 23, 2018)

snappy604 said:


> I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.



The 80D is actually an excellent all rounder, it really is. The problem is the rest of the manufacturers are moving faster than Canon is willing to so the competition is just more excellent-er in what they are releasing. 

AND, this is the important bit, Canon has totally fallen down on APS-C or EF-M lenses. I can buy the argument to using EF lenses on the APS-C DSLR's but not so much on mirrorless. No one wants to use a FF lens + adapter on a little body and this is something Sony and Fuji have done much better than Canon.


----------



## Durf (Jun 23, 2018)

yes, my 80D is so many years behind all the technology of today's camera's I have to use decades old lenses on it to get any kind of decent images with it.............


----------



## fullstop (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> The 80D is actually an excellent all rounder, it really is. The problem is the rest of the manufacturers are moving faster than Canon is willing to so the competition is just more excellent-er in what they are releasing.
> AND, this is the important bit, Canon has totally fallen down on APS-C or EF-M lenses. I can buy the argument to using EF lenses on the APS-C DSLR's but not so much on mirrorless. No one wants to use a FF lens + adapter on a little body and this is something Sony and Fuji have done much better than Canon.



Agree with your first, general statement. 

Don't agree on with you re. Canon EF-S and EF-M lens lineup. Of course these are mostly "consumer-focused" zooms and only a few moderately fast primes. Perfectly targeted to the user group, their wallets and their desire to not lug around big, heavy gear. (Almost) all EF-S and EF-M lenses are at least "optically decent", some are to "outstanding". Especially considering the affordable prices. 

Overall, I consider the Canon EF-S lineup clearly better than the Nikon DX lens lineup. A few highlights either side, a few dogs as well. 

Overall, I consider Canon EF-M superior to the entire universe of lenses for Sony E-mount. They are many, but only few are as good and/or as affordable as those compact EF-M lenses. Nothing in Sony E-mount land can touch Canon EF-M 22/2. - with or without Zeiss label on it. And this for only 150 Euro! 

Canon EF-S and EF-M lineups are almost complete for any lens that can be made more compact than EF lenses thanks to smaller APS-C image circle + shorter FFD for EOS M. Only prime lens "missing" is a compact EF-M portrait tele, e.g. a EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM. 

Now, do I sound like a "Canapologist", or what? ;D

PS: EOS 90D? Mainly for the remaining "n00bs" who still believe "only a DSLR takes good images". 7D series is a slightly different story. But Rebels and all xxDs ? Even Canon EOS M50 runs circles around them. Today.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> this is the important bit, Canon has totally fallen down on APS-C or EF-M lenses.



no they haven't. the vast majority of the world doesn't care about primes.


----------



## BillB (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.
> ...



So what M lenses would it take to make you happy?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> So what M lenses would it take to make you happy?



that's the right question to ask. Normally I don't hear anything back then. No matter if I ask here or dpreview staffers or Thom Hogan - who all love to say "EF-M lens lineup sucks".


----------



## rsdofny (Jun 23, 2018)

How about some constant f4 zooms and f1.4 primes? The M5 and M6 are so small that I cannot put a EF or EFS lens on it. 

[/quote]
So what M lenses would it take to make you happy?
[/quote]


----------



## dak723 (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.
> ...



Canon understands the target market for their cameras - something far too many folks on this forum fail to do. Their APS-C cameras are meant for an average camera user who will buy 2 maybe 3 affordable zoom lenses. They could spend a lot of money and time making more primes, but if you were Canon, would you do it if it meant you would probably lose money on lenses that sold only a very minimal number?

It's so easy to ask for things or make demands when it's not your money that's involved.


----------



## dak723 (Jun 23, 2018)

rsdofny said:


> How about some constant f4 zooms and f1.4 primes? The M5 and M6 are so small that I cannot put a EF or EFS lens on it.
> 
> Because the target market won't buy those. And the size, especially of those f/1.4 primes, will still be an issue on the M size camera.


----------



## rsdofny (Jun 23, 2018)

The Sigma 16 f1.4 and 30 f1.4 for E-mount are sharp, fast and relatively affordable. 

There are many small Sony lens that are very good and small but expensive.



[/quote]

Overall, I consider Canon EF-M superior to the entire universe of lenses for Sony E-mount. They are many, but only few are as good and/or as affordable as those compact EF-M lenses. Nothing in Sony E-mount land can touch Canon EF-M 22/2. - with or without Zeiss label on it. And this for only 150 Euro! 

Canon EF-S and EF-M lineups are almost complete for any lens that can be made more compact than EF lenses thanks to smaller APS-C image circle + shorter FFD for EOS M. Only prime lens "missing" is a compact EF-M portrait tele, e.g. a EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM. 

Now, do I sound like a "Canapologist", or what? ;D

PS: EOS 90D? Mainly for the remaining "n00bs" who still believe "only a DSLR takes good images". 7D series is a slightly different story. But Rebels and all xxDs ? Even Canon EOS M50 runs circles around them. Today. 
[/quote]


----------



## rsdofny (Jun 23, 2018)

No one would disagree Canon's strategy to maximize its profit and pace its product innovation. A good company should have product designed ready to go to respond to competition when it is called for. Based on the sarcasm on this forum, Canon should realize how upset its customer base is.




Generalized Specialist said:


> snappy604 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm quite happy with the 80D to be honest.. it's a really decent camera.
> ...


----------



## fullstop (Jun 23, 2018)

why would I buy a 16mm f/1.4 lens? If I were into Astro, I would definitely use a FF camera, not a crop sensor. Plus the lens is big and heavy by EF-M standards. 

Sigma 30/1.4 - well, that looks ok size, weight and price-wise. Let's see how the rumored Canon EF-M 32/1.4 compares - if&when it really comes. 

How many more decent, compact and affordable lenses for Sony E-mount? Amongst the hundreds out there? Any by Sony themselves or only third-party?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> We can all be pretty sure Canon will offer only a few incremental improvements or features making it somewhere between the A6300 and A6500 in performance. Sony will release something that will be another powerhouse of a camera and offer everything they are capable of putting into a body.



We can all be pretty sure Canon will sell more 90D bodies than Sony will sell of whatever 'powerhouse' camera they release. But do enjoy that new Sony that I'm just sure you'll buy. 

Why are you here, anyway?




rsdofny said:


> Based on the sarcasm on this forum, Canon should realize how upset its customer base is.



This forum does not represent Canon's customer base, and except for a handful of disgruntled trolls who post here in between sojourns upstairs from the basement when their mom makes them do their chores, most people here are generally satisfied with Canon gear. 

Now, if you mean sarcasm directed against the forum trolls, yes there's plenty of that.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 23, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> This forum does not represent Canon's customer base,



true. About 90% of all Canapologists worldwide are posting here.


----------



## Talys (Jun 23, 2018)

Sounds fantastic. Since the 80D is my most used, and all-time favorite camera, my expectations are now high 

I didn't think I would buy another APSC DSLR for a long time, because the 80D really checks all the boxes for me -- but I guess I'll stay tuned!


----------



## Generalized Specialist (Jun 23, 2018)

rsdofny said:


> The Sigma 16 f1.4 and 30 f1.4 for E-mount are sharp, fast and relatively affordable.
> 
> There are many small Sony lens that are very good and small but expensive.



Bingo. I have the Sigma 16/1.4 and Sigma 60/2.8 for my A6000, love them both! I haven't checked so I could be wrong but am sure the Sigma 16 & 30 isn't available in EF-M, not sure of the Sigma 60? Am going out today to buy the Sigma 30/1.4 in E mount. These are all very good examples of affordable, fast, smallish, lightish, above average lenses not available in EF-M mount. If I'm not wrong and they aren't available in EF-M mount that suggests Sigma doesn't see the business case there.

Yes the Canon 22 is good, the 11-22 UWA zoom is good, but then what else is there ??? Much of the aftermarket is passing the EF-M mount by, even for manual focus glass but they can't seem to get onboard with E mount fast enough. 

Sony also has their decent 18-135, the 16-105/4.0 zoom is decent and unique being a constant f4, the 35 and 50 1.8's are good and have OSS, the Sony 85/1.8 is fantastic and not too overpriced, the 55-210 is more or less similar to the equivalent Canon zoom, but the Sony 10-18 is overpriced, the FF Sony 28/2.0 is a lens I'd like to have but am choosing the Sigma 30 over it for cost and aperture reasons. 

So with E mount I have ready access to a handful of quite nice primes for reasonable money, some zoom's that are respectable with one even offering a constant f/4.0 with the only 'penalty' being the UWA which is priced double what it should be. No adapters needed.

As a bonus what I like about Sony is when I do go FF I can use my crop lenses on the FF body, something you can't do (at least at this point) with Canon, maybe the upcoming FF mirrorless will allow it but again, this is Canon we're talking about, they'll find a way to make it impossible just to force you to upgrade.


----------



## BillB (Jun 23, 2018)

fullstop said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > This forum does not represent Canon's customer base,
> ...



Definitely an imaginary number! But hopefully not intended to be taken literally. Of course the "about" can be stretched a bit if the need arises.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 23, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> It also offered lower dynamic range and no ALL-I video.



As for the dynamic range, I rarely shoot at ISO 100, so according to tests, that's beside the point for me. But I did ask here how I can demonstrate that DR problem using my own 6D2, and was told not to waste my time trying to duplicate the situation.

But I do have a question about ALL-I video. Is there any advantage to using it other than to speed up editing on slow computers? My understanding is that it creates larger file sizes by duplicating the unchanging parts of the picture on each frame, IOW, each frame is a key frame. For IPB the computer is reconstructing some frames by looking backward and forward at the unchanged parts of the picture and taking the supplied changed parts. I can see how that could be less than optimal with a very smoky atmosphere and the like. But in the video I have shot with the 6D2, I can't see that I have lost anything.

My computer is a 3 1/2-year-old iMac with a 4GHz i7 processor. It handles 1080p and 4K video in FCP X with no problems. So I have not experienced any slowdowns from IPB files. By the time I have edited a 15- or 20-minute video, FCP has temporarily eaten up about 300 GB of space on my SSD with its work files, however, so I know some of the illusion of speed comes from that.

From my limited experience I have no reason to doubt Canon's conclusion that ALL-I was not used that much on enthusiast-level cameras, and don't see much point in the expectation of its inclusion in that line of cameras except to look good on stat sheets.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> Sigma 16/1.4
> Sigma 60/2.8
> Sony also has their decent 18-135,
> the 16-105/4.0 zoom is decent and unique being a constant f4,
> ...



Thanks for the list! Good to know.


----------



## stevelee (Jun 23, 2018)

Durf said:


> I also shoot both the 80D and 6D2 and using these two cameras together is amazing and they pair so nicely and are so fun to use I personally have no desire what so ever to replace either one, not even with a better camera such as a 5D4.
> 
> The image quality I get out of these two cameras is extremely nice and I have no complaints.
> 
> All this negative internet crap about either one of these cameras is like blah blah blah and listening to fingernails running across a chalkboard.....



I have had a couple of Rebels, using most recently the T3i. A couple years ago, so it seems, I decided to upgrade to an 80D and started reading up on it. I think I would have been really pleased with it, but I started seeing rumors that a 6D2 was in the works, and decided that as long as I was upgrading my camera body, I would go FF. The wait turned out a lot longer than I expected, but I have been pleased with the results. If for some reason I still wanted another body of that sensor size, based on its similarities to the 6D2, I would not hesitate to get an 80D or its successor.

I had not always considered that I would eventually go FF, but it never made sense to me to buy an EF-S prime or a zoom longer than the kit lens. I got a 75-300mm EF zoom thrown in for $100 when I bought my first Rebel, so that has been my telephoto until my recent purchase of the 100-400mm. (I was never that happy with the former lens, but didn't regret the $100. And it did make surprisingly good pictures of the total eclipse.) So I never felt slighted at the lack of EF-S lenses when there were so many EF lenses available that would fit my Rebels. Of course I did go with EF-S when I needed super wide angle.


----------



## Talys (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> As a bonus what I like about Sony is when I do go FF I can use my crop lenses on the FF body, something you can't do (at least at this point) with Canon, maybe the upcoming FF mirrorless will allow it but again, this is Canon we're talking about, they'll find a way to make it impossible just to force you to upgrade.



As a practical matter, this isn't really that great a feature on the Sony. The A7R has an excellent crop mode, which gives you a great 18 megapixel crop using full frame lenses. It's unlikely that someone will invest $3,000 in a camera body and not have equivalent full frame glass of some sort that can do a good job in crop mode for whatever it is you want, since pretty much every focal length can be covered between 24mm to 200mm, and there's no spectacular APSC glass that you'll have invested a huge amount of money in to transition over.

The cheaper A7 has too few pixels when you take a APSC crop out of it to be generally usable, whether it's crop mode or a APSC lens. I assume nearly nobody goes and spends big bucks on an A9 to use APSC glass.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> Generalized Specialist said:
> 
> 
> > As a bonus what I like about Sony is when I do go FF I can use my crop lenses on the FF body...
> ...



This is actually more useful than it seems, because not only can you use the lenses with an automatic APS-C crop, but you can attempt to use the full-frame sensor with the lens.

With some lenses, eg the ultrawide zooms for APS-C, there image circle can cover a much wider area than the APS-C area. Now, usually there's strong vignetting, in most cases the corners are not useable as they are, and of course APS-C lenses are not designed optically to keep those areas outside of the APS-C image circle sharp, so it's pretty much luck as to whether you can get something useable or not. But, if you already have an APS-C ultrawide, and you haven't yet invested in FF lenses, it's actually quite impressive what it CAN do as a stop-gap.

Even the EF-S 18-55 IS can cover a surprising amount of the FF area at mid zoom ranges!!!

Remember, even if the corners aren't perfect or you can't use the entire edges, you can in many cases edit the corners in photoshop, and/or crop the image down to smaller than FF but larger than APS-C.

TL;DR; Don't knock using APS-C lenses on a FF body until you've tried it.


----------



## bwud (Jun 23, 2018)

I have no crop lenses for my A7Riii, but often crop in post because I’m focal length limited even with options up to 800mm. I’d definately try the auto crop thing if there were a compelling APS-C lens.


----------



## Generalized Specialist (Jun 23, 2018)

Talys said:


> As a practical matter, this isn't really that great a feature on the Sony.



To each their own but I think this is a brilliant feature on Sony cams. Using myself as an example, I'm a regular single income household with a mortgage, car payment, child support and a child going to University in 2 years on top of all the other usual expenses. Dropping $5k+ on a body and a couple of lenses would be a strain for me, especially since my childs' education comes before camera equipment. To be able to get a body and being able to use my existing crop lenses on a FF body making do while I budget for more and better FF glass is a bonus.


----------



## BillB (Jun 23, 2018)

bwud said:


> I have no crop lenses for my A7Riii, but often crop in post because I’m focal length limited even with options up to 800mm. I’d definately try the auto crop thing if there were a compelling APS-C lens.



And what would a compelling aps-c lens look like?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 23, 2018)

Generalized Specialist said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > As a practical matter, this isn't really that great a feature on the Sony.
> ...



I don't see it. First, it begs the question – why get the FF camera at all? Second, I just had a look at the a7III on B&H. Bundling it with the FE 28-70/3.5-5.6 adds $200 to the cost of the body, just 10% more. So, save a little longer. The cost benefits of APS-C lenses are in the wide/standard range. $200 gets you the FF version of an 18-55 kit lens, and an APS-C UWA on FF won't be ultra wide anyway. 

The converse – native mounting of FF lenses on APS-C bodies – makes sense. That works for the Canon EF and Sony E mounts, but it remains to be seen if that will remain true for Canon mirrorless.


----------



## bwud (Jun 23, 2018)

BillB said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > I have no crop lenses for my A7Riii, but often crop in post because I’m focal length limited even with options up to 800mm. I’d definately try the auto crop thing if there were a compelling APS-C lens.
> ...



Something like 200-800 with f/6.3 or f/8 at the long end would be interesting. I’m fully aware that I’ll likely not go beyond 800mm; I’m not paying 15,000 for a lens.

With a smaller image circle, keeping that aperture isn’t a huge stretch, and thus autofocus wouldn’t suffer like with f/11 on the 2XTC 100-400.


----------



## gsealy (Jun 24, 2018)

We'll see, of course. Every year it seems that we get all this advance excitement and promises. We wait for 6-12 months. Then the camera is released, and it underwhelms us. It's a good camera, but definitely less than what people thought it would be. 

The video specs are out there for everybody to see. They are not a secret. The GH5 is kicking it spec-wise, and most probably by the time the 90D hits the street there will be a GH6, which is another step up. The 70D was a revolutionary camera because it introduced DPAF. The 80D is an evolutionary camera over the 70D. Both are great cameras, but they are not what the GH5 is in terms of video quality that video shooters want. Yes, the GH5 is more expensive, but video guys are willing to pay for the additional features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2018)

bwud said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



There's zero benefit to making a lens >200mm with an APS-C image circle. At those focal lengths, the diameter of the image circle is not limiting.


----------



## Talys (Jun 24, 2018)

bwud said:


> I have no crop lenses for my A7Riii, but often crop in post because I’m focal length limited even with options up to 800mm. I’d definately try the auto crop thing if there were a compelling APS-C lens.



Just map the crop mode onto a button, and push it 

The APSC mode will work just like that... except you can't turn it off. Frankly, I think the crop mode is one of the best features of mirrorless. Not only do you get to have the crop image fill up the whole viewfinder (which is a big reason that wildlife folks like crop cameras), but you also are able to save dramatically smaller RAW files, when you know you're going to discard half the full frame image anyways.


----------



## Durf (Jun 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > I have no crop lenses for my A7Riii, but often crop in post because I’m focal length limited even with options up to 800mm. I’d definately try the auto crop thing if there were a compelling APS-C lens.
> ...



Scratches head????

Reckon I'll go spend 2 or 3 grand for a FF camera so I can shoot it in crop mode! LOL


----------



## Talys (Jun 24, 2018)

Durf said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



oh.. bwud was just saying, he'd try crop mode if there were a compelling APSC lens, and I pointed out that there's no need -- you can have exactly the same experience with a full frame lens, using the crop function (it's the experience).

The crop mode is nice. For example, let's say you have a 70-200 mounted, and you're taking a picture of something that would be better photographed at 300 or 400mm, but, that's just not the lens you have on. Hit crop mode, and suddenly, you have the 110 - 320mm equivalent -- you see it through the viewfinder, and it's still f/2.8. And, the file size is less than half.

Would it be better to swap in the right lens? For sure, because the center 18 megapixels of a 43 megapixel sensor are grainier than if you tool the photo using the whole 43 megapixels and reduced it down. But it takes only a second to push a button and a lot longer to swap the lens, if you have it on you. Plus, it's not an option if the subject is beyond uncropped reach of your longest lens (which natively on Sony is 400mm, plus a 1.4x TC; their 2x doesn't count, because it's terrible).

Also, in the time that I had borrowed the A7R3, I absolutely hated changing lenses on the field. The damned sensor was a dust magnet, and the tiniest grain of sand blurs out an ugly dark blob on every photo until it's removed. On a DSLR, most of the dust goes onto the mirror or Fresnel. I'm happy to ignore what I see through the viewfinder as long as I don't have it on all my pictures!


----------



## Talys (Jun 24, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is why the Olympus 75-300mm opts for f/6.7 as the mechanism to shrink the lens; also, why the Fuji 100-400 is no smaller than the full frame equivalents from Canon/Nikon/Sony.


----------



## bwud (Jun 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



But see how I defined compelling: 800mm with useful autofocus and without a 15,000 dollar expense. That’s conceivable with a high quality crop lens. It’s extremely unlikely with a high quality full frame lens.

Incidentally, does it actually crop the raw, or does it just add a tag to crop in post?


----------



## Durf (Jun 24, 2018)

Talys said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Doing that sounds like taking a pretty good hit on image quality, especially if you needed to crop a little more in post and make a good size print.

Yes, that's another reason I am not so excited about mirrorless, I am often out in some pretty harsh terrain and dusty conditions and sometimes changing lenses to get different perspectives. I really like having the mirror for a little added protection.....and over the years have grown attached to the sound it makes when taking a photo)


----------



## Durf (Jun 24, 2018)

bwud said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Durf said:
> ...



That does sound interesting, would love to see some image samples. I'm curious what the IQ results would look like


----------



## bwud (Jun 24, 2018)

Well so far such a lens doesn’t exist so it’s just a hypothetical


----------



## Talys (Jun 24, 2018)

bwud said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Durf said:
> ...



The Sony crop mode is good. It's a real crop of the RAW, that takes up less than half the size of the full RAW (which is a brutal 80MB+), and also, the buffer is much larger in crop mode. It is a feature they got right.

Assuming you want 800mm equivalent (so, 500mm APSC), I fear the problem will be that you'll just have something like the Fuji 100-400: an excellent APSC lens that is about the same size, weight, and price as a full frame equivalent (from Canon/Nikon/Sony).


----------



## fullstop (Jun 24, 2018)

bwud said:


> But see how I defined compelling: 800mm with useful autofocus and without a 15,000 dollar expense. That’s conceivable with a high quality crop lens. It’s extremely unlikely with a high quality full frame lens.



for long tele lenses it makes no difference whether it is for APS-C or FF sensor (image circle). Lens will physically be same size - and cost the same.


----------



## bwud (Jun 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > But see how I defined compelling: 800mm with useful autofocus and without a 15,000 dollar expense. That’s conceivable with a high quality crop lens. It’s extremely unlikely with a high quality full frame lens.
> ...



I’m not concerned with size. I’m concerned with function. My 100-400 with 2X is essentially useless for moving subjects. Lenses covering smaller formats are typically less expensive.


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 24, 2018)

I hope Canon starts using USB C connectors on their cameras.
Then you'll be able to charge it via this plug and output would be much faster and it will be easier to find leads to connect the camera to other devices.


----------



## bwud (Jun 24, 2018)

Bennymiata said:


> I hope Canon starts using USB C connectors on their cameras.
> Then you'll be able to charge it via this plug and output would be much faster and it will be easier to find leads to connect the camera to other devices.



Agreed. I use a 3.6amp wall socket to charge my A7Riii (two batteries) over USB-C. It’s quite quick, faster than the wall adapter in fact, and since the batteries don’t come out there’s no chance I’ll leave them behind.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 24, 2018)

gsealy said:


> ...Both are great cameras, but they are not what the GH5 is in terms of video quality that video shooters want. Yes, the GH5 is more expensive, but video guys are willing to pay for the additional features.



The GH5 is twice the price! In a price sensitive market any comparison between a $1,000 anything and it's $2,000 competition is ludicrous.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2018)

bwud said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...



No. As fullstop said. For long lenses there is no cost savings between full frame and crop.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2018)

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe most third party crop sensor lenses can be mounted on canon full frame bodies - although the lens will vignette at the edges, the image circle should cover the aps-c dimensions on the full frame sensor.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe most third party crop sensor lenses can be mounted on canon full frame bodies - although the lens will vignette at the edges, the image circle should cover the aps-c dimensions on the full frame sensor.


most have no issues, but, in some cases, the back of the lens hits the camera mirror at some focal lengths, so you have to research to be sure.


----------



## mb66energy (Jun 24, 2018)

The Canon release circus stops me from buying ... not the worst thing because I spend more time to take photos and not time to learn new equipment!

I really enjoy to use their "underdog" of their SLR line, the SL2/200D and
longing for a 200Dx with
- a little bit more direct control (ring around mount?)
- some orientation sensor display to get horizons correct
- AFMA
- glare free display / anti smudge surface
- wireless flash compatibility (optical comm sufficient)
- maybe some environmental sealing

The very small and light 200D (in comparison to xxD line) with these refinements @800 EUR/$ would outspec/outperform any xxD camera for ME!

Add a
- f/1.4 EF 50mm IS USM with small footprint and very good IQ (instead of large footprint and excellent IQ at f/1.4)
- some EF-S 10mm f/4.0ish with small footprint
- f/2.0 EF 50 IS USM Macro, compact
I would be fine.

About FF lenses and APS-C: I really like the 70-200 f/4 IS USM on APS-C because it gives me good reach and flexibility at a constant f/4 max aperture. On 5D it worked but I missed the range from 200-320mm on APS-C in terms of FF equivalent FL.
And I revived the EF-S 10-22 which isn't the sharpest lens but delivers very good contrast producing clear images with great color and which shows only little flare/ghosting - essential for this focal length range.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 24, 2018)

@bwud: now i understand what you are after. 
i can find only one 400mm or more tele lens for APS-C image circle ("crop sensor") for Canon EF mount (and Nikon, not Sony): Tamron 18-400/3.5-6.3 Di II VC HLD. for an extreme superzoom it gets rather positive reviews.
https://dpreview.com/samples/9152094990/gallery-impressions-tamron-18-400-f3-5-6-3
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-18-400mm-f-3-5-6-3-di-ii-vc-hld-review-31259
at the long end performance does drop quite a bit, as is to be expected. 

it seems to be usable on canon Ff cameras as well (ofc with limitations). 
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4203828

the lens is very compact at D 79 x L 124mm, 72 filter thread and lightweight at 705 g. current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions. otoh, when these are used "in crop mode" or if image is cropped to APS-C size in post processing - angle of view on the long end would be equivalent to 960 mm vs. 640 for the tamron 18-400.


----------



## -1 (Jun 24, 2018)

privatebydesign said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



I made a quickie search and a dud from London stood up and said "Cheerio!"... HTH:

http://www.danielhaggett.com/blog/136-lens-comparison-and-crop-factors


----------



## unfocused (Jun 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ...current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions...



A closer comparison would be to the Sigma 100-400 6.3 full frame lens. There is currently just a $50 difference between the two and most reviews rank the 100-400 as a sharper and better built lens, so your previous point that there is no savings at longer focal lengths between crop and full-frame still stands.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > ...current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions...
> ...



thanks, yes. I was surprised by that Tammy 18-400, had not noticed its launch. Not in the market for it ... 

still intersting that Tamron manages 400mm f/6.3 in such a compact lens [relatively] - although in reality it is probably closer to f/7.9 at the long end. Unfortunately all manufacturers lie re. aperture an focal lengths on their lenses. ;-)


----------



## bwud (Jun 24, 2018)

unfocused said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > ...current prices start at euro 555,- so it is indeed significantly less than the tamron/Sigma 150-600 versions...
> ...



Apples to apples comparisons are pretty hard to find.

I’ll take your word that there isn’t cost savings to be had with long lenses covering a smaller format, but ask: why do not the cost savings from short lenses translate? Is it simply a competition issue (ie there aren’t many long crop lenses)?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 24, 2018)

bwud said:


> I’ll take your word that there isn’t cost savings to be had with long lenses covering a smaller format, but ask: why do not the cost savings from short lenses translate? Is it simply a competition issue (ie there aren’t many long crop lenses)?



no, it is a physical/optical "issue". 

To save me the wording and typing, I 'll just quote another forum users' answer: https://photo.stackexchange.com/a/56674



> This is a combination of two factors:
> For any lens, the front element needs to be at least (focal length)/(aperture) in size - e.g. for a 400mm f/2.8, the front element needs to be 142mm in diameter. That number is independent of sensor size.
> For telephoto lenses, it's the big front element which makes up the majority of the weight and the cost (making a big element is much harder than making a small one).
> The only advantage to making an APS-C telephoto lens would be that some of the elements in the body could be a bit smaller (as they need to project a smaller image circle), but that's not going to significantly affect either the weight, the size or the cost of the lens as it's the front element which constrains all that. Now, Canon, Nikon and everyone else almost certainly could design an APS-C telephoto lens - but given the advantages would be marginal over the full-frame lens, they just make the one lens so they don't need to duplicate the R&D effort.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

Etienne said:


> To translate Canonspeak: "Future proof" = "Compete with Sony"



Since when does Canon have worry about "competing" with a company it has been beating into the ground for sales since Day One?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

robinlee said:


> Well they better be true and proper leap forward this time round!
> 
> Thanks Sony.



For being no threat whatsoever.

(FTFY)


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

Matthew Saville said:


> If only Canon had been aware of this wild notion, "future proofing", when they decided on the 6D2...



Maybe it's more interested in just _selling cameras_ - which the 6D Mk II seems to do pretty well...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Where does that leave the venerable 7D Mark II? Looking very sorry indeed



So you think that an excellent camera stops being an excellent camera once a new camera comes out?

Nope. It will leave the 7D Mk II as a damn' good camera, that just happens to be a few years old now.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

WoodyWindy said:


> Let's not forget, though, that the EOS 10D followed the EOS D30 and EOS D60 (which I owned). Changing numbering schemes is not a new thing with Canon...



Yeah, but that was specifically to reflect the move from film to digital - it wasn't arbitrary.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> I hope so. If true, they’ve finally taken to heart what I’ve been saying on this forum for years- disrupt yourselves before the competition does it for you. (One could say they have been a little late to this party.)



One could also way "_what_ competition?" The fact that you've been saying this "for years" and it hasn't happened rather supports the idea that the "competition" _isn't_, in Canon's eyes.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

The Fat Fish said:


> Same. The 6DII was such a poor release it made me look at other brands. *Canon can't continue with that approach*.



Betcha.

And I bet you that they still sell heaps more cameras than the rest, too...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

rsdofny said:


> The M5 and M6 are so small that I cannot put a EF or EFS lens on it.



But isn't "small" one of the main selling-points of mirrorless?


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 24, 2018)

fullstop said:


> true. About 90% of all Canapologists worldwide are posting here.



Ah - the usual troll trick of misrepresenting "satisfied with" as "apologist for".

You'd get more credit if your trolling wasn't based purely on flat-out lies...


----------



## fullstop (Jun 24, 2018)

i don't need "credit". I recognize a Canapologist from 10 miles away. And call them out. That's all I need. I call a spade a spade. lol


----------



## Talys (Jun 24, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> transpo1 said:
> 
> 
> > I hope so. If true, they’ve finally taken to heart what I’ve been saying on this forum for years- disrupt yourselves before the competition does it for you. (One could say they have been a little late to this party.)
> ...



Just because Canon makes one cameras a big leap forward doesn't mean that _every camera hereafter will be so_. There will be cameras that have big leaps forward, and others that have minor improvements only.

Canon, and many other successful manufacturers, have a major update, followed by many very small update versions before another major update.

Just look at Intel, and their market share. They've driven every competitor out of business in their space except for AMD, and successfully sold vastly more units than AMD at higher prices and fewer features than AMD... for... reasons. It doesn't matter what those reasons are, but at any price point (where they both compete), AMD has a spec-sheet superior product, yet Intel's sales dwarfs AMDs, and there is no foreseeable change to that.

Look at automobile manufactures, same thing. It's more profitable and better for the company in the long run (over years and decades) to have a major update followed by successive iterations that the customer doesn't feel the urge to go run out to buy. 

In any case, the Sony model is not sustainable, because at some point, the technology will mature, and they'll not be able to squeeze an upgrade out of someone every 2 years -- because their mirrorless cameras will get good enough to just keep and use. No different than iPads.




fullstop said:


> i don't need "credit". I recognize a Canapologist from 10 miles away. And call them out. That's all I need. I call a spade a spade. lol



Sok... it's easy to spot a Canon troll, too -- the people who refuse to believe that there are photographers who simply prefer Canon's products over other options, and who prefer to spend their time bashing Canon than supporting whatever company they actually like. Shocking, I know. 

I have no idea what to call the folks who aren't happy with _any_ of the excellent options that are made today by nearly a half dozen manufacturers.


----------



## transpo1 (Jun 25, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Generalized Specialist said:
> 
> 
> > We can all be pretty sure Canon will offer only a few incremental improvements or features making it somewhere between the A6300 and A6500 in performance. Sony will release something that will be another powerhouse of a camera and offer everything they are capable of putting into a body.
> ...



He's obviously here because he likes Canon products and wants better ones. And while your sarcasm and condescencion is meant to show off how clever you are, this forum would do well to welcome those who voice their opinions. In the long run, it helps the company that you defend so vehemently. 

Try to remember that


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> He's obviously here because he likes Canon products and wants better ones. And while your sarcasm and condescencion is meant to show off how clever you are, this forum would do well to welcome those who voice their opinions. In the long run, it helps the company that you defend so vehemently.
> 
> Try to remember that



Opinions of all sorts are welcome. Lies and fabricated information are not. Ridiculous statements invite ridicule.

I’m sorry that you believe calling out lies and false statements constitutes a ‘vehement defense’ of Canon. That says more about your personal biases that perhaps you intended to reveal.


----------



## Talys (Jun 25, 2018)

transpo1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Generalized Specialist said:
> ...



Actually, no, that isn't obvious at all.

The only thing that's obvious to me is that he likes Sony's update cycle of frequently putting everything they can into a camera, even half-baked features and even if they might conflict with other features -- and that he is scornful of Canon's conservative and long update cycles.

Which is fine, but it's not obvious that he likes Canon products at all 

Personally, I think there is a happy medium between Canon and Sony for update cycles, but given a choice of the two philosophies, I will pick Canon, because as a photographer, I prefer to put my hobby savings towards lenses and lighting rather than frequent, expensive bodies. I have no desire to spend $2,000-$4,000 on a camera body every year and half or two, just to fix features that I like but weren't quite working right, and that introduces other features that are cool, but also are not quite there. It's like, each camera is a preview of what will work great in the next.

In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.


Great bottom line! Really!

Maybe one bashing at <_put in any cam company_> should leave the keyboard, take his/her equipment and go out taking photos. 
And if the doing of that or the results are not pleasing one should start thinking if it's the equipment or the personal skills that are the limiting factor. And if there's some money to spend put it where the output is the best


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

Maximilian said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, 99% of the reason of whether my photograph is something I'm happy with or not has nothing to do with which modern camera body I was using anyways.
> ...



Yes, all fine and dandy. BUT my bottom line is more along the lines of: "I am definitely nowhere near perfect. But my Canon tools are even less so." 

When for instance the AF field marking in viewfinder or on LCD is SMALLER than the actual AF field really is, then it is REALLY NOT MY FAULT as photographer, when images are misfocused on the distant background rather than on the intended subject/s in the foreground. Yes I can work around it. But it is "working around", and "fighting against my tools", rather than my Canon tools delivering what I paid for: images perfectly focused exactly where i point a single AF point to ... just as an example. 

[not an 80D complaint though]


----------



## Maximilian (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Yes, all fine and dandy. BUT my bottom line is more along the lines of: "I am definitely nowhere near perfect. But my Canon tools are even less so."


Is this really so? ???
Is your gear the more limiting factor than your skills? 

Wow! Hats up! I am definitely on the opposite side.

I suspect you're here in the minority as well as with your opinion about the quality of Canon gear.


----------



## Durf (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Wow, a rather revealing post......


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Have you tried using Single Point Spot AF rather than Single Point AF? 
With Single Point Spot AF the autofocus system will use a much smaller area to search for decent contrast and this makes the focussing much more accurate. The negative side is that it might not be able to find any contrast in such a small area and so it might not be able to focus at all.
However, even with Single Point AF I have never known the camera to focus on the distant background rather than on my model. What it sometimes does is to focus on something near the eye such as the eye lid or the eye brow rather than the iris or the pupil. When that happens it is usually because I have moved or the model has moved after focus has been achieved. It is not a fault with the autofocus system.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

@Ian_of_glos

thx for your hint. I am aware of Spot AF and use it when needed on my 5D3. The described problem is with my EOS M (1st gen). It does not have Spot AF, regrettably. Actually I could even do without Spot AF, if at least the AF field markings would match *exactly* size and location of the actual AF-fields. 

So, as I wrote: not an issue on 80D / xxD DSLRs.


----------



## Ian_of_glos (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> @Ian_of_glos
> 
> thx for your hint. I am aware of Spot AF and use it when needed on my 5D3. The described problem is with my EOS M (1st gen). It does not have Spot AF, regrettably. Actually I could even do without Spot AF, if at least the AF field markings would match *exactly* size and location of the actual AF-fields.
> 
> So, as I wrote: not an issue on 80D / xxD DSLRs.



Does the EOS M have Single Point AF? Even with the larger area included in Single Point AF I have never know the camera to focus on something in the background. It can be slightly off from what I wanted it to focus on but usually not by much.
The only time I have problems with the AF latching on to something in the background is when I am shooting fast action and my tired old limbs are unable to keep up with the players.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

yes it does have single point AF. But the markings on the LCD are considerably smaller than the AF sensitive fields really are. It is not always a problem, but I've had a number of misfocused images, where the entire white AF field border was on a person's face in the foreground and the camera still focused on some [good contrast] structure ion the background. ofc I could have switched to Face Recognition AF mode, which I also sometimes use in this situation - if the capture is "planned" and I can take the time to fiddle around in the menu before. So it really is just another "workaround" that should not be needed.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Can you suggest a camera whose AF indicators in the VF are size proportional to the actual sensors? If you made the indicators proportional, a camera with a significant number of points would have a very cluttered display. If you made them bigger, than proportional, you’d have clutter and people would try to focus where there is no AF sensitivity. Smaller seems like the best option with modern cameras containing dozens or more AF locations.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

can't follow your logic. To me "really right" would be exactly same size as actual AF field. 

With 49 AF fields only on the EOS M there would not be much "clutter" anyways. 

Generally - less clutter? Yes please. A.) Make the white frames a bit thinner. B) Just show the currently active selected AF point/s ... changing to red when locked. It's invented, even at Canon. ;-)


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> can't follow your logic. To me "really right" would be exactly same size as actual AF field.
> 
> With 49 AF fields only on the EOS M there would not be much "clutter" anyways.
> 
> Generally - less clutter? Yes please. A.) Make the white frames a bit thinner. B) Just show the currently active selected AF point/s ... changing to red when locked. It's invented, even at Canon. ;-)



It’s not logic as much as opinion. I think if they were the proportional (meaning the indicator’s displayed size is of equal proportion to the VF as the actual AF sensor is to the image sensor) it would be too big.

I agree a better way would be to show them all (or whichever ones you have active), in easily navigable size, and then hide all except what is active. Then that one could be proportional in size (which is what I expect you mean when you say “same size”).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no, f*ck, no. 100% exact size. Everything else is sh*t.
> 
> This is a typical example for "excusing Canon mistakes that should not be excused." [See how I avoided the word "apologize"] ;-)



Your paranoia is acting up again. I’m talking about all cameras. I’ll reword original question: are there any cameras whose display of the AF points are the “100% exact size” as the AF sensors?


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > no, f*ck, no. 100% exact size. Everything else is sh*t.
> ...



my answer is: how would I know? But i never had any were it was so bad as on the Canon EOS M.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Since you don’t know if there is even one, you might have well just unflinchingly labeled every camera with AF points in the display as “sh*t.” 

Guess I’m a camerapologist.

Good times.


----------



## BillB (Jun 26, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



I seem to remember some saying about a workman who blames his tools.


----------



## Talys (Jun 26, 2018)

Without getting into the weeds, Spot AF is amazingly accurate. I can point at a tiny bird nestled behind tons of foliage, much smaller than would useful for a photo and the camera will correctly autofocus on it.

What more could I ask for? I don't really care about the size of the box, really; I care about the camera focusing on what I perceive to be at the center of that box.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 26, 2018)

Talys said:


> What more could I ask for? I don't really care about the size of the box, really; I care about the camera focusing on what I perceive to be at the center of that box.



100% agree.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 26, 2018)

There’s some whiplash. An hour ago anything which displays the AF selection with a different size than the actual sensor/pixel group was sh*t. Now it’s 100% agreed that the size of the displayed box isn’t a care.

Orientation has never been mentioned but I’d offer that it’s more important than relative size.

In any case, quick turn progress, baby!


----------



## Durf (Jun 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> Without getting into the weeds, Spot AF is amazingly accurate. I can point at a tiny bird nestled behind tons of foliage, much smaller than would useful for a photo and the camera will correctly autofocus on it.
> 
> What more could I ask for? I don't really care about the size of the box, really; I care about the camera focusing on what I perceive to be at the center of that box.



I use this Spot AF on my 6D2 quite often and its extremely powerful and accurate. Another great feature on my 
featureless camera....


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> f*cking nitpicker. i agreed with the conclusion of the statement: i want images focused where i put the AF field. On EOS M this is sometimes very difficult to impossible. markings matching 100% of actual AF field would be very helpful for that task. So no, I do not step down from that demand. AF field markings SMALLER than actual AF field are truly evil and should be outlawed.



Typically when someone quotes something (cutting out part of the statement even) and says he agrees 100%, that’s what he means. I wasn’t picking a nit, but mea culpa for taking you at face value.

Ironically, talys’s statement essentially calls the size of an AF indicator a nit. Similarly, battery charge indicator scheme many people call a nit. Of course, they’re apologists.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

I do find it interesting that orientation of the AF sensor isn’t typically conveyed in the display. I’m not sure what would be a good method. Maybe different colors, but visual queues are typically best when colorblindness isn’t a contraindication. I expect knowing what the sensitivity associated with a given point is will improve success more than most anything you can show in the VF, beyond rough alignment to the center of the AF line. And that I’m not sure is even a given.


----------



## BillB (Jun 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> I do find it interesting that orientation of the AF sensor isn’t typically conveyed in the display. I’m not sure what would be a good method. Maybe different colors, but visual queues are typically best when colorblindness isn’t a contraindication. I expect knowing what the sensitivity associated with a given point is will improve success more than most anything you can show in the VF, beyond rough alignment to the center of the AF line. And that I’m not sure is even a given.



I'm getting confused. We seem to be talking about "mirrorslapper" 6DII phase detect AF more or less at the same time we are talking about the M's sensor based AF. Isn't the AF sensor size issue mainly an issue associated with sensor based AF?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > no, f*ck, no. 100% exact size. Everything else is sh*t.
> ...



The answer is no, there are not. For those that subscribe to the school of thought that Canon and other manufacturers are out to nerf their products and deliver sh!t to their customers, this is just par for the course and they can stop reading this post now. 

Those who prefer factual information and would rather understand why an aspect of camera performance is the way it is, instead of just blaming the manufacturer, read on...

The reason there are no 'cameras whose display of the AF points are the “100% exact size” as the [AF points on the] AF sensors' is that the area of the image field which is sampled by an AF point is not constant, it's variable. When an a lens' maximum aperture is larger than the aperture baseline of an AF point, the image area sampled is also larger. So, for example, with a 'typical' f/5.6 AF point the AF area is larger with an f/1.4 lens than with an f/2.8 lens, which is larger than with an f/4 lens, etc. Similarly, with a variable aperture zoom lens (e.g., f/3.5-5.6) the AF point area gets progressively smaller as the lens is zoomed from wide to telephoto focal lengths. In theory, for a fully controllable display (i.e., the main/rear LCD or an EVF, but _not_ an etched focus screen or the transmissive LCD in many newer DSLR OVFs), the camera could alter the relative display size of the AF point based on the lens' aperture. 

But...aperture is not the only variable. There are 'masks' before the AF sensor that restrict the light falling on the sensor line pairs to light coming from the edges of the iris/aperture opening (that's the phase difference that underlies please-detect AF). Those masks are actually outside of the plane of focus, so the edges of the AF point area are, in effect, blurry. One consequence of that blurriness is that higher contrast features in that blurry zone can be detected by the AF system, whereas lower contrast features may not be detected. This variability is additive with the effect of lens aperture. So, for example, on a high-density AF array (5DIII, etc.) with an f/2.8 lens and an f/5.6 AF point, a high contrast feature (e.g., a point light source against a dark background or a black/white transition) can be locked onto when it's right in the middle of an AF point _adjacent to the selected point_ (i.e., the actual area of a single AF point can, in some circumstances, cover 9 displayed AF points). However, with an f/5.6 lens and lower contrast features, the AF area will be basically restricted to the typical/current display size of AF points (i.e., the actual area of a single AF point can, in some circumstances, be pretty much identical to the single selected/displayed AF point). (Oh, and with an f/8 lens like a pin-taped 100-400 with a 1.4x TC and an f/5.6 AF point, the effective area of the AF point is actually smaller than the little box in the OVF.)

Sorry...I know that was a long and technically detailed explanation. If anyone who routinely bashes Canon ignored my above advice to stop reading and has gotten to this point, feel free to just ignore the technical facts and continue to blame Canon for displayed AF points that don't 100% accurately reflect the image area being sampled as just a manufacturer nerfing their cameras to screw over their customers. Those who are inclined to accept facts and reality are welcome to blame physics for this, among others, of life's trials and tribulations.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 27, 2018)

ok. But question: 

What about mirrorless cameras / DSLRs in LiveView mode? 
there is no separate Phase AF unit in play. Will "physical AF fields" not be constant in size then?. 
Drilling down. 
* non-DP AF sensor, hybrid AF i-plane Phase AF + Contrast AF [like EOS M] 
* DPAF sensor

If variable size even in those cases, would it not be feasible then to either 
* set AF field boxes to maximum size the respective physical AF field can take? [Box larger than physical AF field is less of a problem than box smaller than actual AF field.] 
* or - more complex - use in-camera software to re-size overlay marker box/es dynamically to match size of physical AF-field for current settings
?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ok. But question:
> 
> What about mirrorless cameras / DSLRs in LiveView mode?
> there is no separate Phase AF unit in play. Will "physical AF fields" not be constant in size then?.



No, it is still dependent upon aperture. Read here.



fullstop said:


> Box larger than physical AF field is less of a problem than box smaller than actual AF field.



Disagree; that will lead to hunting when users think there is AF sensitivity where there is none. Similarly, that’s why it could be advantageous to display orientation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ok. But question:
> 
> What about mirrorless cameras / DSLRs in LiveView mode?
> there is no separate Phase AF unit in play. Will "physical AF fields" not be constant in size then?.
> ...



Good questions. 

The on-sensor 'hybrid' PDAF systems with dedicated/masked AF pixels have the same limitations/challenges as the dedicated secondary AF sensor PDAF systems in terms of lens aperture. Canon's DPAF could theoretically overcome that because with every pixel available for PDAF (well, 80% of them since the frame edges aren't included) the baseline aperture of the AF point can be dynamically adjusted based on the max aperture of the attached lens. 

*But*...the variability resulting from high-contrast features being detectable further from the center of the AF point than lower contrast features affects all PDAF systems. Since that variability is dependent on the scene being imaged as opposed to the camera/lens hardware, there's really no feasible way to compensate for that (well, I suppose the camera could analyze the scene and display AF points as differently sized boxes depending on the content of the scene, growing or shrinking each box independently as the scene changes and/or the camera is moved...but I really don't see that as feasible).

For all practical purposes, the only way to have an AF point display that exactly matches the area being sampled is by restricting AF to contrast-detect only (with the slow focus and racking back-and-forth that comes with it). 

Sometimes physics sucks.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sometimes physics sucks.



Don't become a physicspologist, now.

Seriously, I don't agree. Physics doesn't suck, it's what makes all this work!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sometimes physics sucks.
> ...



Fair point. Let me rephrase....sometimes _the consequences of_ physics suck, particularly when those consequences conflict with our desires.


----------



## Talys (Jun 27, 2018)

Neuro, very informative post. I did not know, well, any of that 

Live and learn. Thanks!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> Neuro, very informative post. I did not know, well, any of that
> 
> Live and learn. Thanks!



His post over at TDP is great. I reference it often.

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/canon-eos-dslr-autofocus-explained.aspx


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

Some posts important to the integrity of the forum have been deleted. In particular, posts which demonstrate the contrived and pre-conceived nature of a recurring derogatory accusation have vanished. That is unfortunate.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, very informative post. I did not know, well, any of that
> ...



Awesome. I'm at TDP all the time and I never saw this. Very informative passage on why PDAF setups can't cover more of the frame, Neuro.

(spell check on 'vingetting', btw )

- A


----------



## Talys (Jun 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Neuro, very informative post. I did not know, well, any of that
> ...



This is a great article (I hadn't read it previously, obviously). That's the first I've seen a picture of a 1DXII PDAF sensor, I think. Excellent explanation as to the reasons why we get the coverages that we do with dedicated PDAF sensors, and the differences between various camera bodies and their AF sensors, and why the 1DXII has so much better performing AF with less light.

I wonder if (when?) we'll ever have DPAF or other on-sensor solutions that are as sensitive with little light as the 1DXII, giving us that sort of AF performance.
Neuro, excellent article, thanks again


----------



## fullstop (Jun 27, 2018)

@Neuro 
thanks for the explanation. need to mull it over some more to fully understand all ramifications. 

especially why i notice the phenomenon of "too small af marker boxes" at times on EOS M (1st gen), but not really on the 5D3. some combination of aps- c vs FF sensor, slower EF-M lenses vs 5D3 on which i generally use f/2.8 lenses or faster) and/or differences in scenes i capture with the 2 systems. 

will also be interesting to find out whether EOS M50 with DP-AF and more AF points brings an improvement in practical terms in this regard. 

i picked one up just yesterday - funnily and totally co-incidentally exactly at the time when it was questioned here, whether i still qualify as *current* Canon customer at all or just as "dry dock Cano-whiner". M50 is actually for my daughter and she too has noticed the af boxes on EOS M (with 22/2.0) not always matching af-sensitive area. if she does not complain about the issue any more, i consider the issue solved ... no matter how it may have been accomplished in the face of "unforgiving laws of optics".


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

Talys said:


> That's the first I've seen a picture of a 1DXII PDAF sensor, I think.



That’s the 1Dx / 5D3 PDAF assembly.
The 1Dx II presumably has a different configuration of sensors to facilitate f/8 sensitivity at each location. 




fullstop said:


> i picked one up just yesterday - funnily and totally co-incidentally exactly at the time when it was questioned here, whether i still qualify as *current* Canon customer at all or just as "dry dock Cano-whiner".



I stand corrected. You indeed are a current customer. Note, nobody said “dry dock Cano-whiner.”



fullstop said:


> daughter and she too has noticed the af boxes on EOS M (with 22/2.0) not always matching af-sensitive area.



Having never used DPAF, I don’t know how it works relative to orientation. I presume they construct lines analogous to dedicated sensors, not actually use a single photo site, but that’s a total guess. If so, what are the orientations of the lines, and does that affect their sensitivity?

If they are constrained directionally, that could explain the presence of selectable AF point which finds no subject.

With other on sensor schemes such as sony’s, all the PDAF lines are horizontal, I believe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Having never used DPAF, I don’t know how it works relative to orientation. I presume they construct lines analogous to dedicated sensors, not actually use a single photo site, but that’s a total guess. If so, what are the orientations of the lines, and does that affect their sensitivity?
> 
> If they are constrained directionally, that could explain the presence of selectable AF point which finds no subject.



The DPAF pixels are indeed constrained directionally, the hemi-pixel divisions are all in the same orientation. I really think Canon needs to explore the idea of QPAF - quad-pixels (while a technical challenge, I think that would be than alternating/mixing the orientation of the pixel divisions).


----------



## Durf (Jun 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Having never used DPAF, I don’t know how it works relative to orientation. I presume they construct lines analogous to dedicated sensors, not actually use a single photo site, but that’s a total guess. If so, what are the orientations of the lines, and does that affect their sensitivity?
> ...



I thought they were exploring and or working on this? I thought I read an article about it a couple months ago but I may be mistaken.

Sounds like an amazing advancement if they can make it so.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > That's the first I've seen a picture of a 1DXII PDAF sensor, I think.
> ...



Correct. But they’re actually quite similar.

1D X AF sensor:






1D X II AF sensor:


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

Durf said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Good to know, thanks!


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > Having never used DPAF, I don’t know how it works relative to orientation. I presume they construct lines analogous to dedicated sensors, not actually use a single photo site, but that’s a total guess. If so, what are the orientations of the lines, and does that affect their sensitivity?
> ...



Thanks. I suspected as much but didn’t want to state it as known fact.

I indicated in the battery charge precision thread that one of the things which this forum brings above others is technical detail. While it is sometimes misconstrued as a kneejerk defense of an alleged wrong, I see it as highly valuable. Understanding how your gear works is fundamentally important when you want to know why it isn’t working the way it is being used.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 27, 2018)

DP-AF: "thanks to their split, each pixel serves as AF point" . and they all have the same orientation. fine. but why are there still only a relatively small number of "AF fields" on EOS M50 (99 respectively 143 with a few E-M lenses). are these "AF fields" then made up of a "strip" of Dual pixels? if yes, then why could these "AF strips" not be arranged as horizontal and vertical and/or diagonal crosses (as in the separate Phase AF sensors in DSLRs) to get best AF performance?

interestingly i cannot find any schematics or description of Canon DP-AF - neither in DSLR nor in EOS M that goes i to these details. seem to all stop at a more general level or descriptions referring to single "dual puxels". but not how the phase-AF system actually is set up. i conclude that there are no cross-AF fields, otherwise it would undoubtedly be promonently noted/marketed. so it must be "line sensors". will test whether i can only af on vertical contrast edges with M50 or also on horizontal structures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> DP-AF: "thanks to their split, each pixel serves as AF point" . and they all have the same orientation. fine. but why are there still only a relatively small number of "AF fields" on EOS M50 (99 respectively 143 with a few E-M lenses). are these "AF fields" then made up of a "strip" of Dual pixels? if yes, then why could these "AF strips" not be arranged as horizontal and vertical and/or diagonal crosses (as in the separate Phase AF sensors in DSLRs) to get best AF performance?
> 
> interestingly i cannot find any schematics or description of Canon DP-AF - neither in DSLR nor in EOS M that goes i to these details. seem to all stop at a more general level or descriptions referring to single "dual puxels". but not how the phase-AF system actually is set up. i conclude that there are no cross-AF fields, otherwise it would undoubtedly be promonently noted/marketed. so it must be "line sensors". will test whether i can only af on vertical contrast edges with M50 or also on horizontal structures.



This image show a little of the tech, notably that all the split pixels have the same orientation.






The above image is from a Canon DLC article on DPAF:

https://learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2018/canon-dual-pixel-af.shtml

They could be sampled in any configuration, but still would be sensitive to phase differences in only one dimension (line sensors).



neuroanatomist said:


> I really think Canon needs to explore the idea of QPAF - quad-pixels (while a technical challenge, *I think that would be easier than alternating/mixing the orientation of the pixel divisions*).



I was wrong on this, or at least Canon is pursuing the latter as a possible solution. This is from a Canon patent published late last year, showing a mix of pixel spit orientations:


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 27, 2018)

fullstop said:


> DP-AF: "thanks to their split, each pixel serves as AF point" . and they all have the same orientation. fine. but why are there still only a relatively small number of "AF fields" on EOS M50 (99 respectively 143 with a few E-M lenses).



Notionally there are millions of combinations. Some considerations are:
1) How many pixels does it take to form an appropriate line? I assume given the split nature that a line pair isn’t required with DPAF like it is with traditional PDAF; one line is in essence a vertical pair (half the line looks left, half the line looks right).
2) Where are the appropriate locations for these lines?
3) Does the line configuration and/or location change based on lens settings?

Practicality limits the number of user-selectable locations. One wouldn’t want to scroll through millions of options. However it may be dynamic, not fixed, which is a unique advantage to using split pixels (smart Canon) rather than off sensor discrete lines and on sensor limited masked pixels.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 28, 2018)

hmm, again: Canon says: EOS M50 = 99 AF fields / and 143 with 2 specific lenses. . 
Canon also says "every DP-AF pixel on entire sensor serves as AF-field".

But: Canon does NOT say: 24 million AF fields. 

So those 99 / 143 AF fields need to be some ARRAY of DP-pixels, right?
If so, does Canon arrange these "AF strips/lines" of DP-pixels in vertical, horizontal and/or diagonal cross pattern/s on sensor? if not, why not?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> If so, does Canon arrange these "AF strips/lines" of DP-pixels in vertical, horizontal and/or diagonal cross pattern/s on sensor? if not, why not?



Presumably they only establish lines in the vertical. Why not horizontal or diagonal? I think I covered that in (1) above.

Each pixel has two photodiodes. One “looks left” and the other “looks right.” To be effective as a horizontal line sensor, they would have to “look” up and down. That could be accomplished with quads, or by alternating the orientation of the photodiodes within each pixel, but that would require a new sensor fab.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hmm, again: Canon says: EOS M50 = 99 AF fields / and 143 with 2 specific lenses. .
> Canon also says "every DP-AF pixel on entire sensor serves as AF-field".
> 
> But: Canon does NOT say: 24 million AF fields.
> ...



Probably squares. But, current DPAF is restricted to detecting features in only one orientation, determined by the split in the individual pixels. It doesn't matter whether the pixel sampling is in the pattern of a cross, square, or perambulating pentagon...the orientation sensitivity is fixed to that same orientation.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 28, 2018)

i understand the "pixel level" orientation. But how does Canon arrange them to come up with 99 / 143 AF fields? 
They must be "stripes/lines" of some sort. if they are horizontally aligned, looking left/right ... they should effectively phase AF fields that detect VERTICAL contrast edges, but "blind" tom horizontal lines, right?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> i understand the "pixel level" orientation. But how does Canon arrange them to come up with 99 / 143 AF fields?



Nobody who contributes to this forum is likely to know that.



fullstop said:


> ... detect VERTICAL contrast edges, but "blind" tom horizontal lines, right?



Edit: I misread the above. 
Yes No, it’s the other way around. That is why I brought it up.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 28, 2018)

there is some Canon "DP-AF voodoo" hidden. Why 99 fields, when they could just as well take [extremely spoken] 1 DP pixel towards left edge of sensor and 1 towards right edge, forming an (interrupted), extremely long "base-line" for Phase-AF? "99/143 AF fields number" really puzzles me. On a DP-AF sensor with every single pixel "AF-enabled". 

???


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2018)

Why 61 on the 1Dx?
Why 399 or whatever on the A7riii?

It’s almost certainly not arbitrary, but again nobody here is likely to have that detail.

Note it’s 99 user selectable points. The others pixels are likely capable of being used for tracking, like with the Nikon D5’s 153 points of which the user can only select about two thirds.

As for a single uninterrupted line, that wouldn’t really accomplish anything as far as I understand it, but I don’t claim expertise. The baseline has to do with the angles at which the sensors look towards the edges of the lens (hence different configurations being sensitive at different f-stops). Spanning the sensor wouldn’t change the baseline; it’s orthogonal to it. Neuro please correct me if I’m wrong and/or clarify.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Why 61 on the 1Dx?
> Why 399 or whatever on the A7riii?
> 
> It’s almost certainly not arbitrary, but again nobody here is likely to have that detail.
> ...



Nailed it.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jun 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> hmm, again: Canon says: EOS M50 = 99 AF fields / and 143 with 2 specific lenses. .
> Canon also says "every DP-AF pixel on entire sensor serves as AF-field".
> 
> But: Canon does NOT say: 24 million AF fields.
> ...



it's 99 / 143 selectable points in some AF modes.

otherwise it's a freely moving box around 20 some odd million locations.

Canon has to do some seriously heavy lifting at times for AF on a DPAF sensor, my feeling it that each generation of DIGIC will see DPAF get quicker.


----------



## pj1974 (Jun 28, 2018)

rrcphoto said:


> it's 99 / 143 selectable points in some AF modes.
> 
> otherwise it's a freely moving box around 20 some odd million locations.
> 
> Canon has to do some seriously heavy lifting at times for AF on a DPAF sensor, my feeling it that each generation of DIGIC will see DPAF get quicker.



I have enjoyed following this thread (reading much of this thread has been interesting, not all of it though lol) 
e.g. I found neuro's sharing about the mix of split pixel orientations particularly interesting!

Some time ago I was also thinking how much processing power DPAF takes. So, for argument's sake... (just keeping things simple, here folks)iIf the 'active AF square' represents ~5% of the sensor area of a 24 MP sensor, it equates to ~1.2 MP.

I wonder whether *all *of those 1.2 MP sensors are used, or an arrange (e.g. some along the horizontal, some along the vertical, and yes a spread across the AF square) - so it might be say 6,400 pixels (say 80 pixels x 80 pixels in the AF square) rather than the full 1,200,000 pixels.

Particularly because AF is making lots of calculations from these (sampled?) AF points, as it moves from out of focus to in focus. My IT understanding is decent, however others would have better know-how as to how many calculations it takes (per second / millisecond) to accomplish one simple 'DPAF' out of focus to in focus adjustment.

Then where continual AF tracking (both for live-view stills and video) comes into play, even more processing is required. So I agree with rrcphotos' post above, that with increasing Digic processing power (and potentially efficiency, i.e. # of cores, etc) will see DPAF speeds increase in the future, perhaps at exponential increments when new processing technologies are implemented. 8)

One aspect I would like to see in improved future DPAF technology, would yes, potentially be QPAF, and improved ability / sensitivity in low light. (e.g. reliable, fast AF down to -4EV would be lovely!)

Regards, 

PJ


----------



## fullstop (Jun 28, 2018)

canon - as other makers - uses "scene analysis" in addition to phase-af. face and eye-tracking for example as in the M50, and also for tracking AF (eg color information and possibly? also some "object identification AI/database?) to keep selected moving object in focus). i would think that poses an even greater challenge to (realtime) in-camera data processing. compared to that "simple" phase-af operation might be an easy exercise.

but thats not what i am trying to find out. i would like to know "why 99 AF fields", why not 999 or 10 million of it, when "each single (split) dual pixel can serve as AF-field". out of curiosity teally, nothing else.

from a practical/user perspective i want to know answer to the "AF orientation" question, ie whether there really is only AF sensitivity for vertical contrast edges/structures or not. that one i can and will check soon (on my daughter's new M50, gift/box not presented/ opened yet ;-)

i find it a bit strange that i cannot find any information on this in any of the reviews for M50 - or other canon DPAF cameras (DSLRs in live view mode, not in mirror-mode with detached AF sensor).


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> from a practical/user perspective i want to know answer to the "AF orientation" question, *ie whether there really is only AF sensitivity for vertical contrast edges/structures or not.*



Think of them like traditional vertical line pair sensors: they are only looking *horizontally* (i.e. along the width of the sensor).

To further clarify, there is only *phase* AF sensitivity in the horizontal. CDAF is not similarly limited.

Sony’s OSPDAF cameras are set up like this too, albeit not with dual diodes per pixel. 

Fortunately in the real world, there aren’t many subjects which only present parallel lines in the direction exactly opposite of how you want to frame, especially ones which move so much that CDAF just can’t cut it. However multiple orientation PDAF would be better, and it looks (see the aforementioned figure from a patent) that canon recognizes the next step.

================================================

Reference material:



neuroanatomist said:


> *The DPAF pixels are indeed constrained directionally, the hemi-pixel divisions are all in the same orientation. *I really think Canon needs to explore the idea of QPAF - quad-pixels (while a technical challenge, I think that would be than alternating/mixing the orientation of the pixel divisions).





neuroanatomist said:


> This image show a little of the tech, *notably that all the split pixels have the same orientation.*
> ...
> They could be sampled in any configuration, but still would be *sensitive to phase differences in only one dimension* (line sensors).





3kramd5 said:


> *one line is in essence a vertical pair (half the line looks left, half the line looks right).*





3kramd5 said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > If so, does Canon arrange these "AF strips/lines" of DP-pixels in vertical, horizontal and/or diagonal cross pattern/s on sensor? if not, why not?
> ...





neuroanatomist said:


> Probably squares. But, current DPAF is restricted to detecting features in only one orientation, determined by the split in the individual pixels. It doesn't matter whether the pixel sampling is in the pattern of a cross, square, or perambulating pentagon...*the orientation sensitivity is fixed to that same orientation.*



Note I misread this post when replying previously, and have corrected it.


----------



## fullstop (Jun 28, 2018)

@3kramd5 - ok, thx. Vertically oriented ["virtual"] Phase-AF line sensor, detecting horizontal structures.

But still far from really clear on DP-AF workings. Also, why on M50 do only 3 EF-M lenses [recent 28, recent 18-150 and not so recent 55-250] enable 143 "AF fields", but not the other EF-M lenses [99 AF fields]? 

I would have expected/guessed a faster, more wide-angle lens like the 22/2.0 to be a more likely candidate for the expanded AF field coverage than a slow tele-zoom like the 55-200 or a slow 18-150 trans-zoom. 

Canon only states:


> *For technical reasons*, this expanded coverage is available (as of February 2018) with the EF-M 18–150mm, 55–200mm, and 28mm Macro lenses only.


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

Really wonder, what those "technical reasons are"? Specific chip in lens? Specific firmware functionality in lens? Difference in lens mount protocol support? But why then does it work with the "relatively old" 55-200 but not with somewhat more recent 15-45 kit zoom? 

So unclear to me, that I don't even have a marketing conspiracy/nerfing hypothesis for it. ;D ;D ;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 28, 2018)

Good question, but again one nobody who writes on these walls is likely to know. Maybe whomever took over for Chuck Westfall would publish a write up if asked.

My off the cuff guess: they tested it, and only enable the AF zones which they deem reliable on a per-camera and per-lens basis. What variables play into that reliability would be worse than guesswork, so I won’t even try.

I have a similar question about sony’s A9 e shutter. It only works at 20FPS with some lenses. What possible relationship is there? Probably: AF speed. If a lens can’t keep up, they will slow the framerate to avoid people complaining about 99 OOF shots from a 5 second burst.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

3kramd5 said:


> Good question, but again one nobody who writes on these walls is likely to know. Maybe whomever took over for Chuck Westfall would publish a write up if asked.
> 
> My off the cuff guess: they tested it, and only enable the AF zones which they deem reliable on a per-camera and per-lens basis. What variables play into that reliability would be worse than guesswork, so I won’t even try.



Agreed, probably something only Canon knows. But I also agree that empirical testing may be the basis for it. I suspect (but really don’t know) that such testing formed the basis for all of those lens groups with the 1D X/5DIII AF system, with max aperture not being the sole determinant of which AF points were available as crosses, only lines, or not available at all.

Going back to an earlier post:



3kramd5 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > That's the first I've seen a picture of a 1DXII PDAF sensor, I think.
> ...


Correct. But they’re actually quite similar.
[/quote]

I think the f/8 functionality of the 1D X was also based on empirical testing. When the camera was launched, it required f/5.6 for AF...f/8 AF was added with a firmware update, so clearly no hardware change was needed to support f/8. Or the hardware was there but disabled, but then...why? More likely users asked for the feature, Canon tied it or and found it worked reasonably well with the center point, and enabled it. The fact that Tamron/Sigma f/6.3 lenses can AF with an f/5.6 AF point shows f/5.6 isn’t a hard limit (and the physics of the AF sensor support that).


----------



## Kit. (Jun 28, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Canon only states:
> 
> 
> > *For technical reasons*, this expanded coverage is available (as of February 2018) with the EF-M 18–150mm, 55–200mm, and 28mm Macro lenses only.
> ...


"Legacy" retrofocus design, which decreases microlens shading for pixels far away from the optical axis?


----------



## BillB (Jun 29, 2018)

fullstop said:


> canon - as other makers - uses "scene analysis" in addition to phase-af. face and eye-tracking for example as in the M50, and also for tracking AF (eg color information and possibly? also some "object identification AI/database?) to keep selected moving object in focus). i would think that poses an even greater challenge to (realtime) in-camera data processing. compared to that "simple" phase-af operation might be an easy exercise.
> 
> but thats not what i am trying to find out. i would like to know "why 99 AF fields", why not 999 or 10 million of it, when "each single (split) dual pixel can serve as AF-field". out of curiosity teally, nothing else.
> 
> ...



My guess is that several factors may have played into Canon's decision to go with "99 AF Fields". One factor may have been the need to develop a practical and effective user interface. A second factor may have been the need to aggregate data from clusters of pixels to cope with the fact that all pixels are oriented the same way. Originally data is developed by comparing the output of the two halves of individual pixels, but maybe it is then aggregated to assure that at least some pixels will have produce information that will permit accurate focussing. If data from enough pixels is used, at least some of the pixels are virtually certain find lines that will generate information that can be used for accurate focus adjustment. This would require that development of algorithms that could separate the wheat from the chaff among the data from the individual pixels. In addition, there may also be other technical factors influencing the design of the AF fields, such as manufacturing issues, etc. Apparently lens design can be a factor.


----------



## ykn123 (Aug 22, 2018)

any updated info on a 90D or 80D MII ? For months i'm thinking about buying a Nikon D7500 JUST for :
- it's a DSLR with a good OVF
- it's small but with a nice grip / good handling (i've had a test camera for a week - also had the D500 for testing but i want the smaller DSLR body)
- it has no AA filter !
- it has a nice sensor, just 20MP and very nice IQ
- it has a decent fps / AF and again it's small compared to my other bodies (except my m50 but i'm not too happy with the EVF thing)

I just need a DSLR that i have always with me , especially if i'm out with the dogs and need some nice action shots and i find myself not taking the big 1DX with me on the daily walks. As i said i've tested the D7500 with the 35 1.8 (DX) and 85 1.8 (DX) and liked it a lot. I like the Canon menus more but some of the Nikons way's of doing things are also very nice - so not a big problem to use the nikon together with the canon (usability wise). But hey, i don't WANT to buy it just because i can't have it from Canon. So i think the 90D should have all those minimum features (no AA please!) and add the better video AF and Wifi as well (that sucks on the nikon).

So i find myself checking the price for the D7500 every second day and stop myself from pushing the buy button - but WHEN do i get the 90D please ??????


----------

