# Canon will release the EOS Ra astrophotography camera



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 18, 2019)

> Back in June, we reported about the possibility of a dedicated astrophotography EOS R system camera coming from Canon in late 2019.  It turns out such a camera may, in fact, be coming in 2020.
> According to the source, they were told that a “Canon EOS Ra” has appeared on an internal Canon roadmap for 2020. The only time the “a” is used in Canon ILC camera models has been for the EOS 20Da and the EOS 60Da, which leads us to believe we will definitely be seeing a dedicated astrophotography camera.
> No specifications are known at this time, as only the model name has appeared on the internal document. There is however a chance that the model name is an internal codename for a different camera.
> *Update*: Canon themselves have mentioned the Canon EOS Ra in an EOS R leaflet on one of their official sites. You can download the leaflet...



Continue reading...


----------



## koenkooi (Sep 18, 2019)

'A' for 'Awesome' or for 'cAnon is *******'?


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 18, 2019)

EOS Ra. A camera special-purposed for solar photography, with a built-in non-removable 20 stop ND filter.


----------



## slclick (Sep 18, 2019)

Out of this world!


----------



## Wardenmsp (Sep 18, 2019)

We had some discussion about this a few weeks ago, as I recall, but the question lingers - in the current world of inexpensive dedicated astrophotography cameras, why introduce a product like this?


----------



## Scooter (Sep 18, 2019)

This would be their first dedicated astrophotography camera with a full frame, wouldn't it? If so, that's got to be exciting for the astrophotographers out there.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 18, 2019)

slclick said:


> Out of this world!


"My unholy trinity" Priceless.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 18, 2019)

Wardenmsp said:


> We had some discussion about this a few weeks ago, as I recall, but the question lingers - in the current world of inexpensive dedicated astrophotography cameras, why introduce a product like this?


Because.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 18, 2019)

I think it's kind of a stretch to assume that this is an astrophotography camera. It could be, but it seems like Canon would have a lot of other priorities before releasing such a body.


----------



## ashmadux (Sep 18, 2019)

*REVISION-A*

aka _Boring +_


----------



## HaroldC3 (Sep 18, 2019)

Scooter said:


> This would be their first dedicated astrophotography camera with a full frame, wouldn't it? If so, that's got to be exciting for the astrophotographers out there.


Nikon has the d810a.


----------



## slclick (Sep 18, 2019)

HaroldC3 said:


> Nikon has the d810a.


Canon. Canon glass.


----------



## sdz (Sep 18, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think it's kind of a stretch to assume that this is an astrophotography camera. It could be, but it seems like Canon would have a lot of other priorities before releasing such a body.



Canon News suggests Canon could create an astrophotography variant without much effort.


----------



## slclick (Sep 18, 2019)

Wardenmsp said:


> We had some discussion about this a few weeks ago, as I recall, but the question lingers - in the current world of inexpensive dedicated astrophotography cameras, why introduce a product like this?


I'm not familiar with this list of inexpensive astro bodies. Sure you can get a used 60a but inexpensive is relevant, isn't it?


----------



## IggyMo (Sep 18, 2019)

Or the "a" could stand for "advanced"... or for "all-around"... or for "all weather"... or for "ali g"... so many possibilities....


----------



## knight427 (Sep 18, 2019)

Speaking only for myself, I hope it's more directed towards landscape AP than Deep Sky. I don't see the market being there for Deep Sky when they have an abundance of dedicated cameras to chose from that are much easier to deal with than a bulky camera designed to be held in the hand. 

I'd love to see something like Astro Tracer, auto staking options, and programmable exposure routines. Something like: take 20 30s frames at high ISO with Astro Tracer, close the sensor dust shield and repeat (for darks), then repeat again with a built-in way to get flat frames. Internally store darks and flats for reuse in the future if I'm using the same lens at a similar operating temperature. 

I guess I'm more interested in the computational photography possibilities than in the increased sensitivities to red and Ha. Those physical filters can be professionally removed if one insists on strapping a giant DSLR to thier telescope.The most valuable thing Canon can offer me is to make a lot of the tedious post processing go away.


----------



## KirkD (Sep 18, 2019)

I do some astrophotography with my Canon EOS R. Apart from the lenses used, the most important thing is the HDR of the sensor. With my EF 35mm f1.4L II, any exposure slower than 15 seconds is too long (unless I'm using a clock drive), so I have to ramp up the ISO and then squeeze every bit of HDR I can in post.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 18, 2019)

knight427 said:


> the sensor dust shield



I think you’ll find it more commonly called ”the shutter”.


----------



## knight427 (Sep 18, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> I think you’ll find it more commonly called ”the shutter”.



Thanks, that was "helpful."


----------



## canonnews (Sep 18, 2019)

sdz said:


> Canon News suggests Canon could create an astrophotography variant without much effort.



indeed. about the only difficulty would be fixing the IR light leak that exists with the EOS R.

the essence is just a hot mirror IR/UV change to the existing camera, and voila, it's an astro camera.

of course they could add different things to the camera such as a longer timer,etc. but it's a pretty easy R&D based camera to come out with.

Ironically if they do come out with an EOS Ra astro edition, it may be the best EOS R to actually convert to IR versus the original EOS R.

I can't find the article but from talking to Kolari Vision, if one is wanting an IR/Astro camera - the EOS RP is the best full frame mirrorless camera out there for that application right now.


----------



## Wardenmsp (Sep 18, 2019)

slclick said:


> I'm not familiar with this list of inexpensive astro bodies. Sure you can get a used 60a but inexpensive is relevant, isn't it?



Here’s what I’m thinking of. These aren’t conventional camera bodies (they don’t have viewfinders, etc.), but they have cooled chips for long exposures and other capabilities for deep-sky astrophotography. 

Cameras like these didn’t exist when the D60a was introduced, so I’m just saying that the world of astrophotography has largely moved beyond the need for uncooled DSLRs.


----------



## felipeolveram (Sep 18, 2019)

IggyMo said:


> Or the "a" could stand for "advanced"... or for "all-around"... or for "all weather"... or for "ali g"... so many possibilities....



Could it also be "A" for Canon EOS R apsc? or "A" for action (speed focused?)

I honestly don't understand Canon's model naming, from a business stand point why are there so many models? For example why not consolidate into three for four for both APSC and FF with one mount like sony? What does Rp stand for? What does R stand for?

If you want sports get an a9, if you want studio get a a7r, if you want low light get an a7s, if you're not sure and just want to try both get an a7. Where as in canon you have the m mount cameras, the rf mount cameras, the ef mount cameras, cameras that efs lenses can only work on, etc...


----------



## wockawocka (Sep 18, 2019)

'the sensor dust shield'



Sharlin said:


> I think you’ll find it more commonly called ”the shutter”.



Sure, but it's more fitting now we're in Spaaaaaaaaace


----------



## slclick (Sep 18, 2019)

Wardenmsp said:


> Here’s what I’m thinking of. These aren’t conventional camera bodies (they don’t have viewfinders, etc.), but they have cooled chips for long exposures and other capabilities for deep-sky astrophotography.
> 
> Cameras like these didn’t exist when the D60a was introduced, so I’m just saying that the world of astrophotography has largely moved beyond the need for uncooled DSLRs.


I'm not sure inexpensive comes into play here what with the need for the tele, and all of it's accouterments. Plus, and this seems like a huge plus...monochrome? If that's the way to keep costs down then ok.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 18, 2019)

The cost of modifying the sensor and tweaking the firmware to create a astro-photography camera version of a existing model is minimal, all the mechanical parts and electronic parts with the exception of the sensor don't change, so repair and maintenance do not need new tools and minimal spare parts. Canon has experience doing it, so R&D is also not needed. 

As long as sales are high enough to make a profit, in times of dropping sales, every bit helps. It seems like a no brainer as long as it will sell.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 18, 2019)

slclick said:


> I'm not sure inexpensive comes into play here what with the need for the tele, and all of it's accouterments. Plus, and this seems like a huge plus...monochrome? If that's the way to keep costs down then ok.



An RGB Bayer filter absorbs precious photons and often astro shooters are interested in specific narrowband wavelengths anyway. So monochrome plus separate filters is where it’s at.


----------



## Joules (Sep 18, 2019)

slclick said:


> Plus, and this seems like a huge plus...monochrome? If that's the way to keep costs down then ok.


Imaging in color means you are throwing a lot of signal away. Few things in space emit green light, but half of a color sensor is dedicated just for sensing green light. Monochrome does get better results if you are ready to deal with the effort that is high end Astro.


----------



## Joules (Sep 18, 2019)

knight427 said:


> I'd love to see something like Astro Tracer, auto staking options, and programmable exposure routines. Something like: take 20 30s frames at high ISO with Astro Tracer, close the sensor dust shield and repeat (for darks), then repeat again with a built-in way to get flat frames. Internally store darks and flats for reuse in the future if I'm using the same lens at a similar operating temperature.


That would be great.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 18, 2019)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The cost of modifying the sensor and tweaking the firmware to create a astro-photography camera version of a existing model is minimal, all the mechanical parts and electronic parts with the exception of the sensor don't change, so repair and maintenance do not need new tools and minimal spare parts. Canon has experience doing it, so R&D is also not needed.
> 
> As long as sales are high enough to make a profit, in times of dropping sales, every bit helps. It seems like a no brainer as long as it will sell.




I think this is an area where Sony fell down (star eater issue), so it'd be good to lock the astro nerds into the platform. Not much of a downside. Would also give people the impression that there are new Canon mirrorless cameras coming out during this embarrassing hiatus.


----------



## LDS (Sep 18, 2019)

Wardenmsp said:


> Cameras like these didn’t exist when the D60a was introduced,



They existed well before DSLR became common. Anyway a 24-32 megapixel astro camera with a 35mm sensor is far from being cheap, AFAIK. Sure, a cooled camera with an automatic filters wheel can deliver more 'professional' images, but it's also slower and more complex to use, and requires beefier batteries.


----------



## Memirsbrunnr (Sep 18, 2019)

I assume it is a version with the IR filter removed?


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 18, 2019)

When Canon releases Sony a7rIV equivalent body, people will seriously consider to buy RF body/lenses.


----------



## proutprout (Sep 18, 2019)

Amazing, i mean in today’s world you have millions of youtubers waiting for a great video camera from canon, and Canon is thinking about the most niche market ever. Like they are trying hard not to make sales. Couldn’t try harder.


----------



## Joepatbob (Sep 18, 2019)

canonnews said:


> indeed. about the only difficulty would be fixing the IR light leak that exists with the EOS R.
> 
> the essence is just a hot mirror IR/UV change to the existing camera, and voila, it's an astro camera.
> 
> ...


forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between an IR camera and an astro?


----------



## Architect1776 (Sep 18, 2019)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> Continue reading...



This is great. Canon is going all out with the RF mount. Ahead of the state of the art lenses, like no one else has, introduced and announced and who knows what other cameras.
And they are just warming up.


----------



## Architect1776 (Sep 18, 2019)

HaroldC3 said:


> Nikon has the d810a.



Yep.
Old technology and the Canon would have an electronic shutter which the old Nikon does not have.


----------



## canonnews (Sep 18, 2019)

Joepatbob said:


> forgive my ignorance, but what is the difference between an IR camera and an astro?


not alot actually. just a different filter in front of the sensor.

IR camera would have a cut filter for IR frequencies, while an astro has visible plus a cut filter for h-alpha spectrum.

a full spectrum or two spectrum camera can do all .. color, ir and specific astro.


----------



## KirkD (Sep 18, 2019)

For those who are curious, here's a photo I took a few weeks ago with my Canon EOS R and Canon EF 35mm f1.4L II, 15 seconds at f1.4, ISO 400. The image is not cropped, so you can see how well it does in the corners. Even at 15 seconds, the star trails are starting to show.


----------



## Architect1776 (Sep 18, 2019)

proutprout said:


> Amazing, i mean in today’s world you have millions of youtubers waiting for a great video camera from canon, and Canon is thinking about the most niche market ever. Like they are trying hard not to make sales. Couldn’t try harder.



Canon has many not just great but incredibly superb video cameras.
It appears you tubers jut do video so they just are not bright enough to use a real video camera. If they need a still it can be pulled easy enough from the video.


----------



## TinTin (Sep 18, 2019)

It's definitely an astrophotography version of the EOS R: Canon published a leaflet about it a few days ago:





EOS R - Support - Download drivers, software and manuals - Canon UK


Download drivers, software, firmware and manuals for your Canon product and get access to online technical support resources and troubleshooting.




www.canon.co.uk


----------



## KirkD (Sep 18, 2019)

From the above mentioned leaflet I can see that even though I dabble at astrophotography, this will not be useful to me, as I do a lot more nature and landscape shooting and they say, "shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended." The hydrogen-alpha wavelength is good for extended objects such as nebulae, but you really need to stick your camera on a telescope to get satisfactory magnification of the nebulae. So I think this is not for fellows who stick their camera on a tripod. Instead, it will be for those who mount it on the back of a telescope, which is fairly niche.

The EOS Ra is a version of the EOS R designed for astrophotography. This camera has approximately four times
the transmittance of hydrogen-alpha light (656 nm) as the EOS R.Photographs of subjects that reflect a lot of infrared light will thereforeappear redder than they actually are. Also, as it may not be possible to obtain an appropriate color balance or uneven colors may result,shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> From the above mentioned leaflet I can see that even though I dabble at astrophotography, this will not be useful to me, as I do a lot more nature and landscape shooting and they say, "shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended." The hydrogen-alpha wavelength is good for extended objects such as nebulae, but you really need to stick your camera on a telescope to get satisfactory magnification of the nebulae. So I think this is not for fellows who stick their camera on a tripod. Instead, it will be for those who mount it on the back of a telescope, which is fairly niche.
> 
> The EOS Ra is a version of the EOS R designed for astrophotography. This camera has approximately four times
> the transmittance of hydrogen-alpha light (656 nm) as the EOS R.Photographs of subjects that reflect a lot of infrared light will thereforeappear redder than they actually are. Also, as it may not be possible to obtain an appropriate color balance or uneven colors may result,shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended.


Kirk, could it make for some strangely quirky landscape art shots? Just asking because I have no idea.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2019)

This will be totally awesome IF Canon ever decides to make a serious effort (or even a modest effort) to control coma and astigmatism in their WA/UWA lens designs.


----------



## amorse (Sep 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> For those who are curious, here's a photo I took a few weeks ago with my Canon EOS R and Canon EF 35mm f1.4L II, 15 seconds at f1.4, ISO 400. The image is not cropped, so you can see how well it does in the corners. Even at 15 seconds, the star trails are starting to show.
> 
> View attachment 186675


I'm not surprised about the trailing, if I'm honest. I use a 5D IV for astro occasionally, and I've found that when I have proper focus, the rule of 500 is not enough. I would commonly use a 14mm f/2.8 open for 30 seconds on a 6D and be satisfied with the results (albeit maybe with less than perfect focus), but I've found that with the same lens on the 5D IV I am hesitant to even go for 25 seconds - much better results at 20 seconds when focus is bang on. I'm pretty confident that I don't have any movement anywhere, but 30 second exposures have noticeable trails when really looking. Maybe 30mp on a sharp lens is just a bit too long for the rule of 500.

By the rule of 500 you should be able to get 14 seconds from a 35mm lens, and I should be able to get >30 seconds on the 14. In practice, however, it seems that from my experience maybe the rule of 350 is more accurate.


----------



## Joules (Sep 18, 2019)

TinTin said:


> It's definitely an astrophotography version of the EOS R: Canon published a leaflet about it a few days ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great find. For how tight lipped they are about leaks a lot of Material slips through from official Canon sources lately. First we get the full specs of the M6 II and 90D from Canon Australia and now this. Maybe they're taking a page out of Googles books?


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2019)

KirkD said:


> I do some astrophotography with my Canon EOS R. Apart from the lenses used, the most important thing is the HDR of the sensor. With my EF 35mm f1.4L II, any exposure slower than 15 seconds is too long (unless I'm using a clock drive), so I have to ramp up the ISO and then squeeze every bit of HDR I can in post.


I believe even 15sec is too much with a 30Mp camera at 100%. I do some Landscape astrophotography during summers. The late summers I use my 5DIV which is also 30Mp. If I want to see a star ... a star at 100% I have to be restrained around 15 sec with my ... 14mm lens. Fortunately now I have the 14 1.8 Sigma lens. But yes sometimes I use up to 20 or 25 sec to allow a little trailing in order to achieve a little lower ISO. So I understand your 15 seconds and the reason you select so.


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2019)

amorse said:


> I'm not surprised about the trailing, if I'm honest. I use a 5D IV for astro occasionally, and I've found that when I have proper focus, the rule of 500 is not enough. I would commonly use a 14mm f/2.8 open for 30 seconds on a 6D and be satisfied with the results (albeit maybe with less than perfect focus), but I've found that with the same lens on the 5D IV I am hesitant to even go for 25 seconds - much better results at 20 seconds when focus is bang on. I'm pretty confident that I don't have any movement anywhere, but 30 second exposures have noticeable trails when really looking. Maybe 30mp on a sharp lens is just a bit too long for the rule of 500.
> 
> By the rule of 500 you should be able to get 14 seconds from a 35mm lens, and I should be able to get >30 seconds on the 14. In practice, however, it seems that from my experience maybe the rule of 350 is more accurate.


Yes this is my experience too. In fact think rule of 250!


----------



## amorse (Sep 18, 2019)

tron said:


> Yes this is my experience too. In fact think rule of 250!


You might be right! I was so mad when I figured out that 30 seconds was too long on the 5D IV - I've since resorted to median stacking on really high ISO exposures as a solution. It's such a pain, but the results are SO much cleaner than further underexposing, or just using a higher ISO (in many but not all circumstances).


----------



## TMHKR (Sep 18, 2019)

Canon Amon Ra


----------



## amorse (Sep 18, 2019)

tron said:


> I believe even 15sec is too much with a 30Mp camera at 100%. I do some Landscape astrophotography during summers. The late summers I use my 5DIV which is also 30Mp. If I want to see a star ... a star at 100% I have to be restrained around 15 sec with my ... 14mm lens. Fortunately now I have the 14 1.8 Sigma lens. But yes sometimes I use up to 20 or 25 sec to allow a little trailing in order to achieve a little lower ISO. So I understand your 15 seconds and the reason you select so.


How do you like that Sigma 14/1.8? I've been eyeballing that for a while now as an upgrade to my trusty (but light weight) Rokinon 14/2.8.


----------



## Eersel (Sep 18, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> EOS Ra. A camera special-purposed for solar photography, with a built-in non-removable 20 stop ND filter.



Lol that would be amazing ahahaha

Who cares about the ND RF adapter then


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2019)

amorse said:


> You might be right! I was so mad when I figured out that 30 seconds was too long on the 5D IV - I've since resorted to median stacking on really high ISO exposures as a solution. It's such a pain, but the results are SO much cleaner than further underexposing, or just using a higher ISO (in many but not all circumstances).


Interesting but let me ask: I do landscape astrophotography in which case the land remains steady (unless there are leaves and there is wind) and the stars which move (OK earth rotates but you get the point). How do you apply the algorithm? Do you break the picture in two parts and process seperately?


----------



## Joules (Sep 18, 2019)

tron said:


> Interesting but let me ask: I do landscape astrophotography in which case the land remains steady (unless there are leaves and there is wind) and the stars which move (OK earth rotates but you get the point). How do you apply the algorithm? Do you break the picture in two parts and process seperately?


There is software that can stack the sky and ground separately if you draw a border between them on one reference frame. Sequator is a good example of this, as it is free and provides really good results.

The alternative to getting better astro images is using a sky tracker, but in that case you still have to do processing because you have to merge a shot of the sky (where the ground is blurry) and one of the ground (blurry sky) in post. No free lunch.

So far I've used the former method but I purchased a tracker (Fornax Lightrack II) recently and this weekend looks like I'll have some time and good weather so that will get a chance to shine.


----------



## HenWin (Sep 18, 2019)

Such a hilarious name for an _Astro_Cam...*RA.*..the Egyptian SUN God!


----------



## tron (Sep 18, 2019)

Joules said:


> There is software that can stack the sky and ground separately if you draw a border between them on one reference frame. Sequator is a good example of this, as it is free and provides really good results.
> 
> The alternative to getting better astro images is using a sky tracker, but in that case you still have to do processing because you have to merge a shot of the sky (where the ground is blurry) and one of the ground (blurry sky) in post. No free lunch.
> 
> So far I've used the former method but I purchased a tracker (Fornax Lightrack II) recently and this weekend looks like I'll have some time and good weather so that will get a chance to shine.


I was thinking about the latter because I have an old Astrotrac model. But the place I was taking pictures didn't allow me to see the polar star due to rocks! So up to now I have done just the half: Took a picture with enough minutes as the shutter speed in order to achieve a low (3 digit) iso and I combined it with one another picture. Not enough though. The method you mentioned seems very interesting


----------



## unfocused (Sep 18, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think it's kind of a stretch to assume that this is an astrophotography camera. It could be, but it seems like Canon would have a lot of other priorities before releasing such a body.



I like to admit when I'm wrong (sometimes.  ) and clearly I was wrong about this.



TinTin said:


> It's definitely an astrophotography version of the EOS R: Canon published a leaflet about it a few days ago:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It still surprises me, but I guess it's a way to pick up a few extra sales without much investment.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 18, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> EOS Ra. A camera special-purposed for solar photography, with a built-in non-removable 20 stop ND filter.



Forgot to say that it also has IBIS, QPAF, 16 stops of DR, shoots 20fps 16-bit RAW, and records 24/30/60p uncropped oversampled 10-bit 4:2:2 4K without 30min limitation. But the ND filter is glued to the sensor and cannot be removed without damaging it.


----------



## amorse (Sep 18, 2019)

tron said:


> Interesting but let me ask: I do landscape astrophotography in which case the land remains steady (unless there are leaves and there is wind) and the stars which move (OK earth rotates but you get the point). How do you apply the algorithm? Do you break the picture in two parts and process seperately?


I do the same type of photography - typically I'll have numerous frames for the sky, single very long exposure for the foreground with low ISO all taken without moving the camera or changing composition, and then blend them together - *if that's all you're curious about then you probably don't need to read the rest - a lot of detail to follow if you're curious. *
All the sky frames need to be properly aligned because of the planetary rotation, so I'll typically choose the first/middle/last sky exposure to align to as not not feel like I'm cheating in putting the milky way somewhere it wasn't or changing composition (personal guideline - otherwise I feel like it's not that different than a sky swap from another location or night, which I'm not into). Occasionally I'll put a lit tent into the frame, and in those cases I'll also need to add some exposures to manage the brightness of the tent, and light leak from the tent on to the foreground. I've included a couple examples below with what I did to get it done as examples. Admittedly, these are not for everyone's taste, but I do like them.



5D IV, Rokinon 14mm f/2.8.
*Sky* - 8 frames, ISO 8000, 20 seconds. All frames manually aligned using warp (that distortion is nasty - this takes forever), then converted to a smart object and set to median blend in PS.
*Landscape* - 2 minutes (speaking from memory here) at around ISO 2000, brought back to darker luminance in photoshop
*Tent* - two frames with a light on - one to illuminate the ground around the tent appropriately, one to not blow out the luminance in the tent (I can't remember the settings of each for the life of me)



This one didn't work as well because of the tree overlap with the sky, and a lot of haze in the sky requiring me to push ISO higher than usual. If you look closely near branches, you can see spots which couldn't median stack (because when you align the stars, the tree will appear to be moving) and had to be included with only noise reduction from a single exposure. I've included this example because I think comparing those less than ideal spots near the branches against the open sky gives you an idea of how much noise reduction and increases in detail you can get from an 8 image median stack relative to a single frame in one instance.

5DIV, Rokinon 14/2.8.
*Sky* - 8 frames, 20 seconds, ISO 10000 (honestly, increasing to 16 frames would have been a good idea here)
*Foreground rocks* - 1 frame, 2 minutes ISO 2000 (speaking from memory).


----------



## abnagfab (Sep 18, 2019)

Took this with the R and Sigma 20/1.4 Art at 1600 ISO/1.8 for 20 seconds. No trails (I don’t think?), and lots of star detail, a little distortion from the planets. Single shot, not a composite, just a little Lightroom post-processing to get the colors up (and dampen the glow from Phoenix).

I’m super amateur at Astro, but what would be different in the end result with something like the EOS Ra?


----------



## blackcoffee17 (Sep 18, 2019)

unfocused said:


> I think it's kind of a stretch to assume that this is an astrophotography camera. It could be, but it seems like Canon would have a lot of other priorities before releasing such a body.



It's probably pretty easy and cheap for them to develop it. It's essentially an R with different filter on the sensor and some software tweaks.


----------



## telliscope (Sep 18, 2019)

Assuming its release is near if Canon UK have uploaded a brochure on it?

Shoot a bit of astro myself, not sure I shoot enough for a dedicated body though.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 18, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> EOS Ra. A camera special-purposed for solar photography, with a built-in non-removable 20 stop ND filter.



ND filters do not necessarily filter IR and UV. It would need a proper _solar _filter that does.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 18, 2019)

telliscope said:


> Assuming its release is near if Canon UK have uploaded a brochure on it?
> 
> Shoot a bit of astro myself, not sure I shoot enough for a dedicated body though.



As I understand it (from a Canon rep) announcements tend to occur before the end of October--or after the end of March. They won't announce something too close to Christmas, and they don't want to announce something right after Christmas (It would tick off a lot of people who bought something FOR Christmas). So, I could see this body announced before the end of October, certainly.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> ND filters do not necessarily filter IR and UV. It would need a proper _solar _filter that does.



And when you say "need," you really mean it.

Not doing so would be akin to aiming a Burnz o-matic at your sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 18, 2019)

ashmadux said:


> *REVISION-A*
> 
> aka _Boring +_



Canon has always used "n" for that, as in the EOS Elan 7n or EOS 1D Mark IIn.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 18, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> Could it also be "A" for Canon EOS R apsc? or "A" for action (speed focused?)
> 
> I honestly don't understand Canon's model naming, from a business stand point why are there so many models? For example why not consolidate into three for four for both APSC and FF with one mount like sony? What does Rp stand for? What does R stand for?
> 
> If you want sports get an a9, if you want studio get a a7r, if you want low light get an a7s, if you're not sure and just want to try both get an a7. Where as in canon you have the m mount cameras, the rf mount cameras, the ef mount cameras, cameras that efs lenses can only work on, etc...



You can't be serious...


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 18, 2019)

slclick said:


> I'm not sure inexpensive comes into play here what with the need for the tele, and all of it's accouterments. Plus, and this seems like a huge plus...monochrome? If that's the way to keep costs down then ok.



Many astro photographers have color wheels between the camera and telescope. They take a green frame, a red, frame, a blue frame, etc. and then combine them in post. Astronomers have been doing it that way since the late 1800s.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 18, 2019)

abnagfab said:


> I’m super amateur at Astro, but what would be different in the end result with something like the EOS Ra?



If it's more sensitive to Ha as mentioned in the linked leaflet, it'll show certain types of nebulae more strongly - the red ones, essentially. For a shot towards the centre of the Milky Way like yours, it won't make a huge difference. It's more useful for fainter objects like the North America Nebula, various nebulae in Orion, etc.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 18, 2019)

amorse said:


> I'm not surprised about the trailing, if I'm honest. I use a 5D IV for astro occasionally, and I've found that when I have proper focus, the rule of 500 is not enough. I would commonly use a 14mm f/2.8 open for 30 seconds on a 6D and be satisfied with the results (albeit maybe with less than perfect focus), but I've found that with the same lens on the 5D IV I am hesitant to even go for 25 seconds - much better results at 20 seconds when focus is bang on. I'm pretty confident that I don't have any movement anywhere, but 30 second exposures have noticeable trails when really looking. Maybe 30mp on a sharp lens is just a bit too long for the rule of 500.
> 
> By the rule of 500 you should be able to get 14 seconds from a 35mm lens, and I should be able to get >30 seconds on the 14. In practice, however, it seems that from my experience maybe the rule of 350 is more accurate.



The rule of 500 assumes you're looking at the full image no larger than 8x10". When you start pixel peeping, or even viewing the entire image full screen on a 24" monitor, the rule of 500 goes out the window (as does the 1/FL rule of thumb, and all of your DoF charts/lens distance scales based on "standard" display/viewing conditions...)


----------



## slclick (Sep 18, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You can't be serious...


I guess he isn't frequenting automobile forums


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 18, 2019)

SteveC said:


> And when you say "need," you really mean it.
> 
> Not doing so would be akin to aiming a Burnz o-matic at your sensor.



Unfortunately, putting the filter in the sensor stack does nothing for the (600mm f/ 4) lens:




Or shutter:





or mirror:






But it does prevent this:


----------



## tron (Sep 19, 2019)

amorse said:


> How do you like that Sigma 14/1.8? I've been eyeballing that for a while now as an upgrade to my trusty (but light weight) Rokinon 14/2.8.


I have used it only for Landscape Astrophotography at 1.8. I like it! My other lens is Canon 14mm 2.8L II which is nice too. Both have some coma but it is not extreme. Beware I do not beieve Sigma has a lot of resistance to flare (but this does not apply for moonless skies. It's OK then).


----------



## SteveC (Sep 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Unfortunately, putting the filter in the sensor stack does nothing for the (600mm f/ 4) lens:
> 
> View attachment 186682
> 
> ...



For the same reason you put your solar filter over the objective of the telescope...not the eyepiece. (I wasn't thinking of the...er...big picture when I riffed off the joke.)


----------



## epsiloneri (Sep 19, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> This will be totally awesome IF Canon ever decides to make a serious effort (or even a modest effort) to control coma and astigmatism in their WA/UWA lens designs.


That would be nice, but I expect this camera makes more sense with normal and tele lenses anyway, to get those pretty nebulae. Ultra-wide field H-alpha imaging is a very narrow niche indeed. For non-H-alpha astrophotogtraphy, the regular R works as well (or poorly, depending on glass and photographer).


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 19, 2019)

KirkD said:


> From the above mentioned leaflet I can see that even though I dabble at astrophotography, this will not be useful to me, as I do a lot more nature and landscape shooting and they say, "shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended." The hydrogen-alpha wavelength is good for extended objects such as nebulae, but you really need to stick your camera on a telescope to get satisfactory magnification of the nebulae. So I think this is not for fellows who stick their camera on a tripod. Instead, it will be for those who mount it on the back of a telescope, which is fairly niche.
> 
> The EOS Ra is a version of the EOS R designed for astrophotography. This camera has approximately four times
> the transmittance of hydrogen-alpha light (656 nm) as the EOS R.Photographs of subjects that reflect a lot of infrared light will thereforeappear redder than they actually are. Also, as it may not be possible to obtain an appropriate color balance or uneven colors may result,shooting normal subjects with this camera is not recommended.



Colours aren't too important for night/astro shooting. So apart from mounting it on a telescope, it can be useful for nightscapes. Still a very niche usage. I don't know if they had AA filter removed, AA would probably be totally unnecessary for astro.


----------



## digigal (Sep 19, 2019)

So Canon is saying that the market is clamoring for a specialized astro mirrorless which makes it worth their putting their efforts on it now rather than a 7D like mirrorless? Never would have thought it with the Olympics coming up, but I'm not on top of the market trends in mirrorless cameras!


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 19, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Colours aren't too important for night/astro shooting. So apart from mounting it on a telescope, it can be useful for nightscapes. Still a very niche usage. I don't know if they had AA filter removed, AA would probably be totally unnecessary for astro.



Quite the contrary. If used on a sensor with a Bayer filter array, an AA is quite beneficial for astrophotography.

Most stars are point sources of light that without an AA filter would only be recorded by a single sensel. Both the intensity and the resulting color after demosaicing would be affected by which color filter is over that single sensel. Some folks have theorized that the reason some cameras are known as "star eaters" is because without an AA filter the camera's NR routine mis-identifies those single pixels with significant signal surrounded by dozens of pixels with no significant signal to be noise.

With monochrome sensor and various filters placed between the telescope and the sensor that affect the light falling on every sensel equally, the AA filter is indeed a liability.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 19, 2019)

digigal said:


> So Canon is saying that the market is clamoring for a specialized astro mirrorless which makes it worth their putting their efforts on it now rather than a 7D like mirrorless? Never would have thought it with the Olympics coming up, but I'm not on top of the market trends in mirrorless cameras!



I'm speculating, of course, but it sounds like this was very little development work on their part. So it may be a very small fruit, but it was hanging very low. Why pass it up?

And there's no reason to assume they don't have 20x the number of engineers they put on this, going full bore on whatever it is they're going to do for the Olympics, being a new 1D or a Super R camera.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Most stars are point sources of light that without an AA filter would only be recorded by a single sensel. Both the intensity and the resulting color after demosaicing would be affected by which color filter is over that single sensel. Some folks have theorized that the reason some cameras are known as "star eaters" is because without an AA filter the camera's NR routine mis-identifies those single pixels with significant signal surrounded by dozens of pixels with no significant signal to be noise.



Now THIS is the sort of thing I like to see here, something that turned on a big lightbulb. It was most, if you'll pardon the expression, illuminating. Yes, you'd have a star like Sirius hitting (say) a red pixel and looking red, and who knows, getting edited out as noise (perhaps not, because it's so bright--but other stars, yes), but if not..."When did Sirius become a red giant?"


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 19, 2019)

SteveC said:


> Now THIS is the sort of thing I like to see here, something that turned on a big lightbulb. It was most, if you'll pardon the expression, illuminating. Yes, you'd have a star like Sirius hitting (say) a red pixel and looking red, and who knows, getting edited out as noise (perhaps not, because it's so bright--but other stars, yes), but if not..."When did Sirius become a red giant?"



Brighter stars tend to spread out a bit on their own as they go through the lens'/telescope's optics. It's the dimmer ones that are affected the most by this.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Brighter stars tend to spread out a bit on their own as they go through the lens'/telescope's optics. It's the dimmer ones that are affected the most by this.



Yes, Sirius wasn't the best example, but I wanted one that is very well known to be white.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 19, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Quite the contrary. If used on a sensor with a Bayer filter array, an AA is quite beneficial for astrophotography.
> 
> Most stars are point sources of light that without an AA filter would only be recorded by a single sensel. Both the intensity and the resulting color after demosaicing would be affected by which color filter is over that single sensel. Some folks have theorized that the reason some cameras are known as "star eaters" is because without an AA filter the camera's NR routine mis-identifies those single pixels with significant signal surrounded by dozens of pixels with no significant signal to be noise.
> 
> With monochrome sensor and various filters placed between the telescope and the sensor that affect the light falling on every sensel equally, the AA filter is indeed a liability.



I don't think there's a lens as sharp so it converts a star into a single physical pixel. Also small vibrations and atmospheric aberrations will prevent the stars from being absolute points. Sony cameras are known as star-eaters because of in-camera noise reduction at long exposures in raw files https://www.lonelyspeck.com/sony-star-eater-and-how-to-fix-it/. Say A7RIII doesn't eat stars with exposures <= 3.2 sec, and it doesn't have an AA filter.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 19, 2019)

digigal said:


> So Canon is saying that the market is clamoring for a specialized astro mirrorless which makes it worth their putting their efforts on it now rather than a 7D like mirrorless? Never would have thought it with the Olympics coming up, but I'm not on top of the market trends in mirrorless cameras!


No but I expect they can pull 90% of the R&D off the shelf from previous iterations of 'a' model cameras, so its a low cost no brainer really.


----------



## felipeolveram (Sep 19, 2019)

amorse said:


> I do the same type of photography - typically I'll have numerous frames for the sky, single very long exposure for the foreground with low ISO all taken without moving the camera or changing composition, and then blend them together - *if that's all you're curious about then you probably don't need to read the rest - a lot of detail to follow if you're curious. *
> All the sky frames need to be properly aligned because of the planetary rotation, so I'll typically choose the first/middle/last sky exposure to align to as not not feel like I'm cheating in putting the milky way somewhere it wasn't or changing composition (personal guideline - otherwise I feel like it's not that different than a sky swap from another location or night, which I'm not into). Occasionally I'll put a lit tent into the frame, and in those cases I'll also need to add some exposures to manage the brightness of the tent, and light leak from the tent on to the foreground. I've included a couple examples below with what I did to get it done as examples. Admittedly, these are not for everyone's taste, but I do like them.
> 
> View attachment 186679
> ...




Awesome shots! 

I was looking at the manual and wanted to ask you some questions. In the manual it notes this:
"noise in your shots may increase due to image sensor heat if, for some time before shooting long exposure, you record or leave the camera in standby
"noise will increase when taking long exposure, or shooting repeatedly"

Isn't the point of this camera for astrophotography, yet it claims that with long exposures which is needed for astrophotography will cause photos with noise that are unideal? Could I ask you your two cents on these two points pointed out in the leaflet


----------



## Joules (Sep 19, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> "noise in your shots may increase due to image sensor heat if, for some time before shooting long exposure, you record or leave the camera in standby
> "noise will increase when taking long exposure, or shooting repeatedly"
> 
> Isn't the point of this camera for astrophotography, yet it claims that with long exposures which is needed for astrophotography will cause photos with noise that are unideal? Could I ask you your two cents on these two points pointed out in the leaflet


It seems like a standard disclaimer. That is true about any camera, after all. They are just pointing it out because the application this will be used in makes it more noticeable I guess. 

If they wanted to avoid that, they would have to add active cooling to the sensor and that is probably something too difficult or costly to put into a body like this.


----------



## fox40phil (Sep 19, 2019)

Only with Autotracer features like the Pentax K1! come on Canon!!! Simply remove a filter...yey...this would be highly boring!!


----------



## telliscope (Sep 19, 2019)

Curious at what Canon will price it at...


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 19, 2019)

telliscope said:


> Curious at what Canon will price it at...


Obviously, at an astronomical price...


----------



## amorse (Sep 19, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> Awesome shots!
> 
> I was looking at the manual and wanted to ask you some questions. In the manual it notes this:
> "noise in your shots may increase due to image sensor heat if, for some time before shooting long exposure, you record or leave the camera in standby
> ...


Thanks for the compliment!

I'm not sure that I'm the ideal person to comment on the camera, as I don't think I'm the target market, so definitely take my comments with a grain of salt. First off, that happens to every camera on long exposures when the sensor gets hot. I find that when I do a lot of long exposures the corners of the sensor may have some weird colors (it often goes kind of purple) when you start processing. I just try to process that out. 

In this case, Canon may make that disclaimer because the target market for this camera is likely to be more discerning than me when it comes to the final images and wants to be clear on performance. If you're ready to buy a camera for astrophotography which Canon even suggests won't be great for daytime photography, then you already have a very niche need. Most of the astrophotographers I've met, that have modified cameras for the medium, and are doing deep sky photography where being a bit more sensitive to specific wavelengths of light is of great value. I believe this becomes more important when you need fine detail in distant nebulae and etc. Also, I believe these photographers are often overlaying even hundreds of images (or more) to extract more detail out of their images - often capturing images of one subject over multiple nights. That kind of fine detail would be largely lost in the types of images I create, so I'm not sure it is necessary for me.

Here's a review of the 60Da, an earlier astrophotography camera created by Canon, by someone who started shooting astrophotography in their back yard with really simple equipment and progressed quite far. The article is a bit old, but it gives a good run down of why a specialized astrophotography camera has value: https://astrobackyard.com/canon-60da/

Hopefully that was helpful!


----------



## knight427 (Sep 19, 2019)

Joules said:


> There is software that can stack the sky and ground separately if you draw a border between them on one reference frame. Sequator is a good example of this, as it is free and provides really good results.
> 
> The alternative to getting better astro images is using a sky tracker, but in that case you still have to do processing because you have to merge a shot of the sky (where the ground is blurry) and one of the ground (blurry sky) in post. No free lunch.
> 
> So far I've used the former method but I purchased a tracker (Fornax Lightrack II) recently and this weekend looks like I'll have some time and good weather so that will get a chance to shine.



Sequator has been an awesome tool, but I still find I need to use Photoshop. Sequator does an excellent job of masking off the foreground to allow auto alignment and staking of the sky. But the ground always looks very noisy, like the stacking made the noise worse there instead of better. Also, now that I am using the Samyang 24 mm f/1.4, I find that I absolutely must take a separate ground frame after refocusing on a terrestrial object in my near-to mid-foreground, otherwise the softness is unbearable. But, I still find that the Sequator image is much easier to mask and blend in Photoshop because the sky-foreground intersection is clean, so I can I can either blend at a deep shadow (for trees) or mask along a clean line (for buildings). As compared to Photoshop staking, where your sky-foreground intersection is a complete mess and needs to be tucked away behind a very carefully masked foreground frame.


----------



## BrightTiger (Sep 19, 2019)

slclick said:


> Canon. Canon glass.


which are going to be quickly outdated with higher res sensors.


----------



## BrightTiger (Sep 19, 2019)

sdz said:


> Canon News suggests Canon could create an astrophotography variant without much effort.


I wish the same could be applied to an M6II with integrated EVF, or dual card slots in anything, or higher DR, or 24fps in video, or...


----------



## slclick (Sep 19, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> which are going to be quickly outdated with higher res sensors.


Simply false and refuted here many many times. Search.


----------



## amorse (Sep 19, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> I wish the same could be applied to an M6II with integrated EVF, or dual card slots in anything, or higher DR, or 24fps in video, or...


Question - has anyone actually fully tested the DR on the M6ii? Photons to photos is often the first to measure and publish the DR results from cameras, but they've got nothing on it. Considering that the M6ii isn't yet available, and there are (to my knowledge) no full examinations on its DR which are publicly available at this time, isn't a bit soon to berate the camera for its DR? 

Comment - I actually prefer the M6ii without the integrated viewfinder - with a viewfinder it is less attractive to me. Different needs for different people though. Also, I'm more excited about the 14 fps with tracking than frustrated over anything M6ii appears to be lacking.


----------



## BrightTiger (Sep 19, 2019)

amorse said:


> Question - has anyone actually fully tested the DR on the M6ii? Photons to photos is often the first to measure and publish the DR results from cameras, but they've got nothing on it. Considering that the M6ii isn't yet available, and there are (to my knowledge) no full examinations on its DR which are publicly available at this time, isn't a bit soon to berate the camera for its DR?
> 
> Comment - I actually prefer the M6ii without the integrated viewfinder - with a viewfinder it is less attractive to me. Different needs for different people though. Also, I'm more excited about the 14 fps with tracking than frustrated over anything M6ii appears to be lacking.


Given they merged the M5 and 6 lines, M5 owners and potentially owners are quite exasperated. Great that the M6 suits you, but the general audience takes a jaundiced view at the overall situation.
As for DR. The initial reports show an imperceptible increase (something like 0.002) from the 90d at 32MP vs 80D 24MP. Maybe DXO will show something marginally better. As the Mk6 II shares the same sensor as the 90D, let the rejoicing begin for 12 1/2 EV DR. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
[For reference, a6500 starts at 13.67, release date 11/2016].
[Yes I own a Canon M5. Love the damn thing.]
[Yes I'm finally working on moving over to something other than Canon. ]


----------



## magarity (Sep 19, 2019)

wockawocka said:


> 'the sensor dust shield'
> Sure, but it's more fitting now we're in Spaaaaaaaaace


In space, no one can hear your shutter.


----------



## BillB (Sep 19, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> I wish the same could be applied to an M6II with integrated EVF, or dual card slots in anything, or higher DR, or 24fps in video, or...


We are all free to wish whatever we want.


----------



## amorse (Sep 19, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> Given they merged the M5 and 6 lines, M5 owners and potentially owners are quite exasperated. Great that the M6 suits you, but the general audience takes a jaundiced view at the overall situation.
> As for DR. The initial reports show an imperceptible increase (something like 0.002) from the 90d at 32MP vs 80D 24MP. Maybe DXO will show something marginally better. As the Mk6 II shares the same sensor as the 90D, let the rejoicing begin for 12 1/2 EV DR. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> [For reference, a6500 starts at 13.67, release date 11/2016].
> [Yes I own a Canon M5. Love the damn thing.]
> [Yes I'm finally working on moving over to something other than Canon. ]


I don't think Canon has publicly said they merged the M5 and M6 lines - there was a good back and forth in here a few weeks back which suggested that really only DPreview suggested that it was merged, but Canon hasn't said the M5ii isn't coming yet or that the M6ii replaces both the M6 and M5. Here's the article from Canon news which was looking at that. With that said, Canon doesn't seem to announce when something _isn't_ coming, so I'd call that one up in the air.

As for the DR, to my knowledge there was only one review of DR using the images released, and that showed a marginal increase at base ISO, but significant increase at higher ISOs. Again, depending on what you shoot, that could be more or less valuable. Also, if we're comparing the the M6 and the a6500, according to photons to photos they're less than a stop apart across all ISOs, so if we take this one review of DR as gospel where there was a near 1 stop increase in DR at ISOs from ~800 and onward over the previous sensor, we would then expect that the m6ii would have better low light ISO than the a6500. With that said, I think all of those were based on the test images released and not by actual testing for DR (i.e. what DXO or photonstophotos does). I wouldn't bet on DR based on review photos; I'd wait for actual tests to validate that. I'm not expecting the m6ii to match that of other manufacturers at base ISO, but I do think it is probably a bit early to assess exactly what these cameras do and do not deliver. 

Then again though, people will vote with their wallet, as they should. If people don't like the feature set they'll buy something else as you've said you're doing. Nothing wrong with that. I buy what suits my need too and have been pretty happy with the results.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 19, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> which are going to be quickly outdated with higher res sensors.


Truly, you have a dizzying knowledge of optical physics.



BrightTiger said:


> Great that the M6 suits you, but the general audience takes a jaundiced view at the overall situation.


Sorry, I think I missed your election as spokesperson for the general audience. Allow me to offer you a belated congratulations!


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 19, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> EOS Ra. A camera special-purposed for solar photography, with a built-in non-removable 20 stop ND filter.


For solar photography, you want the filter away from the sensor, preferably somewhere where air can circulate between it and the lens. When you point your lens at the sun, that filter will absorb most of the light and it will get HOT! You don’t want to cook your camera or melt bushings in your lens


----------



## slclick (Sep 19, 2019)

I love all the great info which came out of this thread. 

This is what makes CR an awesome site... just have to ignore all the doom, 24p BS, dslr is dead and multiple personality crap. 

Thanks!


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 19, 2019)

felipeolveram said:


> Awesome shots!
> 
> I was looking at the manual and wanted to ask you some questions. In the manual it notes this:
> "noise in your shots may increase due to image sensor heat if, for some time before shooting long exposure, you record or leave the camera in standby
> ...



Typically "astrophotography" cameras are more aimed at deep sky use for shooting nebulae etc with the removal of low pass filter that's responsible for blocking off a lot of the Hydrogen Alpha signals that are found in a lot of nebulae. With shooting deep sky pending on condition (whether or not you're in dark sites) your exposure could be shorter or very long. With longer exposures your sensor heat up and can cause (dark current) noise which can be alleviated with dark frame subtraction whether you let the camera do it by itself (long exposure noise reduction) or take the dark frames yourself and use that to subtract the noise later (which astrophotography specific software does it automatically). Regardless of your single frame exposure time you'll be taking plenty as more data the better (also pending on how bright your object is).

I shoot Milky Way landscape and dabble in deep sky and I'd probably still prefer to use stock camera for MW landscape due to having to correct the colour after but for deep sky with a modified camera no doubt (which I have a 77D for).

Here is an example of "deep sky" astrophotography of Antares region taken from my suburban backyard with my modified 77D (with a total integration time close to 2 hours off top of my head):


Antares Region by Tony, on Flickr

Here is a typical MW landscape with my stock 5D4 and Sigma 14mm Art (on an entry level tracker):


Milky Way over Lake Moogerah by Tony, on Flickr


----------



## amorse (Sep 19, 2019)

basketballfreak6 said:


> Typically "astrophotography" cameras are more aimed at deep sky use for shooting nebulae etc with the removal of low pass filter that's responsible for blocking off a lot of the Hydrogen Alpha signals that are found in a lot of nebulae. With shooting deep sky pending on condition (whether or not you're in dark sites) your exposure could be shorter or very long. With longer exposures your sensor heat up and can cause (dark current) noise which can be alleviated with dark frame subtraction whether you let the camera do it by itself (long exposure noise reduction) or take the dark frames yourself and use that to subtract the noise later (which astrophotography specific software does it automatically). Regardless of your single frame exposure time you'll be taking plenty as more data the better (also pending on how bright your object is).
> 
> I shoot Milky Way landscape and dabble in deep sky and I'd probably still prefer to use stock camera for MW landscape due to having to correct the colour after but for deep sky with a modified camera no doubt (which I have a 77D for).
> 
> ...


This is a far better answer than I gave. Beautiful photos too


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 19, 2019)

amorse said:


> This is a far better answer than I gave. Beautiful photos too



Thank you amorse. I've started playing around with using a tracker for Milky Way landscapes as well; as you stated previously the tricky part is when having to blend when there are trees etc in the image and not a clean horizon. But the ability to gather much more light instead of just jacking up the ISO does make the MW look much nicer.


----------



## amorse (Sep 20, 2019)

basketballfreak6 said:


> Thank you amorse. I've started playing around with using a tracker for Milky Way landscapes as well; as you stated previously the tricky part is when having to blend when there are trees etc in the image and not a clean horizon. But the ability to gather much more light instead of just jacking up the ISO does make the MW look much nicer.


I believe it! Eventually I'll give a tracker a go, but while this system is a bit of a pain to undertake, I really appreciate the weight savings if I have to walk a long way.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 20, 2019)

slclick said:


> I love all the great info which came out of this thread.
> 
> This is what makes CR an awesome site... just have to ignore all the doom, 24p BS, dslr is dead and multiple personality crap.
> 
> Thanks!


My multiple personalities and I get along just fine, thank you very much. I'm especially fond of Hannah.


----------



## Michael Clark (Sep 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> Question - has anyone actually fully tested the DR on the M6ii? Photons to photos is often the first to measure and publish the DR results from cameras, but they've got nothing on it. Considering that the M6ii isn't yet available, and there are (to my knowledge) no full examinations on its DR which are publicly available at this time, isn't a bit soon to berate the camera for its DR?
> 
> Comment - I actually prefer the M6ii without the integrated viewfinder - with a viewfinder it is less attractive to me. Different needs for different people though. Also, I'm more excited about the 14 fps with tracking than frustrated over anything M6ii appears to be lacking.



It's the exact same sensor as the one in the 90D, which is available and has been tested already.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 20, 2019)

here is a screen shot of the leaflet.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 20, 2019)

Great work. I noticed there are traces of the same greenish-blueish banding on your 5DIV at long exposures? Partially it can be reduced by desaturation of green and aqua in HSL panel. Also in my camera it disappears mysteriously at ISO 3200. Thinking of getting a tracker too.



basketballfreak6 said:


> Typically "astrophotography" cameras are more aimed at deep sky use for shooting nebulae etc with the removal of low pass filter that's responsible for blocking off a lot of the Hydrogen Alpha signals that are found in a lot of nebulae. With shooting deep sky pending on condition (whether or not you're in dark sites) your exposure could be shorter or very long. With longer exposures your sensor heat up and can cause (dark current) noise which can be alleviated with dark frame subtraction whether you let the camera do it by itself (long exposure noise reduction) or take the dark frames yourself and use that to subtract the noise later (which astrophotography specific software does it automatically). Regardless of your single frame exposure time you'll be taking plenty as more data the better (also pending on how bright your object is).
> 
> I shoot Milky Way landscape and dabble in deep sky and I'd probably still prefer to use stock camera for MW landscape due to having to correct the colour after but for deep sky with a modified camera no doubt (which I have a 77D for).
> 
> ...


----------



## Joules (Sep 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Great work. I noticed there are traces of the same greenish-blueish banding on your 5DIV at long exposures? Partially it can be reduced by desaturation of green and aqua in HSL panel. Also in my camera it disappears mysteriously at ISO 3200. Thinking of getting a tracker too.


What banding do you mean? Are you talking about the green haze that starts to show up in some long exposures of the night sky? That is just air glow and should not disappear with higher ISO. Here's a more pronounced example of that:



Google Image Result for https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1601/AirglowFan_Lane_2400.jpg



It is an effect caused by Gases interacting with the sunlight and slowly releasing the energy they gained during the day, if I recall correctly. I have it only on one of my images, but it is partially purple and mostly green on that one.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> Great work. I noticed there are traces of the same greenish-blueish banding on your 5DIV at long exposures? Partially it can be reduced by desaturation of green and aqua in HSL panel. Also in my camera it disappears mysteriously at ISO 3200. Thinking of getting a tracker too.



Thank you! Yea I see it and always wondered if it's just traces of light pollution/air glow near the horizon. Don't bother me too much though haha.

Definitely look into getting a tracker. It's hard to go back shooting without one knowing how much more light you can now let in with one. Just have to learn to deal with the challenges when it comes to post production.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 20, 2019)

Question for those in the know. Would this be beneficial for Aurora photography or not?


----------



## Joules (Sep 20, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Question for those in the know. Would this be beneficial for Aurora photography or not?


Apparently there are red Aurora, although they are very rare. I couldn't find anything specific by a quick Google search, but I would think that they might benefit from the enhanced sensitivity to red.

For the typical green variety it should make no difference.

It's really an interesting question. I'm still on the fence about converting my old T3i to full spectrum, since I don't do anything with it and it would be cool to have a device to image those invisible things.


----------



## basketballfreak6 (Sep 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> Apparently there are red Aurora, although they are very rare. I couldn't find anything specific by a quick Google search, but I would think that they might benefit from the enhanced sensitivity to red.
> 
> For the typical green variety it should make no difference.
> 
> It's really an interesting question. I'm still on the fence about converting my old T3i to full spectrum, since I don't do anything with it and it would be cool to have a device to image those invisible things.



I thought about doing full spectrum too but decided I am mostly just using it for astro so didn't bother with it. There are issues with full spectrum I think some lenses won't focus to infinity and some will have a weird flare spot in images (I could be wrong this is just off my head was reading up on it ages ago). Would be cool to do some IR photography though.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> Apparently there are red Aurora, although they are very rare. I couldn't find anything specific by a quick Google search, but I would think that they might benefit from the enhanced sensitivity to red.
> 
> For the typical green variety it should make no difference.
> 
> It's really an interesting question. I'm still on the fence about converting my old T3i to full spectrum, since I don't do anything with it and it would be cool to have a device to image those invisible things.


From my location seeing the red part of the aurora is normal as we observe it from the mid latitudes and therefore see the higher parts which are often red.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> What banding do you mean? Are you talking about the green haze that starts to show up in some long exposures of the night sky? That is just air glow and should not disappear with higher ISO. Here's a more pronounced example of that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Definitely not that. In this image

__
https://flic.kr/p/2h533SM
 the banding shows as strictly horizontal green-blue lines on the bottom half of the image (on the water). It's not very prominent there, I only noticed it because it's 5DIV, 3 minutes exposure and ISO 400, so I paid attention to it.


----------



## Joules (Sep 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> the banding shows as strictly horizontal green-blue lines on the bottom half of the image (on the water).


Oh, I see. I didn't see that viewing it on my smartphone, had to use the PC to get that. I thought you meant the greenish horizontal striped in the sky at the middle right.

There is a known banding issue that is present in the 5D IV and got fixed in firmware on the R. Maybe it is related. I haven't seen something this subtle in my 80D images, but when I REALLY push dark shadows they can show horizontal banding as well. Much more noticeable though.

I'm hoping to get a chance of shooting the milky way tomorrow before the moon comes up and then use a foreground illuminated by the rising moon to get a cleaner image. Haven't tried that before, but usually the timing or weather wasn't as goof as it will apparently be tomorrow. Apart from getting more light, or buying an R, I don't know how to avoid that issue.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> There is a known banding issue that is present in the 5D IV and got fixed in firmware on the R. Maybe it is related. I haven't seen something this subtle in my 80D images, but when I REALLY push dark shadows they can show horizontal banding as well. Much more noticeable though.



In my 5DIV, the banding is just one horisontal line that shows on long enough exposures, but it's thick and prominent when lifting the shadows (and it happens a lot in night photography). 



Joules said:


> I'm hoping to get a chance of shooting the milky way tomorrow before the moon comes up and then use a foreground illuminated by the rising moon to get a cleaner image. Haven't tried that before, but usually the timing or weather wasn't as goof as it will apparently be tomorrow. Apart from getting more light, or buying an R, I don't know how to avoid that issue.



That's exactly the technique I used in this shot below a couple of days ago. The moon was rising behind be. Unfortunately I had to retreat due to the raising tide and wasn't able to do a cleaner 15-min ISO 100 exposure for the sea, but this one at ISO 3200 came out ok in terms of noise and is even printable up to A4-A3.


----------



## Joules (Sep 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> In my 5DIV, the banding is just one horisontal line that shows on long enough exposures, but it's thick and prominent when lifting the shadows (and it happens a lot in night photography).


That sounds like the 5D banding issue that's been brought up a few times. I demonstrated that it also affects the 80D (same gen sensor) in a thread about the 5DIV recently: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...d-in-long-exposure-on-5dmk4.37489/post-789615

Would be an interesting test for the 90D. If Canon has managed to fix this with an older generation sensor on the R, I would hope that the current generation simply does not have this effect...

On the Astro Ra it has to be fixed as well. Maybe that's why the R got more love than the 5DIV here?


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> Would be an interesting test for the 90D. If Canon has managed to fix this with an older generation sensor on the R, I would hope that the current generation simply does not have this effect...



At least this experiment on DPR forums failed to find any banding.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Sep 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> That sounds like the 5D banding issue that's been brought up a few times. I demonstrated that it also affects the 80D (same gen sensor) in a thread about the 5DIV recently: https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/i...d-in-long-exposure-on-5dmk4.37489/post-789615
> 
> Would be an interesting test for the 90D. If Canon has managed to fix this with an older generation sensor on the R, I would hope that the current generation simply does not have this effect...
> 
> On the Astro Ra it has to be fixed as well. Maybe that's why the R got more love than the 5DIV here?



M6II (same sensor as 90D) I guess can be a good lightweight landscape camera, but I'm not sure about astrophotography even if they fix banding. I'll wait for thorough reviews on M6II, but probably will wait for high-res full frame R. In 5DIV, banding only shows in my extreme night shots, so not a huge issue, but very annoying. The shot above was at ISO 3200 where there's no banding and I find it very bizarre. It only shows at ISOs < 3200.


----------



## Joules (Sep 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> M6II (same sensor as 90D) I guess can be a good lightweight landscape camera, but I'm not sure about astrophotography even if they fix banding.


I'm using an 80D for Astro and since I have a tracker now I'm not seeing my self upgrading to FF any time soon. 2 times the signal is of course always nice, but at more than 2 times the price I can't justify it.

But the comment about the 90D was more about interest in what we can expect from the upcoming models. Obviously the 90D / M6II use a newer generation of sensors, delivering superior read out speed, slightly better DR and apparently better banding characteristics. I can't see Canon pulling another 6D II on us. When they release their next RF camera, it will have at least the same generation of tech as these APS-C sensors. So seeing that initial test show they don't suffer from banding could be encouraging.


----------



## amorse (Sep 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> It's the exact same sensor as the one in the 90D, which is available and has been tested already.


At the time of my post, there was only one note on this from a Fred Miranda forum post discussion which was re-posted a few other places. As always, I'd recommend holding off judgement until someone like photonstophotos publishes some results since those early ones often come from the images released by reviewers and not a controlled environment. In all fairness, it looks like the 90D was posted there yesterday at 8pm (after I made my comment), so yes - judge all you want now!

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 90D for the lazy or unfamiliar

Also, it looks like the original assessment from the Fred Miranda post was not accurate and was much more generous on high ISO DR (which is why I choose wait until the results are finally posted to pass my judgement). It's up to the you/the buyer how much that matters to you/them.


----------



## Joules (Sep 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> Also, it looks like the original assessment from the Fred Miranda post was not accurate and was much more generous on high ISO DR (which is why I choose wait until the results are finally posted to pass my judgement). It's up to the you/the buyer how much that matters to you/them.


As I understand it, the FM post was accurate because it measured read noise and not photographic dynamic range. Because PDR takes more than just read noise into account and also is not a linear measurement, big differences in read noise would not translate to big differences in DR.

Compare  Photons to Photos read noise measurements to see how much bigger the differences between these models look versus the miniscule differences in PDR.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 20, 2019)

Joules said:


> As I understand it, the FM post was accurate because it measured read noise and not photographic dynamic range. Because PDR takes more than just read noise into account and also is not a linear measurement, big differences in read noise would not translate to big differences in DR.
> 
> Compare  Photons to Photos read noise measurements to see how much bigger the differences between these models look versus the miniscule differences in PDR.



Which really drives home how any remaining improvements in read noise have deeply diminishing returns at high ISOs, where the total noise contribution is almost completely dominated by photon shot noise.


----------



## BrightTiger (Sep 20, 2019)

amorse said:


> but Canon hasn't said the M5ii isn't coming yet or that the M6ii replaces both the M6 and M5.


DPReview categorically states that the M6II is officially the replacement:
DPReview TV: Canon EOS M6 Mark II Review
Mind you that DPReview made the video at the Canon event here in Atlanta.
Which is a pretty dirty pool to have them make an announcement that Canon should have made themselves.
We both are in agreement it's wait and see with Canon and whatever works for the individual user. 
As for the vexing DR:
A stop is half/twice the brightness depending which way one goes. So basically it's dimmer by almost half. ISO performance usually is inverse to dynamic range and detail (usually in the bright areas). So now more noise creeps in in order to make up that brightness ground in post or change in ISO. There's no dual or multigain, unlike the a6500. So the upshot is Canon has effectively traded off some marginal degree of DR increase for more noise if one wants to match the brightness. The enthusiasts and semi-pros are left with a 32mp with one native lens that actually can match the tweaked sensor that traded more noise for higher DR. 
So what then for the consumers? And that's the problem for Canon. Too little, too late. 
I think the biggest issues are 1) a communications issue, 2) marketing indecisiveness, and 3) a high probability they have a serious technical issue with their sensor design and have effectively hit some major barriers, like the 4/3rds sensor.


----------



## Joules (Sep 20, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> DPReview categorically states that the M6II is officially the replacement:
> DPReview TV: Canon EOS M6 Mark II Review
> ISO performance usually is inverse to dynamic range and detail (usually in the bright areas).


Could you please provide a source for that statement? Because without some reference that appears to be total BS to me.

Dynamic Range is limited by how much noise there is in the deep shadows. With the near perfect efficiency of modern sensors, that noise is basically just shot noise with a tiny bit of noise from the electronics added. Lower that noise and you both improve DR and low light performance (which is what you mean with ISO performance, right?). May I please ask you to point out the error in that thought and elaborate on how an increase in DR is responsible for a decrease in low light performance?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 20, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> So what then for the consumers? And that's the problem for Canon. Too little, too late.


You are arguing over minutiae about which the majority of camera buyers don’t give a damn. 

People on this forum and others have been making the same arguments you’re making for a decade. During that decade Canon has not lost any market share.


----------



## privatebydesign (Sep 20, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> The enthusiasts and semi-pros are left with a 32mp with one native lens that actually can match the tweaked sensor......



What melodramatic bull. All lenses will perform 'better' in front of a better sensor. The very modest 15-45 will give higher IQ on the M6 II than on the M6, as will the 32mm f1.4, why is that a surprise? A prime that cost 3-4 times more than a kit zoom gives higher IQ on either/both cameras, why is that a surprise?


----------



## scyrene (Sep 20, 2019)

BrightTiger said:


> DPReview categorically states that the M6II is officially the replacement:
> DPReview TV: Canon EOS M6 Mark II Review
> Mind you that DPReview made the video at the Canon event here in Atlanta.
> Which is a pretty dirty pool to have them make an announcement that Canon should have made themselves.
> ...



What on earth are you wittering about?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 20, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> What melodramatic bull. All lenses will perform 'better' in front of a better sensor. The very modest 15-45 will give higher IQ on the M6 II than on the M6, as will the 32mm f1.4, why is that a surprise? A prime that cost 3-4 times more than a kit zoom gives higher IQ on either/both cameras, why is that a surprise?



I suppose they _could_ have been trying to say that someone pixel peeping at a 32MP picture will REALLY notice any shortcomings (softness in particular) of the lens itself, whereas it might be harder on a 24MP sensor of the same size and distance.

But if that's what they were trying to say, they should have said so. They made it sound like the higher res sensor actually creates a lack of quality that wasn't there before--no, at most it will simply show that the lens has the limits it has always had; it will just be obvious now.

At least, that's my intuition--if I'm off base I'd like to know.


----------



## Daan Stam (Sep 20, 2019)

funny because Ra is a egyptian god


----------



## JoTomOz (Sep 21, 2019)

slclick said:


> Simply false and refuted here many many times. Search.


Refuted? No. Clarified? Yes. Will photos using your old circa 1990s era lenses look better on the new 83mp camera? Yes. However, if you really care about getting the maximum resolution you can will you get the latest RF primes? Yes. That’s what the equations always cited say.


----------



## stevelee (Sep 21, 2019)

daaningrid said:


> funny because Ra is a egyptian god


Yes, someone early in the thread made reference to solar pictures. Maybe you are referring to that bit of humor if you saw it.


----------



## st jack photography (Sep 22, 2019)

Figures. Leave it to Canon to release a completely unwanted niche body camera when most of us need a pro studio mirrorless, and/or a pro sport mirrorless STAT. You can expect this crap "a" camera to be basically a 6dm2 sensor with a bit more red-shift, woopty doo. The camera will still be 10 years behind the 810a, and all those 28-year old EF glass designs mean little. Most of them look like poop on my ancient, very dusty 5DSr at any rate.

I try again and again to fall in love with Canon again like I did in 1987 and again when the 5D dropped, but I just can't any more, when I see them making the decisions they have made ever since the RF mount came to be.....

I do encourage them to keep trying, but after using a SONY rx1rm2, I have already ordered a SONY a7rm4 and a ton of ZEISS glass. I am betting on that Zeiss-Sony glass holding its value better than my tragic EF L collection that is now obsolete, no thanks to Canon and their miserably abject failure to innovate.

They need young engineers leading them, but I'll bet it is A SINGLE VERY OLD MAN keeping them from taking chances, clutching at old ideas the photography field has since moved on from some years ago.


----------



## Joules (Sep 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> I do encourage them to keep trying, but after using a SONY rx1rm2, I have already ordered a SONY a7rm4 and a ton of ZEISS glass. [...]
> 
> They need young engineers leading them, but I'll bet it is A SINGLE VERY OLD MAN keeping them from taking chances, clutching at old ideas the photography field has since moved on from some years ago.


Careful there, you almost write like Harry. 
Based on your content, your also pretty close to his... special outlook on what's going on with cameras. Except you seem to lack the humor.

This camera is a simple way for Canon to enrich the RF lineup. You got it wrong though, this will be a variation of the R, not the RP. It clearly isn't taking away any significant chunks of development force from the studio camera you say you crave. It is just a simple modification to a camera that's already out there. If Canon figures spending the money to get it to market is worth it compared to how many people have a need for this, let them launch it. This camera is certainly not completely unwanted. The Astro folks are very ambitious and dedicated to their craft. As a market, that probably makes them interesting even if they are not that numerous. 

And quoting differences in technology in 'year ahead / behind' seems really problematic to me. People say such things as if technology was still changing rapidly and being years apart is making one option basically invalid.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> Figures. Leave it to Canon to release a completely unwanted niche body camera when most of us need a pro studio mirrorless, and/or a pro sport mirrorless STAT.


When you say ‘most of us’ you mean you. Sorry, Canon doesn’t give a crap about you, personally. The realization that in the broader scheme of things you mean less to a company than whale excrement at the bottom of the ocean is hard for some people to deal with, but do your best, mmmmkay?




st jack photography said:


> You can expect this crap "a" camera to be basically a 6dm2 sensor with a bit more red-shift, woopty doo.


It’s the EOS R sensor, which is essentially the 5DIV’s and on par with the best sensors available (unless you’re one of those measurebaters who think 1/3-stop of DR is the sine qua non of existence). But hey, you go right on living in your fantasy world where your ‘facts’ are correct.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> Figures. Leave it to Canon to release a completely unwanted niche body camera when most of us need a pro studio mirrorless, and/or a pro sport mirrorless STAT.


Actually, most of us need EOS RP with a price below the $1k mark.

Myself included.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> Figures. Leave it to Canon to release a completely unwanted niche body camera [snip--garbage pail]



Clearly you haven't read the rest of this thread; there are people here who want it. Therefore it cannot be "unwanted."

Oh, I forgot. You're the entire universe.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> Figures. Leave it to Canon to release a completely unwanted niche body camera when most of us need a pro studio mirrorless, and/or a pro sport mirrorless STAT. You can expect this crap "a" camera to be basically a 6dm2 sensor with a bit more red-shift, woopty doo. The camera will still be 10 years behind the 810a, and all those 28-year old EF glass designs mean little. Most of them look like poop on my ancient, very dusty 5DSr at any rate.
> 
> I try again and again to fall in love with Canon again like I did in 1987 and again when the 5D dropped, but I just can't any more, when I see them making the decisions they have made ever since the RF mount came to be.....
> 
> ...


WOW!

It’s nice to see someone posting here who knows everything!

Have you considered that the number of people who have shown interest in this camera means that there is an interest in this camera?

Have you considered that this camera is almost certainly an R or an RP that has a filter removed and a few tweaks to the software? 

Did you know that from when the design team starts, until the camera is released, is typically 4 to 5 years and that all the teams for those future cameras are well on their way?

Did you know that when a camera is released, a few members of the team keep working on that camera for support issues? It is probably these people who made the Ra!

Did you know that your EF glass has INCREASED functionality on an R camera. Did you know that increased functionality is not the same as obsolete?

Did you know......


----------



## Daan Stam (Sep 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Yes, someone early in the thread made reference to solar pictures. Maybe you are referring to that bit of humor if you saw it.


No sorry i saw 6 pages and i didn't feel like reading them all before posting my comment so i didin't know.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Sep 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> my tragic EF L collection that is now obsolete, no thanks to Canon and their miserably abject failure to innovate.


Not only, as Don says, has EF glass increased functionality on the R, but you can't really complain that it's obsolete - due to Canon moving onto an improved mount - AND in the same sentence complain they don't innovate! Isn't it the innovation that you're complaining has made your older kit obsolete?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2019)

StoicalEtcher said:


> Not only, as Don says, has EF glass increased functionality on the R, but you can't really complain that it's obsolete - due to Canon moving onto an improved mount - AND in the same sentence complain they don't innovate! Isn't it the innovation that you're complaining has made your older kit obsolete?



 

Except that the innovation in question actually DIDN'T render those lenses obsolete!!!  So the complaint is not only inconsistent with itself (as you showed) but false to fact anyway.


----------



## Kit. (Sep 22, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> my tragic EF L collection that is now obsolete, no thanks to Canon and their miserably abject failure to innovate.


Oh, I've missed it. Can you please send your obsolete collection of EF L glass to me for proper disposal?


----------



## Aussie shooter (Sep 23, 2019)

st jack photography said:


> Figures. Leave it to Canon to release a completely unwanted niche body camera when most of us need a pro studio mirrorless, and/or a pro sport mirrorless STAT. You can expect this crap "a" camera to be basically a 6dm2 sensor with a bit more red-shift, woopty doo. The camera will still be 10 years behind the 810a, and all those 28-year old EF glass designs mean little. Most of them look like poop on my ancient, very dusty 5DSr at any rate.
> 
> I try again and again to fall in love with Canon again like I did in 1987 and again when the 5D dropped, but I just can't any more, when I see them making the decisions they have made ever since the RF mount came to be.....
> 
> ...


Bahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!
Sorry. But I would bet that there are just as many if not more people interested in a 4k astro variant of the R than there are interested in a 9k mirrorless version of a 1dx2. I would hardly call astro/milky way photography a 'niche' anymore.


----------



## PiezoSwitch (Sep 28, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> EOS Ra. A camera special-purposed for solar photography, with a built-in non-removable 20 stop ND filter.



Amon to that.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2019)

PiezoSwitch said:


> Amon to that.


Careful. EOSiRus is watching.


----------



## masterpix (Oct 5, 2019)

Sharlin said:


> EOS Ra. A camera special-purposed for solar photography, with a built-in non-removable 20 stop ND filter.


All you need is a myler filter and you can get this:


----------



## Michael Clark (Oct 7, 2019)

masterpix said:


> All you need is a myler filter and you can get this:
> View attachment 186967


Just be sure to put the mylar in front of the lens, not between the lens and the camera!


----------



## masterpix (Oct 7, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Just be sure to put the mylar in front of the lens, not between the lens and the camera!
> 
> View attachment 186983


Auch, I already seen people who managed to destroy their shutter screen.


----------

