# There are two more APS-C RF mount cameras coming [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 14, 2022)

During 2022, we finally saw two APS-C cameras with an RF mount, both the Canon EOS R7 and Canon EOS R10 have been very well received and are very polished and capable products. There have been a lot of reports over the last few months about a Canon EOS R100, which would be geared towards

See full article...


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 14, 2022)

Canon Rumors Guy said:


> ... Let’s call it the “R1000” until we hear otherwise.
> 
> Will Canon keep the “Rebel” brand alive for the RF mount? We’re actually a bit out of the loop as to whether or not the name “Rebel” carries the same weight as it did a decade ago. Time will tell.
> ...


A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me. 
How else should Canon gain new customers?
(except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)

Personally, I would like to see a similar naming in all regions of the world (as a European, I'd prefer the Rx000 naming  ).


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 14, 2022)

I'm expecting the R100 to be a 'R10 meets M6II form factor' and the R1000 to be 'R10 meets M50 form factor'. But I don't see why that would make the R1000 be a 4 digit model, so I must be wrong in my expectations


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 14, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> ... and the R1000 to be 'R10 meets M50 form factor'. But I don't see why that would make the R1000 be a 4 digit model, ...


I suppose that an R1000 doesn't need to be smaller than an R100, because ergonomics define a minimum size of a useful MILC camera.
But it would come with less functionality, e.g. reuse of old 24 MP sensor and old DIGIC sensor, only HD vid, 5to 10 fps only, etc. ...
(everything, prosumer people, like us, would love to complain about  )


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 14, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> I suppose that an R1000 doesn't need to be smaller than an R100, because ergonomics define a minimum size of a useful MILC camera.
> But it would come with less functionality, e.g. reuse of old 24 MP sensor and old DIGIC sensor, only HD vid, 5to 10 fps only, etc. ...
> (everything, prosumer people, like us, would love to complain about  )


I hadn't even considered that Canon will repackage the M50 again, but it would be a very Canon thing to do


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 14, 2022)

What about a high end APS-C camera? APS-C sadly is treated by Canon as a format for amateurs, although many professionals might want the longer reach that the crop gives them. Of course Canon did their market research, but I still see a lot of complaints in many R7 reviews. Mainly about the bad rolling shutter (The R7 needs more than 30ms to read out the sensor) and the lack of high quality glass for APS-C. Why can't there be something like a flagship APS-C camera for maybe $3,000 or so? Is there no demand for something like that? Don't wildlife photographers always crop anyway? Of course they could use buy the upcoming R1 and just use crop mode, but that would be overkill.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 14, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> I suppose that an R1000 doesn't need to be smaller than an R100, because ergonomics define a minimum size of a useful MILC camera.
> But it would come with less functionality, e.g. reuse of old 24 MP sensor and old DIGIC sensor, only HD vid, 5to 10 fps only, etc. ...
> (everything, prosumer people, like us, would love to complain about  )


The m200 does not have great ergonomics


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 14, 2022)

Canon definitely needs more RF-S lenses first.

Come to think of it, Canon needs more RF lenses too.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 14, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The m200 does not have great ergonomics


Always depends on the size of your hands = children's camera?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 14, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The m200 does not have great ergonomics


Agreed, but I very much like the body shape and size! On the original M I added a Franiec grip, which improved the ergonomics a lot, no more cramps after holding it for a while.


----------



## Del Paso (Nov 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What about a high end APS-C camera? APS-C sadly is treated by Canon as a format for amateurs, although many professionals might want the longer reach that the crop gives them. Of course Canon did their market research, but I still see a lot of complaints in many R7 reviews. Mainly about the bad rolling shutter (The R7 needs more than 30ms to read out the sensor) and the lack of high quality glass for APS-C. Why can't there be something like a flagship APS-C camera for maybe $3,000 or so? Is there no demand for something like that? Don't wildlife photographers always crop anyway? Of course they could use buy the upcoming R1 and just use crop mode, but that would be overkill.


Right!
It would be this kind of overkill: $$$$$$$$$$
The 7 D II was affordable, the R1 will be super expensive to use it as an APS/C most of the time. Anyway, Canon must have done some serious market-analysis to check whether there could be a demand for a higher-end APS/C, like an EOS R 7 II.
Our wishes won't necessarily correspond to sales figures...


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 14, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Right!
> It would be this kind of overkill: $$$$$$$$$$
> The 7 D II was affordable, the R1 will be super expensive to use it as an APS/C most of the time. Anyway, Canon must have done some serious market-analysis to check whether there could be a demand for a higher-end APS/C, like an EOS R 7 II.
> Our wishes won't necessarily correspond to sales figures...


With the R7 being a mirrorless 90D on the $1500 side and the R6(I/II) on the $2500 part of the spectrum, does Canon want to put something very popular in between those or rather push people to get a R7+100-400+wide angle zoom or R6+100-500L? I have nothing to back this up, but I can image that selling a body that isn't quite what people want and selling addons to compensate might bring in more profit. </tin foil hat>


----------



## Skux (Nov 14, 2022)

An "R1000" makes even less sense. An R100 without an EVF is about as entry-level as it gets, would there even be anything left to cripple?

And more importantly, a cheap camera needs cheap lenses.


----------



## antonio_s (Nov 14, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
> How else should Canon gain new customers?
> (except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)
> 
> Personally, I would like to see a similar naming in all regions of the world (as a European, I'd prefer the Rx000 naming  ).


Of course they will have a lower-end entry-level camera! But the question of the "Rebel"/"Kiss"/Rxxxx naming is up in the air. I actually agree that they should have the same naming all around the world, as they do with their other camera lines. It would simplify things.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Nov 14, 2022)

There have been a lot of rumblings over the last month or two about the Canon EOS R100, a camera rumored to take on a similar form-factor as the EOS M lineup. We are now told that Canon will announce a camera called the EOS R50 in the first quarter of 2023. This could perhaps

See full article...


----------



## vangelismm (Nov 14, 2022)

I would like a true M6 mark ii sucessor, ergonomic wise.


----------



## entoman (Nov 14, 2022)

Del Paso said:


> Right!
> It would be this kind of overkill: $$$$$$$$$$
> The 7 D II was affordable, the R1 will be super expensive to use it as an APS/C most of the time. Anyway, Canon must have done some serious market-analysis to check whether there could be a demand for a higher-end APS/C, like an EOS R 7 II.
> Our wishes won't necessarily correspond to sales figures...


The 7D and 7DMkii seemed to be extremely popular cameras among spots and wildlife photographers, but in terms of overall sales they may have lagged way behind Rebels and 5 series. The fact that Canon never produced a 7DMkiii hints that demand for the 7D series was actually quite low.

Canon's long-term plan seems to have been to promote FF models to pros and serious enthusiasts, and to "downgrade" all APS cameras to novice models. The R7 e.g. outperforms the 7D series in almost every regard, but is priced as a novice camera and lacks several features (third control dial, integral vertical grip, high build quality etc) that are expected by most pros.

It's probably also been Canon's long term plan to gradually phase out the popular M series and replace it with pocketable RF models. Just because a camera is popular and profitable doesn't guarantee it will be continually upgraded, it's more rational to switch everything over to a common mount.

As with the M series, I think it very unlikely that they'll make more than half a dozen RF-S lenses, as *most* of the target buyers of the "R50" etc will probably only want/need a kit zoom and a pancake wide-angle.


----------



## Uneternal (Nov 14, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
> How else should Canon gain new customers?
> (except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)
> 
> Personally, I would like to see a similar naming in all regions of the world (as a European, I'd prefer the Rx000 naming  ).


The entry segment isn't dead at all. Canon actually makes the most profit there. There's still lots of people who want to upgrade from phone quality and look for something in the sub $1000 range. If you watched any of Canon's video ads for R10 and R7 you'd have seen they're aiming for exactly that kind of customer (notice the age of people, general style and the music). They even did comparison pictures with phones.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 14, 2022)

If Canon does not really put much effort into RF-S lenses, they should allow third party manufacturers to produce those. That would be a nice start. The problem would be of course that those lenses also work on full frame. So they would have to have sure that Tamron and Sigma do not provide a full frame image circle on their RF-S glass.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If Canon does not really put much effort into RF-S lenses, they should allow third party manufacturers to produce those.


Why? Besides the fact that you want them to, I mean. What would be the business justification for doing so? Do you think Canon has not run the numbers and considered that as an option? What does the fact that they have not done so tell you about the business drivers for what you want them to do.


----------



## Tom W (Nov 14, 2022)

We need a few lens rumors to go with these camera rumors.
For example, 2 or 3 of the M-series lenses ought to be redesigned to fit the R mount.
The 32/1.4, 22/2, and one of the 15-xx zooms. 15 on the cropper gives a field of view of a 24 mm on FF, and makes a great all-around zoom range.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 14, 2022)

Tom W said:


> We need a few lens rumors to go with these camera rumors.
> For example, 2 or 3 of the M-series lenses ought to be redesigned to fit the R mount.
> The 32/1.4, 22/2, and one of the 15-xx zooms. 15 on the cropper gives a field of view of a 24 mm on FF, and makes a great all-around zoom range.


I vote for the 11-22. That together with the 18-150, 100-400 and R7 makes a nice lightweight kit. I'm getting old and want to lighten my load.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 14, 2022)

Uneternal said:


> The entry segment isn't dead at all. Canon actually makes the most profit there. There's still lots of people who want to upgrade from phone quality and look for something in the sub $1000 range. ...


I hope and suppose you are right. 
But when looking around my friends, I see the majority being absolutely satisfied with their cell, and the others are more in the > €2.000 range.
But as I said, I am sure Canon knows their markets well...


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 14, 2022)

R50 is confusing to me, R100 or R1000 would make more sense to me and beginners who are learning the naming scheme. A common question would be, is the R50 better then the R10? Traditionally new generations of that line would be R10, R20, R30 etc. Maybe the R10 successor would be R10 mkII, R10 mkIII etc, that would be easier to learn for everyone in my opinion. Keep in mind I'm thinking about beginners who are new to Canon, not advanced users who post on forums who already know the naming scheme. Maybe they are naming it R50 to intend to replace the M50? Like an M50 with an RF mount.


----------



## Pierre Lagarde (Nov 14, 2022)

Tom W said:


> We need a few lens rumors to go with these camera rumors.
> For example, 2 or 3 of the M-series lenses ought to be redesigned to fit the R mount.
> The 32/1.4, 22/2, and one of the 15-xx zooms. 15 on the cropper gives a field of view of a 24 mm on FF, and makes a great all-around zoom range.


Add the 11-22 to the list. If they just revamp the M 15-45, I'll pass as it was not the best lens in the M line-up. (that's personal).
Even if indeed, having 24mm equivalent is great, it needs to be improved to be interesting. Though, the larger mount could be a help for that purpose, and they even could make it a bit faster at the long end, as they can do it slightly bigger and match the likely increased size of cameras.
In fact, to my sense, the 11-22 is mandatory to have something really interesting as a whole system, as this lens is very unique considering size, weight and quality for the price and is clearly one of the main interest of the M line-up.
I think it has no competitor in that regard.
What would be cool is to have a 56mm F/1.4 too. The Sigma is great and one of the rare third party lenses I have ever kept.


----------



## jam05 (Nov 14, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I'm expecting the R100 to be a 'R10 meets M6II form factor' and the R1000 to be 'R10 meets M50 form factor'. But I don't see why that would make the R1000 be a 4 digit model, so I must be wrong in my expectations


Form factor alone won't replace the M6mk2. 32.5mp is a major factor also. Meanwhile Canon recently increased the price of it refurbished units and the new unit prices havent budged in the US


----------



## jam05 (Nov 14, 2022)

When those prices come down on the M50 mk 2 and the M6mk2 you will know. On Canon's website those prices are far from coming down. If anything, the M6 mk 2 prices have actually increased in the last week. For example a refurbished M6mk2 increased from $549 to $679. Canon is making as much money from those cameras as it can. The prices of new items havent budged.


----------



## jam05 (Nov 14, 2022)

Canon simply doesn't have enough inexpensive prime fast lenses for that segment. It still has plenty of holes in the normal R mount lens selection. You're looking at maybe another 5 years at their current pace.


----------



## Aaron D (Nov 14, 2022)

Talk of a rangefinder style body always goes with talk of another APS-C body.

I wish Canon would recognize the value of a full-frame 'rangefinder' like the Sony a7C. WITH a viewfinder and a flip out screen so it can be used like an old Hasselblad or TLR at waist level. And resolution like an R5.

I've gotta have a full frame backup body for my work and it has to be full frame for the TS lenses I use—so I can't justify buying an APS-C anything. A rangefinder style would be perfect. I could actually use it instead of just bagging it, waiting on the unlikely failure of my primary camera.


----------



## AJ (Nov 14, 2022)

Hopefully Canon will port EF-S 10-18 and 55-250 at some point


----------



## bseitz234 (Nov 14, 2022)

So, I’m thinking R50 = RF-mount version of an m50, R100 = RF-mount version of m100/m200 series? Viewfinder, hotshoe, size/form factor being the main distinguishing features?


----------



## wilsberg (Nov 14, 2022)

it could be a bit later: start of the cp+ is not Februar 2. 2023, it\'s Februar 23. 2023:








CP+2023 CAMERA & PHOTO IMAGING SHOW 2023


CP+, an international "comprehensive camera and photo imaging show," presents the latest products and technologies, all in order to help further the development of the photo industry and photographic culture from Japan--the heartland of the photo imaging industry--to the world.




www.cpplus.jp


----------



## ReflexVE (Nov 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What about a high end APS-C camera? APS-C sadly is treated by Canon as a format for amateurs, although many professionals might want the longer reach that the crop gives them. Of course Canon did their market research, but I still see a lot of complaints in many R7 reviews. Mainly about the bad rolling shutter (The R7 needs more than 30ms to read out the sensor) and the lack of high quality glass for APS-C. Why can't there be something like a flagship APS-C camera for maybe $3,000 or so? Is there no demand for something like that? Don't wildlife photographers always crop anyway? Of course they could use buy the upcoming R1 and just use crop mode, but that would be overkill.


I mean it's working for Fuji. The X-H2S is a fantastic camera that has sold very well for Fuji. That said Canon does not have the lens lineup to sell such a camera for that price at the moment. If they chose to take the market seriously, there are customers for it and they need probably three primes and a good zoom built for APS-C to make it a worthwhile investment for a photographer.

I'd love to see it happen.


----------



## EverydayPhotographer (Nov 14, 2022)

entoman said:


> The R7 e.g. outperforms the 7D series in almost every regard, but is priced as a novice camera and lacks several features (third control dial, integral vertical grip, high build quality etc) that are expected by most pros.


This is a complaint I see thrown around constantly, and frankly, I think it's comical. Most everyone seems to forget that there is a third control dial conveniently placed on pretty much every single RF lens on offer, and on an adapter if you want to use it on EF-mount lenses. To me, the control ring is one of the most impressive things about the RF mount design. It's an absolute coup, and yet it's the most neglected. Consider this: with the control ring plus two body control dials, you can take complete control over the entire exposure triangle pretty much simultaneously because you have both hands involved. Try that with separate thumb wheels. Having the control ring really made it easier for me to make quick adjustments on the fly, once I got used to using it. After a while, the gripe starts to sound less like "Canon won't give me the proper controls" and more like "I'm resistant to learning anything new."

Similarly, all I hear about the R7 is how sturdily it's built. The complaints against the R7 seem to be that it's either built too light, or has a plastic body. (Did the 7D have an all-metal body? I'm pretty sure it didn't, but I can't remember.) Either way, it's surprising, and makes me wonder if people are equating heavy with well-built and lighter with poorly built. It seems to me that Canon has done a pretty good job of charting a course between weight, size, and build. But it's important that I say directly that I spent a lot of time with the 7D or a lot of other cameras, so my vision is perhaps skewed a bit. I'm not filthy rich, and am lucky to afford the camera tools I have gotten my hands on. That has, by necessity, forced me to make the most of Canon's less expensive cameras, and accept some of their shortcomings and figure my way around them. That absolutely could give me a more forgiving perspective than others might have.



entoman said:


> As with the M series, I think it very unlikely that they'll make more than half a dozen RF-S lenses, as *most* of the target buyers of the "R50" etc will probably only want/need a kit zoom and a pancake wide-angle.


I totally agree. The EF-S line wasn't all that robust either. At least having everything under one mount will make manufacturing and marketing a bit smoother, and reduce consumer confusion about what lens can be used on what camera. I have a feeling Canon will be moving pretty quickly to modify the cream of that crop for RF-S use. And I think that, once that's been done, and cameras in the M6 and maybe M5 form factors have been released, many of the new customers who may have purchased an M series camera in the past will transition seamlessly into the smaller Rs without ever really recognizing the difference. In fact, I would bet that Canon is eager to get those sales numbers rolled into the R series as quickly as they can so they can put the M series the rest of the way out to pasture.


----------



## GreedyPig (Nov 14, 2022)

So, the date on the R50 is wrong. The day it does come out though, you're getting more than that. See you then!


----------



## Derek13 (Nov 14, 2022)

I hope canon read all coments here.
Ok canon I am gonna tell you what we needs
1 .Small body size -apsc ( r7,10 are too big )
2. Build flash in body
3. Viewfinder ( look for Sony nex6 , a6400 etc.... They are small with viewfinder and flash build in )
4. Good quality full hd
- canon wide DR for video option , 4 k 25,24
5. Canon Dual AF
6. Canon color science


I can leave without 5axi stabilization
Canon c log , 4k 60p etc....

Canon I need small , pocket camera for everyday use , travel, family holiday.
I do not want to take big block 5dmk3 or R6 body everytime when I go outside or go for holidays . Just do it and I will back to you straight away.


----------



## entoman (Nov 14, 2022)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> This is a complaint I see thrown around constantly, and frankly, I think it's comical. Most everyone seems to forget that there is a third control dial conveniently placed on pretty much every single RF lens on offer, and on an adapter if you want to use it on EF-mount lenses. To me, the control ring is one of the most impressive things about the RF mount design. It's an absolute coup, and yet it's the most neglected. Consider this: with the control ring plus two body control dials, you can take complete control over the entire exposure triangle pretty much simultaneously because you have both hands involved. Try that with separate thumb wheels. Having the control ring really made it easier for me to make quick adjustments on the fly, once I got used to using it. After a while, the gripe starts to sound less like "Canon won't give me the proper controls" and more like "I'm resistant to learning anything new."



Yes, that's a very good point. I can see that folk using just one body could quickly adjust to using the control ring instead of a third dial. I just prefer to use the traditional third dial on my R5, and wouldn't want to confuse my muscle memory, if I was switching back and forth between 2 bodies, by having to use the control ring on the R7.

It would just have been so easy (and IMO considerably better) to have put the R7 sensor and electronics in a R6 body shell. I suspect that the primary reason why Canon didn't do so, is because that would mean the R7 would then have to be priced a lot closer to the R6.

I would have been happy to pay more to get an R6-based R7, but Canon clearly believe that the affordable R7 will sell more units than a higher-priced version in a R6 shell, and they're probably correct. Anyway they've made the decision, so there's no point in me moaning about it.



EverydayPhotographer said:


> Similarly, all I hear about the R7 is how sturdily it's built. The complaints against the R7 seem to be that it's either built too light, or has a plastic body. (Did the 7D have an all-metal body? I'm pretty sure it didn't, but I can't remember.) Either way, it's surprising, and makes me wonder if people are equating heavy with well-built and lighter with poorly built. It seems to me that Canon has done a pretty good job of charting a course between weight, size, and build. But it's important that I say directly that I spent a lot of time with the 7D or a lot of other cameras, so my vision is perhaps skewed a bit. I'm not filthy rich, and am lucky to afford the camera tools I have gotten my hands on. That has, by necessity, forced me to make the most of Canon's less expensive cameras, and accept some of their shortcomings and figure my way around them. That absolutely could give me a more forgiving perspective than others might have.


I'm pretty sure that my 7D and 7DMkii had all metal bodies, just like my 5DMkiii, 5DS and 5DMkiv. And yes, I do think a metal body is more durable than a polycarbonate shell, although it's just a gut feeling. My 5DS got dropped, knocked and banged, subjected to vibration and a whole lot more, yet it never dented, just scuffed the paintwork, and after a quarter of a million shutter actuations it was still functioning as good as new when I eventually sold it. My R5 feels well built, but I just don't think it would survive as well, and the R7 is built down to a price, and is less weather-proof than the R5 or R6.

I was excited initially when the R7 was announced, but have decided it isn't for me. I'm very tempted t get an R6 Mkii as a second body to my R5 though, but will be hanging in for a few more months hoping (probably in vain) for a R5 Mkii to be announced.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 14, 2022)

Derek13 said:


> I hope canon read all coments here.
> Ok canon I am gonna tell you what we needs ...


They almost certainly don't. Would you like their email address?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What about a high end APS-C camera? APS-C sadly is treated by Canon as a format for amateurs, although many professionals might want the longer reach that the crop gives them. Of course Canon did their market research, but I still see a lot of complaints in many R7 reviews. Mainly about the bad rolling shutter (The R7 needs more than 30ms to read out the sensor) *and the lack of high quality glass for APS-C. *Why can't there be something like a flagship APS-C camera for maybe $3,000 or so? Is there no demand for something like that? Don't wildlife photographers always crop anyway? Of course they could use buy the upcoming R1 and just use crop mode, but that would be overkill.


Can you clarify about the lack of high quality glass for APS-C? All EF, EF-S and RF glass can be used on the R7/R10 and some it is pretty high quality. 
Most APS-C high end users are using it for pixels-on-duck or working distance for macro.

The missing piece is the wide angle RF-S glass. Adapted EF-S glass can be used but otherwise there is no solution. Repackaging the decent wide angle glass (prime and zoom) would make sense to me. The only use case that would then be missing is a compact macro setup ie APS-C body + 60mm macro.

You can crop with R5 of course and get 17mp shots which is about the same as the 7D had.


----------



## Exploreshootshare (Nov 14, 2022)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> To me, the control ring is one of the most impressive things about the RF mount design. It's an absolute coup, and yet it's the most neglected. Consider this: with the control ring plus two body control dials, you can take complete control over the entire exposure triangle pretty much simultaneously because you have both hands involved.


I totally agree! The control ring was one of the "wow" features I loved instantly when I first picked up an R camera at the photokina in 2018. 


At that time, I had destroyed my everlasting 1000d and was getting "serious/ more enthusiastic about photography. So, I was actually testing all kinds of cameras in order to find which system I would stick to next. Although some competitors did have better offerings (at least spec-wise) I just loved the ergonomics having control over the complete triangle. From there on out, all other cameras (e.g. Sony A7riii) felt weird to me. In the end, I admittedly loved the R although it was flawed (fps, eye control AF) but I picked it up anyway. Probably would have happened if it wasn't for that control ring. It was such a major factor to me!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 14, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> The m200 does not have great ergonomics


Neither does a phone but millions (billions?) of photos are taken on one each day.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 14, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If Canon does not really put much effort into RF-S lenses, they should allow third party manufacturers to produce those. That would be a nice start. The problem would be of course that those lenses also work on full frame. So they would have to have sure that Tamron and Sigma do not provide a full frame image circle on their RF-S glass.


I am not following your point here. The only missing piece for native RF-S is for wide angle glass. 
Adapted EF-S (and 3rd party EF-S) lenses can be used today at a reasonable cost.
Can you share your thoughts on why it is in Canon's best interest to allow 3rd party glass and which ones in particular?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 14, 2022)

Derek13 said:


> I hope canon read all coments here.


You can submit your feedback to Canon on their support page in each region.... which I have done in the past.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 14, 2022)

EverydayPhotographer said:


> To me, the control ring is one of the most impressive things about the RF mount design. It's an absolute coup, and yet it's the most neglected. Consider this: with the control ring plus two body control dials, you can take complete control over the entire exposure triangle pretty much simultaneously because you have both hands involved. Try that with separate thumb wheels. Having the control ring really made it easier for me to make quick adjustments on the fly, once I got used to using it. After a while, the gripe starts to sound less like "Canon won't give me the proper controls" and more like "I'm resistant to learning anything new."


Having the 3 wheels on the R5 is plenty for me so I haven't been using it. Also because I didn't get the control ring R mount adapter so I don't have it on all my lenses. So far, I haven't missed it and I can't use it underwater either in my housing and I use EF glass there (wide/fisheye/macro).
Maybe in the future.

What does everyone use the control ring for once you have ISO/shutter/aperture already available?


----------



## danfaz (Nov 14, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> What does everyone use the control ring for once you have ISO/shutter/aperture already available?


I use mine (sometimes) for Kelvin adjustment.


----------



## John Wilde (Nov 14, 2022)

Sony has the no-viewfinder ZV-E10 vlogging camera, and Nikon has the no-viewfinder Z30 vlogging camera, so a no-viewfinder R100 vlogging camera makes sense.
​


----------



## Skux (Nov 14, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> What does everyone use the control ring for once you have ISO/shutter/aperture already available?


Exposure compensation when in auto ISO.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 15, 2022)

Skux said:


> Exposure compensation when in auto ISO.


I tend to use half shutter/rear wheel for this as I fix it to eg -1 stop for indoor sports where I will deliberately underexpose as the uniforms are white and I need a faster shutter speed (using post to push the exposure).

I tried to use exposure compensation for the lunar eclipse but it was useless so I had to use full manual for it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 15, 2022)

danfaz said:


> I use mine (sometimes) for Kelvin adjustment.


Is this to adjust for indoor lighting for jpegs?
For underwater, I need to adjust the white balance for each shot separately (depth + distance-to-subject) so raw shooting + post is the only real option.


----------



## melgross (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> What about a high end APS-C camera? APS-C sadly is treated by Canon as a format for amateurs, although many professionals might want the longer reach that the crop gives them. Of course Canon did their market research, but I still see a lot of complaints in many R7 reviews. Mainly about the bad rolling shutter (The R7 needs more than 30ms to read out the sensor) and the lack of high quality glass for APS-C. Why can't there be something like a flagship APS-C camera for maybe $3,000 or so? Is there no demand for something like that? Don't wildlife photographers always crop anyway? Of course they could use buy the upcoming R1 and just use crop mode, but that would be overkill.


For quite a few years, both Canon and Nikon users have been complaining about this. Neither company has any interest in APS-C as a pro system. Amateur, yes, prosumer, maybe. But the world has been moving on to full frame for some time, and I really don’t see that movement changing. It’s one reason Canon’s “M” series has been so popular. So popular in fact that it’s been either one or two in practically every mirrorless market it competes in, despite cries for better (more Pro-like), and more lenses. Canon has to duplicate that success with the R Mount.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 15, 2022)

melgross said:


> For quite a few years, both Canon and Nikon users have been complaining about this. Neither company has any interest in APS-C as a pro system. Amateur, yes, prosumer, maybe. But the world has been moving on to full frame for some time, and I really don’t see that movement changing. It’s one reason Canon’s “M” series has been so popular. So popular in fact that it’s been either one or two in practically every mirrorless market it competes in, despite cries for better (more Pro-like), and more lenses. Canon has to duplicate that success with the R Mount.


The question for us (as Canon should already know) is whether there is a significant demand for pro APS-C bodies. 
The last was 7Dii then Canon brought out M6ii/90D and now R7. 

Would Canon sell more R7 if it was priced higher than R6ii with better weather sealing?
What is missing from the R7 from your perspective? Given 15fps mechanical/30fps, dual slots and pixel density... it seems to fit the "reach" requirement and at a significant discount to the R6ii


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I am not following your point here. The only missing piece for native RF-S is for wide angle glass.
> Adapted EF-S (and 3rd party EF-S) lenses can be used today at a reasonable cost.
> Can you share your thoughts on why it is in Canon's best interest to allow 3rd party glass and which ones in particular?


Maybe it is not in Canon's best interest, but it is quite an evil move against its own customers. Canon of course likes to frame it only as a measure against the competition, but for the customer it means that he pays a lot of money for a camera and in return he can't use all third party lenses that Sony and Nikon users can enjoy. That reminds me of Apple. They invented that really bad and slow "Lightning" plug, which even had exposed contacts. The only reason was to be able to charge a huge license fee from all accessory manufacturers who wanted to connect their devices with an iPhone or iPad. With the RF mount it is the same. It is good if a company innovates, but it should not be possible to use that innovation to block competition.

Maybe you can use adapted EF-S lenses, but one of the main points of mirrorless cameras was bringing the lenses closer to the sensor. That allows better optical formulas. At wide angle that difference is more noticeable, while for long tele lenses it does not make any difference.

Yes, there are some native RF-S lenses, but they do not really have a professional quality. There are those really cheap RF-S lenses and if you want a better native RF lens, you have to buy one that costs something like $2,000. There is not really a high end RF-S lens, which would be priced much lower than a high end full frame lens, as it needs much less glass.

We might never know which fantastic third party RF-S lenses we will not get, because they probably not be developed before Canon allows them, as Sony has gone completely full frame. 

Sigma has the fantastic 18-35 f/1.8 lens for the EF-S mount. Of course you can adapt it on the RF-S mount, but a native RF-S lens might be even better and it would likely be much lighter. Same with the Sigma 50-100 f/1.8. Canon does not offer anything that compares to those lenses. And then there is the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. 

On the Tamron side they completely stopped most of their popular lenses for DLSRs. So there is not even much left to adapt. That might not change until Canon allows third party RF lenses.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> [...] That reminds me of Apple. They invented that really bad and slow "Lightning" plug, which even had exposed contacts. The only reason was to be able to charge a huge license fee from all accessory manufacturers who wanted to connect their devices with an iPhone or iPad. [...]


Warning: rant ahead!

Ehm, when Apple introduced lightning the 'competition' was micro-USB, which has the same speed limitations. On top of that, micro-USB

is not reversible, lightning is
has an insertion cycle count in the low thousands, lightning has a much higher rating
has a male plug that can be broken by squishing
has a two piece female socket that easily breaks due to misalignment
The contacts being exposed isn't a big an issue as the low quality silicone around the cable itself, that will fail waaaaaaay before the connector. But two wrong things don't make a right 

The license fee you quote isn't about lightning, it's about the 'mfi', made for iPhone program and that encompasses a lot more, including IoT products like smart lighting bridges (e.g. Philips Hue). Having worked in that space, I have mixed feelings about it. The $1 per unit I've seen is quite steep and a single company being judge, jury and executioner isn't a good thing to have your product depend on. But their specs and security demands did make sense and improved the product. And it "Just Worked(TM)" for customers.

Now that we have the USB-C connector, the USB-PD spec and USB4, lightning is indeed quant and outdated, but now we're stuck with devices with integrated, non-replaceable cables  And if you need to go beyond 1 meter the cables get expensive, fast. Extension cables for those stupid dongles that support both charging and can do 10Gbit/s USB start at $15 and don't even work with all USB ports. If I plug it into my computer, it drops down to 5GBit/s, but plugging it into my monitor makes it do proper 10Gbit/s.

This subject is a bit of a sore spot, in a previous job I had to support devices with mini- and micro-USB connectors as well as customers using their own cables. That took a lot of time and having to replace the connectors under warranty took a large chunk out of the warranty budget as well.

At home I have been trying to get everything to work with USB-C in such a way that I don't have to worry about which cable I use. That runs into issues where some cables won't allow charging and others don't support thunderbolt. Doing the research, emailing companies and stores took way too much time and effort, but I have it working now. And no need to explain things to my kids, the cables work or get cut in half and go to recycling.

And after all this, Canon still uses the micro-USB equivalent for video: micro-HDMI. That connector has an insertion cycle count in the hundreds and if it breaks, you'll have to swap out the complete PCB. Or locate a repair shop that is both adventurous and competent.

So rant over, back to arguing about APS-C lens wishlists.


----------



## STARS84 (Nov 15, 2022)

We need more Lenses, not Bodies


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 15, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> The $1 per unit I've seen is quite steep


$1 sounds okay, but I recently saw a YouTube video that mentioned that Apple wants 10% of the sale price of any product that has a Lightning connector. Not sure if that was mentioned by Marques Brownlee or or someone else. 

Some licensing fees are really bad. The MP3 format was invented by a public German research institute. They charged a small license fee for it and invested that money into further research. However one company from the US had a patent on some algorithm that was needed for the MP3 format to work. That might have been 5% of the innovation, but they charged huge licensing fees for that just because they could. So most of the research was done by the German scientist, but most of the money went somewhere else. That is a common trick in patent law. Buy patents for simple things and if those things are needed, charge a large fee for that. Many companies do not innovate at all, but just buy patents to make money from them. Apple and other companies often are the victims of that.

The video I mentioned claimed that Apple might stick with Lightning because of the licensing fees. USB-C is not really a foreign technology for Apple. Apple was one of the companies that developed USB-C together with others. Apple uses the same plug for Thunderbolt for example. 

Not having a full size HDMI port on a large camera like the R3 is really embarrassing for Canon, if Sony manages to ship much smaller cameras with a full size HDMI port. Maybe it is about licensing fees again. Not sure who owns the license for HDMI, but a full size HDMI port might cost a few dollars more in license fees than a smaller port. That is the most likely reason. It also was the reason for the video record limit of 29:59 minutes. The EU has higher copyright fees for video cameras that can shoot more than 30 minutes. 

I wonder if the R50 will really be a camera like the M50 that is so cheap that you can buy it as you backup camera even if you might hardly ever use it. It should stay below 600 Euros without lens, but I have low hopes for that.


----------



## OskarB (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> $1 sounds okay, but I recently saw a YouTube video that mentioned that Apple wants 10% of the sale price of any product that has a Lightning connector. Not sure if that was mentioned by Marques Brownlee or or someone else.
> 
> Some licensing fees are really bad. The MP3 format was invented by a public German research institute. They charged a small license fee for it and invested that money into further research. However one company from the US had a patent on some algorithm that was needed for the MP3 format to work. That might have been 5% of the innovation, but they charged huge licensing fees for that just because they could. So most of the research was done by the German scientist, but most of the money went somewhere else. That is a common trick in patent law. Buy patents for simple things and if those things are needed, charge a large fee for that. Many companies do not innovate at all, but just buy patents to make money from them. Apple and other companies often are the victims of that.
> 
> ...


A lot of speculation and half knowledge, don't you think so?
For example the mentioned record limit on cameras. This was a duty, not a copyright fee. And it was gradually lowered since 2016. It is completely gone since 1st July 2021 for all countries of origin.
Further there was a duty agreement with Japan not to collect duties on cameras years before.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe it is not in Canon's best interest, but it is quite an evil move against its own customers.


Last I checked, Canon was a for-profit corporation, not a philanthropic organization. 



Skyscraperfan said:


> It is good if a company innovates, but it should not be possible to use that innovation to block competition.


Sure, sure. I mean, that’s the point of the patent process, but I guess to you that’s just more evil, companies should just give away their intellectual property. To heck with profit, let’s just make people happy. Until we run out of money.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe it is not in Canon's best interest, but it is quite an evil move against its own customers. Canon of course likes to frame it only as a measure against the competition, but for the customer it means that he pays a lot of money for a camera and in return he can't use all third party lenses that Sony and Nikon users can enjoy.


Doesn't the same logic apply to Canon lenses? Like, Canon, in order not to be "evil", should either stop making them for the RF mount, or start making them for the Z and E mounts as well?


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 15, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Doesn't the same logic apply to Canon lenses? Like, Canon, in order not to be "evil", should either stop making them for the RF mount, or start making them for the Z and E mounts as well?


The equivalent for the lenses would be that Canon would allow third party manufacturers to use the RF mount for their cameras. I would really love to see that. The already allowed that for RED cameras. If Canon are confident with the quality of their cameras and lenses, they should not fear that. If Canon cameras are really better, people will still buy Canon cameras. And wouldn't it be great for Canon if Nikon users bought Canon lenses?

With the EF lenses that already works very well. You can use any Canon EF lens on Nikon and Sony cameras with adapters. On Nikon cameras EF lenses work very well and on Sony cameras they still work okay. So you could buy a Z9 and use all your old Canon EF glass without any major issues and at the same time you could use all third party lenses for F-Mount, Z-Mount and EF-Mount on a Nikon Z-Mount camera. Only RF-Mount lenses can't be used on a NIkon camera so far. Not sure if that is good for Canon. Some Nikon users might want to buy an RF lens.


----------



## entoman (Nov 15, 2022)

Jethro said:


> They almost certainly don't. Would you like their email address?


Canon get a lot of feedback from reviewers and professional users, and also direct from customers via questionnaires. They won't be reading forums or comments pages themselves because it's just too much to wade through. However, reviewers read forums and comments pages, and are very much in touch with reader's opinions, so I think it's likely that Canon will get to hear about *common* criticisms or suggestions made here.


----------



## photographer (Nov 15, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> I hope and suppose you are right.
> But when looking around my friends, I see the majority being absolutely satisfied with their cell, and the others are more in the > €2.000 range.
> But as I said, I am sure Canon knows their markets well...


And are they regular users or novice photographers? Try to start taking pictures of models with a mobile phone or a camera in your twenties and you will know that the camera has a purpose.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The equivalent for the lenses would be that Canon would allow third party manufacturers to use the RF mount for their cameras.


Not really, as there are practically no photographic camera manufactures that make the same camera with a free choice of mounts.



Skyscraperfan said:


> And wouldn't it be great for Canon if Nikon users bought Canon lenses?


Who should be responsible for electronic compatibility (in particular, fast autofocus and hybrid IS) of such a setup?



Skyscraperfan said:


> So you could buy a Z9


Thank you very much, but I'd prefer my lenses to be optimized for my already existing R5.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Having the 3 wheels on the R5 is plenty for me so I haven't been using it. Also because I didn't get the control ring R mount adapter so I don't have it on all my lenses. So far, I haven't missed it and I can't use it underwater either in my housing and I use EF glass there (wide/fisheye/macro).
> Maybe in the future.
> 
> What does everyone use the control ring for once you have ISO/shutter/aperture already available?


I've never used the control rings, I actually forget they're there.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> What does everyone use the control ring for once you have ISO/shutter/aperture already available?


I've configured mine for the AF method selection, but I cannot say that I use it often.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2022)

photographer said:


> And are they regular users or novice photographers? Try to start taking pictures of models with a mobile phone or a camera in your twenties and you will know that the camera has a purpose.


I know, you know. Some don't care a s***, really. 

I remember an article about a great newspaper a few years ago giving each of their reporters a cell and firing all their photo journalists. 
Saying they can make photos during their researches. 

O'r iIt's like the kids listening to music through their cell speakers (not headsets). Do you think, they care about MPEG vs. CD sound vs. HighRes? 
Do you think, this might affect CD player or HighRes streamer sales in - say - ten years?


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> I hope and suppose you are right.
> But when looking around my friends, I see the majority being absolutely satisfied with their cell, and the others are more in the > €2.000 range.
> But as I said, I am sure Canon knows their markets well...


People who would have never touched a camera now use their smartphones to take photos.
If Canon can get even a fraction of those folks to upgrade to a Canon camera then that would be a gold mine.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

Derek13 said:


> I hope canon read all coments here.


If you want Canon to read your comment then comment to Canon and not here.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe it is not in Canon's best interest, but it is quite an evil move against its own customers.


Enforcing your own patents is now evil?
Businesses need to stay in business.
If it is in their business interest then Canon will license to third parties.
If it is not then they will not.


----------



## nunataks (Nov 15, 2022)

Well maybe they'll actually release more RF-s lenses then.

(probably not)


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Doesn't the same logic apply to Canon lenses? Like, Canon, in order not to be "evil", should either stop making them for the RF mount, or start making them for the Z and E mounts as well?


That is pretty much what Sigma did.
Their cameras are pretty much a joke now though.
They also share a mount now.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

Kit. said:


> Thank you very much, but I'd prefer my lenses to be optimized for my already existing R5.


Then you will be stuck with Canon lenses even if they do bring third parties on board.


----------



## melgross (Nov 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The question for us (as Canon should already know) is whether there is a significant demand for pro APS-C bodies.
> The last was 7Dii then Canon brought out M6ii/90D and now R7.
> 
> Would Canon sell more R7 if it was priced higher than R6ii with better weather sealing?
> What is missing from the R7 from your perspective? Given 15fps mechanical/30fps, dual slots and pixel density... it seems to fit the "reach" requirement and at a significant discount to the R6ii


I don’t think so. With FF coming down in price, the need for an APS-C body to carry for an “emergency” isn’t required. Also, FF has come down in size as well. The excuse that you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. Just crop your image. Yes, the apsc tele’s are smaller, but when has a company made serious long APS-C tele glass since FF has come out? Would thy really sell enough $5,000 to $12,000 APS-C lenses? I don’t think so. What about extreme wides and zooms? I doubt it.

these companies have experimented over the decades, and it seems that the large majority of customers have said - FF. Maybe, if the cameras market hadn’t been imploding since 2012, or so, there would have been a big enough market for this. But not now. The R7 is a pretty good camera, but would Canon come out with an R5 equivalent, or an R3 equivalent? I highly doubt it. Who would buy a $3,500 to $5,500 APS-C body and equally expensive lenses? Probably not that many.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Enforcing your own patents is now evil?


The problem is that they are not only enforcing those patents against their competitors, but also against their customers. It's not that a competitor copied their cameras. The competitors just want to attach their lenses to Canon cameras. The competitors did not choose the RF mount. They just do not have any other option than to use the RF mount, if they want to attach their lenses to Canon cameras. That's why it is so problematic, if Canon uses patents to prevent that. 

It reminds me of car radios. Some people want a third party car radio. Imagine the car manufacturer had a special connector that you have to use in order to mount the car radio into your car. And then the manufacturer uses that patent for that connector to prevent third party manufacturers to sell a radio that fits into your car. Usually behaviour like that is sanctioned by competition authorities.


----------



## melgross (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> $1 sounds okay, but I recently saw a YouTube video that mentioned that Apple wants 10% of the sale price of any product that has a Lightning connector. Not sure if that was mentioned by Marques Brownlee or or someone else.
> 
> Some licensing fees are really bad. The MP3 format was invented by a public German research institute. They charged a small license fee for it and invested that money into further research. However one company from the US had a patent on some algorithm that was needed for the MP3 format to work. That might have been 5% of the innovation, but they charged huge licensing fees for that just because they could. So most of the research was done by the German scientist, but most of the money went somewhere else. That is a common trick in patent law. Buy patents for simple things and if those things are needed, charge a large fee for that. Many companies do not innovate at all, but just buy patents to make money from them. Apple and other companies often are the victims of that.
> 
> ...


That’s sort of a twisted view of history. I wonder if you have any sources other than some YouTube character for these “huge licensing fees”. As for apple, the amount they get from licensing their connector is completely trivial, just a few million a year for a company that sold over $450 billion in its last calendar year, with somewhere around $125 billion on profit. In cases like connectors, companies like to have spec and quality control over them. So you know any company with Apple’s approval is making the to Apple’s specs. This goes for every connector. And Apple doesn’t charge 10% of a products price if it has their connector. I don’t know where you got that from.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 15, 2022)

melgross said:


> I don’t think so. With FF coming down in price, the need for an APS-C body to carry for an “emergency” isn’t required. Also, FF has come down in size as well. The excuse that you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. Just crop your image. Yes, the apsc tele’s are smaller, but when has a company made serious long APS-C tele glass since FF has come out? Would thy really sell enough $5,000 to $12,000 APS-C lenses? I don’t think so. What about extreme wides and zooms? I doubt it.
> 
> these companies have experimented over the decades, and it seems that the large majority of customers have said - FF. Maybe, if the cameras market hadn’t been imploding since 2012, or so, there would have been a big enough market for this. But not now. The R7 is a pretty good camera, but would Canon come out with an R5 equivalent, or an R3 equivalent? I highly doubt it. Who would buy a $3,500 to $5,500 APS-C body and equally expensive lenses? Probably not that many.


It might not make sense to you to use an APS-C but it does to enough others for Canon to judge it a worthwhile market. Also, you don't make special telephoto lenses of 400mm or greater for an APS-C because the lenses for FF and APS-C are basically the same for those lengths as it's the front optics that determine the focal length and aperture, and they have a natural image circle that is larger than for even FF. 

As someone who has both a R5 and R7, I can tell you the £2000 combination of an R7 and RF 100-400mm weighing just over 1 kg has very close IQ and reach to a £7000 combo of an R5 and RF 100-500mm coming in at over 2 kg. And you certainly do get more reach using an APS-C with a pixel-dense sensor than cropping. Cropping doesn't increase reach, it just narrows the field of view. If I'm doing BIF, I grab my R5 and RF 100-500mm (or even my RF 100-400mm). If I want the most reach, I grab my R7 and the RF 800mm. I'm beginning to see the R7+RF 100-400mm on my birding trips, and I'll lay odds that it will become the standard gear for enthusiasts.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> People who would have never touched a camera now use their smartphones to take photos.
> If Canon can get even a fraction of those folks to upgrade to a Canon camera then that would be a gold mine.


People who would have never touched a camera used to take a P&S in the early 2000s and made that gigantic hype of digital camera sales in that time.
This puts several camera companies into the trouble they are in today, because they missed the signs, as Nokia did in cell phones.
Again, as I stated before in my first post in this thread:


Maximilian said:


> *A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
> How else should Canon gain new customers?*
> (except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)


I really hope that there is a market. I really hope, Canon can get more than a fraction of those folks to get a basis for the future.

Otherwise, it will become much more expensive for us enthusiasts/prosumers than the R system already seems to be.


----------



## Skyscraperfan (Nov 15, 2022)

melgross said:


> And Apple doesn’t charge 10% of a products price if it has their connector. I don’t know where you got that from.


From this video:




 Roughy at 3:10 he mentioned the "Made for iPhone" program and says that Apple will get 10% for every unit. Not sure though if companies can also use Lightning without taking part in the "Made for iPhone" program. Maybe I got that part wrong.


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 15, 2022)

This is going to be _interesting to say the LEAST._

Its a great opportunity to introduce a truly new form factor (for canon). That mount is simply NOT small, so between that - and the inevitable market segmentation from the R10...challenge accepted. 

To this day, my small camera needs are still the original M form factor with good/eye AF, a decent sensor, ibis, and a flippy. Thats it. None of canons small ASPC cameras have all of these, even though they are on their 5th RF body already. 

Also this is canon, so its practically guaranteed to use the same r10 sensor. Lastly, *RFS has essentially the WORST / LEAST lenses on the market*. Just terrible.

Man i got popcorn for this one. *LOTS of popcorn.*


----------



## ashmadux (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> From this video:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lightning is proprietary.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> People who would have never touched a camera used to take a P&S in the early 2000s


Point and shoot sales were never close to what smartphones sales are today.
If we include mobile phones then camera sales are higher than they have ever been.
Not to mention tablets and laptops.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The competitors just want to attach their lenses to Canon cameras.


Canon sells lenses.
Those are their competitors.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Point and shoot sales were never close to what smartphones sales are today.
> If we include mobile phones then camera sales are higher than they have ever been.
> Not to mention tablets and laptops.


Is it you wanting to have the last word or is it you ignoring my statements - whatever...

I'll repeat it once again:


Maximilian said:


> *A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
> How else should Canon gain new customers?*


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 15, 2022)

entoman said:


> I think it's likely that Canon will get to hear about *common* criticisms or suggestions made here.


It seems a lot easier to just contact Canon directly.
That is what I do.
TBH I also contact people that I know Canon listens to.
The downside is that they decide what gets passed on to Canon.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 15, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
> How else should Canon gain new customers?
> (except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)
> 
> Personally, I would like to see a similar naming in all regions of the world (as a European, I'd prefer the Rx000 naming  ).


Canon has told us that about 40% of it's camera sales are DSLRs and 30% are M cameras. Since there haven't been any new DSLRs in a few years, this likely means the vast majority of those sales are Rebels (plus any check of Amazon sales over the past year or more tells us this as well). The M50 and M50 II are also top sellers and probably make up the vast majority of M camera sales. In other words, probably somewhere around 50%-65% of Canon cameras sold are to the "absolutely dead" entry level market. Apparently Canon does research this. Maximilian, on the other hand, did not.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 15, 2022)

ashmadux said:


> ... Lastly, *RFS has essentially the WORST / LEAST lenses on the market*. Just terrible.
> 
> Man i got popcorn for this one. *LOTS of popcorn.*


Aside from the fact that you can use all the EF and EF-S lenses made by Canon, Sigma, Tamron and others. But why bother with reality when trying to make a point?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 15, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Apparently Canon does research this. Maximilian, on the other hand, did not.


Yo!

And you - on purpose - misread my posts. Please read again - carefully.

Otherwise I see your comments as trolling.

Thanks in advance for your excuse.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Canon sells lenses.
> Those are their competitors.


Please, don't distract @Skyscraperfan with simple facts. He's far too busy trying to keep his balance on that soapbox.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 15, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> Then you will be stuck with Canon lenses even if they do bring third parties on board.


Indeed.

When I don't need my lens and my camera to be optimized for each other, both in the optical scheme and in the electronic protocol, I can as well use an SLR lens, and then there are plenty of EF lenses to choose from.

But if one is looking for a competitor to the lens I use the most, RF 14-35/4L, well... good luck to find something similar in convenience, optical quality and IS performance, but designed to be _also_ compatible with the FE mount.


----------



## mariosk1gr (Nov 15, 2022)

I would kill for a m6 type body with rf mount and serious video/photo implementation!


----------



## Longtermer (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> The problem is that they are not only enforcing those patents against their competitors, but also against their customers. It's not that a competitor copied their cameras. The competitors just want to attach their lenses to Canon cameras. The competitors did not choose the RF mount. They just do not have any other option than to use the RF mount, if they want to attach their lenses to Canon cameras. That's why it is so problematic, if Canon uses patents to prevent that.


Canon uses patents the same as most other large companies - ie to protect the IP which gives rise to their profits. Competitors can (and a number do) design lenses that attach to the RF mount - they just can't (from the little that has been made public) use Canon software to add extra functionality. So those lenses are largely 'manual'. But they can still be 'attached' to RF mount bodies.

To be clear, I wish Canon would come to some sort of licensing agreement with 3rd party producers - it would mean more lenses to choose from. But let's not completely mischaracterise the situation.


----------



## PhotoGenerous (Nov 15, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> What does everyone use the control ring for once you have ISO/shutter/aperture already available?


There are so many options, so I'm still experimenting with an entire control scheme overhaul.

I switched from Av to Fv. The top thumb dial switches variabales because it's Fv mode, but I mainly have it positioned so the main dial changes aperture. The control ring is set to change shutter speed (without needing to move the active Fv variable to shutter), and ISO is set to auto. 

And then I've set the the Depth of Field button to hold and turn the main dial to change exposure compensation. 

So my main dial controls my two most used variables, the control ring changes the other. The top thumb dial can be used to move change shutter speed if the control ring is locked. 

That leaves the rear dial completely free because I think it's more ergonomic to use that as little as possible now that I have the option. So now it changes Picture Styles so I can quickly see what a scene looks like in black and white.

The final four styles are Monochrome, User 1, User 2, and User 3. First is Monochrome unchanged, then User 1 is set to Monochrome +2 contrast, User 2 is Mono +4, and User 3 is set to normal.

Since User 3 is the final style, you can't overshoot when selecting, so to revert to normal I just crank it to the right without needing to know which Monochrome I'm in.


----------



## Skux (Nov 15, 2022)

I recently returned from a holiday to Australia, and the few people I saw cameras were either EOS 100 or 1000 series Rebels, Sony A6000 series cameras, or DJI Osmo-style vlogging kits. Shout out to the one dude with a Fujifilm medium format camera and another other guy with an entire Canon 5D setup.

There is still a market for entry level cameras, even though it's shrinking.

As for myself I took the EOS RP with the 24-105 f4-7.1mm and 50mm f1.8, and even that got very heavy after a day of walking around the cities. It will be interesting to see what Canon can make for this segment in RF mount.


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 15, 2022)

Skux said:


> As for myself I took the EOS RP with the 24-105 f4-7.1mm and 50mm f1.8, and even that got very heavy after a day of walking around the cities. It will be interesting to see what Canon can make for this segment in RF mount.


How about an R7 body, 18-150 lens and EL-100 strobe?

Off-topic:Is anybody else having problems with the text insertion cursor changing position erratically while typing?


----------



## unfocused (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> It reminds me of car radios...


Of all the terrible car analogies that have been used on this site over the years, this has got to be one of the worst. A radio is an accessory, completely unnecessary for driving a car. If Canon were preventing third-party camera strap makers from attaching their straps to Canon bodies, you would have a point. But, with lenses? No.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 15, 2022)

photographer said:


> And are they regular users or novice photographers? Try to start taking pictures of models with a mobile phone or a camera in your twenties and you will know that the camera has a purpose.


We also need to consider different markets/regions. Some countries have much lower average salaries and what would be considered a professional camera in them. In the end, it is the result that counts. We/models etc can be snobbish but we need to consider that phones can be much more expensive than entry level ILCs plus you can do basic adjustments in-phone and publish quickly especially if it is only for online work. The business economics work out in this case.

Did my daughter need a high mp camera body for her wedding when she hasn't printed a single shot? Admittedly the photography had a D3 but we checked her previous results and not the tool she used.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 15, 2022)

Skux said:


> I recently returned from a holiday to Australia, and the few people I saw cameras were either EOS 100 or 1000 series Rebels, Sony A6000 series cameras, or DJI Osmo-style vlogging kits. Shout out to the one dude with a Fujifilm medium format camera and another other guy with an entire Canon 5D setup.
> 
> There is still a market for entry level cameras, even though it's shrinking.
> 
> As for myself I took the EOS RP with the 24-105 f4-7.1mm and 50mm f1.8, and even that got very heavy after a day of walking around the cities. It will be interesting to see what Canon can make for this segment in RF mount.


We Australians use a wide variety of bodies and there is a very active prosumer group of users 
Just look at the seascapers at sunrise or the tripods wielders at Vivid or even around Circular Quay for the lunar eclipse. When I go diving, the range of equipment taken underwater by others has a staggering value when you add it all up.
I travel with either R5+24-105/4L for one lens; EF16-35mm/4L + RF100-500mm for 2 lens combo or others for more specific use. For a recent trip to Iceland, I took RF24-105mm/4L, RF100-500mm, EF16-35mm/4 + EF8-15mm. The Scott eVest is brilliant to migrate weight from my Lowepro 450AW when it comes to check-in time


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 15, 2022)

Kit. said:


> I've configured mine for the AF method selection, but I cannot say that I use it often.


Fascinating... does this alleviate dual back button focus ie can you restrict it to switching between eye-AF and single point?


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 15, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> Maybe it is not in Canon's best interest, but it is quite an evil move against its own customers.


Well, you can see the reactions to "evil" in the previous comments. Ascribing emotions to corporations can be fraught. 
Google removed its "don't be evil" manta in their code of conduct in 2018. Does this mean that they can be evil now?
Elon Musk was a "genius" at Tesla but yet to see if he is the same at Twitter or just incompetent (ie a twit). The bankers who assisted the deal are already sitting on negative equity.
Apple operates a closed shop... 'it just works" wins loyal and enthusiastic customers every day. Some hate the thought of a closed ecosystem and votes with their dollars elsewhere but Apple is still extremely profitable


----------



## SnowMiku (Nov 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> As someone who has both a R5 and R7, I can tell you the £2000 combination of an R7 and RF 100-400mm weighing just over 1 kg has very close IQ and reach to a £7000 combo of an R5 and RF 100-500mm coming in at over 2 kg.



I have the 90D and the EF 70-300mm L which is equivalent to 112-480mm F/9. I think it is a great affordable deal for those who can't afford or don't want to pay for an RF body and the RF 100-500mm. It's good to see that other people on here understand this


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2022)

Skux said:


> As for myself I took the EOS RP with the 24-105 f4-7.1mm and 50mm f1.8, and even that got very heavy after a day of walking around the cities. It will be interesting to see what Canon can make for this segment in RF mount.


On trips with family I take two kits. One is EOS M based (currently the M6II, and while I have the full set of EF-M lenses, the travel set is the M11-22, M18-150, and M22/2). That kit fits in a Think Tank Mirrorless Mover 20, but more commonly I use a small LowePro TLZ that is a tight fit for the body + 18-150, and the other lenses go in little DashPoint 20/30 cases all in a regular backpack with other stuff. 

The other kit is full frame, currently the R3 along with the RF 14-35/4, RF 24-105/4 and RF 100-500L, along with a RRS TQC-14 tripod and with the TS-E 17 and/or TS-E 24 added if we’re going to an urban destination. The 3-Zoom kit fits in a LowePro FastPack 300, or the 400 AW if bringing TS-E(s). 

When walking around with family during the day, I bring the M kit. When going out solo at blue hour, I take the FF kit. 

If Canon replicates the M form factor in an APS-C R body and brings out an RF-S 11-22 and fast pancake prime, I might consider replacing the M kit. It would be a little bigger, but would enable the APS-C body to serve as a backup for the FF body.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 16, 2022)

melgross said:


> I don’t think so. With FF coming down in price, the need for an APS-C body to carry for an “emergency” isn’t required. Also, FF has come down in size as well.


For me, a cheap FF body (RP replacement) would be ideal. I don't want an APS-C body as it would mean carrying additional wide angle lenses


melgross said:


> The excuse that you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. Just crop your image. Yes, the apsc tele’s are smaller, but when has a company made serious long APS-C tele glass since FF has come out? Would thy really sell enough $5,000 to $12,000 APS-C lenses? I don’t think so. What about extreme wides and zooms? I doubt it.


"reach" is pixels-on-duck. Crop on R5 is ~17mp ie about the same as 7D vs 32mp with 90D/M6ii/R7.
Reach also means that telephoto lenses are cheaper... you can use a 70-200mm/2.8 instead of a 300/2.8. RF100-400 instead of RF100-500 or the big whites.
No need for APS-C telephoto glass as EF/RF options are already there.
You do need wide angle APS-C lenses though ie down to 10mm (16mm ff equivalent). I doubt that anyone is using the EF11-24mm on a crop sensor 



melgross said:


> these companies have experimented over the decades, and it seems that the large majority of customers have said - FF.


I am not sure if the market has said ff but it is a major differentiator vs phones for higher profit margins. Not sure it is a majority though given the volume/% of M series and rebel/kiss etc bodies that have been sold.


----------



## shadow (Nov 16, 2022)

EOS 4 Life said:


> People who would have never touched a camera now use their smartphones to take photos.
> If Canon can get even a fraction of those folks to upgrade to a Canon camera then that would be a gold mine.


Watching what iPhone photo quality I believe the low end is done. I really am starting to believe Apples iphones now and in future with AI photo software, instant cloud storage, 3 protected lenses you don't need to care about, learn to use, attach, detach, clean with special cloth, and all other esoteric factors will take over the low end completely. Especially since anybody even children with easy human interface software can use them with zero photography experience. The phone camera sensors and AI software will eventually be much smarter at taking photos than most adult humans if not already.

Whatever low end sales are left will be low volume niche users like myself that want faster lenses, convenience, inexpensive, light weight, small and understands FOV, F numbers, DOF, Bokeh, and all other limitations and photo nomenclature gibberish. 

Whereas the average person buying a $700-$1200 phone device gets all sorts of benefits like instant messages and calling in live video phone all in addition to taking photos and cares only about posting facebook snapshots of their latte or breakfast to impress their superficial online followers. Sounds pessimistic, but that's what I see and perhaps why they are dropping the M line, as I bet sales volume numbers have been really dwindling. But I am no Apple fan.




David - Sydney said:


> Apple operates a closed shop... 'it just works" wins loyal and enthusiastic customers every day. Some hate the thought of a closed ecosystem and votes with their dollars elsewhere but Apple is still extremely profitable



"It just works" = 5 years, lol. 

Sweat shops are always profitable with high margins from slave labor building their products that are designed to be replaced every 5 years has been quite a good business. The cult followers help also, some people are so monagamous to their product line, yet FOMO on the latest model religious fervor cause them to replace every other year. They gather smiling as they are waiting with Visa card in hand in the changing September weather overnight for 2 days in a line outside to buy the latest phone. If you look from a distance, it is hilarious.

I admit, I have owned their junk the first iPod (still operates), (3) iphones (Worthless now, one took excellent photos), ipad failed, 2 imac's failed and macbook keyboard failed. All of these have been sitting on desks, not transported, well taken care of, used only by me with no accidents like dropping them or children spilling drinks on them, etc. yet all died within 5-7 years for various reasons from crappy keyboard hardware, failing buttons, and components. Power connector with the magnet was nice though. 

No support for newer OS's which eventually block your browser operating to log into the bank.... that's the best excuse to upgrade. Not me, instead of tossing them out as junk, I rescued them with external SSD's and Linux. Linux really saved them from the landfill, just wish decent Linux phones were available. So crippling along, the 12 year old large iMac screen is really nice- hence why I fixed it, surprised with the design flaw of overheating with the internal HDD it hasn't killed the CPU thermal paste.

Not only that low MTBF on their junk, now the phones (always non-removeable battery) cannot be completely turned off. ICYMI, both Goofball Android and Rotten Apple surveillance capitalism spying with BLE tracking AFTER you turn off the phone is ridiculous. I will not buy any more Apple or Non de-googled Android phones. 

No more Dell either, no long term support and the incessant pushing unwanted "You are eligible for upgrading" messages daily after a stupid Windows 10 update killed the wifi and HDMI a few months ago. Suspicious timing. Product lifespans have really decreased this past decade, by design.

But fortunately the good news is unlike computer industry products, my 16 year old Canon powershot camera, Canon 20D, Canon lenses, and the rest still work fine and never had issues other than battery failures. But it remains to be seen if the latest camera body products might not survive as long, if they decide to cut corners for profit pressure and move away from their past emphasis on excellent Japanese quality.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 16, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Fascinating... does this alleviate dual back button focus ie can you restrict it to switching between eye-AF and single point?


Not sure about restricting, but you can switch between tracking and spot AF very easily, as tracking is the leftmost mode and spot is the next one. The problem is, you cannot use it to switch between tracking mode with auto starting point and tracking mode with manual spot starting point. I normally use the latter, but sometimes need the former.

So, I still have one back button configured for "eye-AF", not really to select the eye, but mostly to force auto starting point for tracking.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 16, 2022)

shadow said:


> Watching what iPhone photo quality I believe the low end is done. I really am starting to believe Apples iphones now and in future with AI photo software, instant cloud storage, 3 protected lenses you don't need to care about, learn to use, attach, detach, clean with special cloth, and all other esoteric factors will take over the low end completely. Especially since anybody even children with easy human interface software can use them with zero photography experience. The phone camera sensors and AI software will eventually be much smarter at taking photos than most adult humans if not already.
> 
> Whatever low end sales are left will be low volume niche users like myself that want faster lenses, convenience, inexpensive, light weight, small and understands FOV, F numbers, DOF, Bokeh, and all other limitations and photo nomenclature gibberish.
> 
> ...


You have had a couple of mails about Apple computers having a 5-year lifetime. Your experience on Apple products doesn't match mine over 35 years. Never had an iPhone, MacBook, desktop etc fail. It is reported, for example, by our UK consumers association Which that Apple has the top slot in reliability and customer satisfaction for laptops with 88% of MacBooks not having had a fault in their first 7 years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 16, 2022)

shadow said:


> Watching what iPhone photo quality I believe the low end is done. I really am starting to believe Apples iphones now and in future with AI photo software, instant cloud storage, 3 protected lenses you don't need to care about, learn to use, attach, detach, clean with special cloth, and all other esoteric factors will take over the low end completely. Especially since anybody even children with easy human interface software can use them with zero photography experience. The phone camera sensors and AI software will eventually be much smarter at taking photos than most adult humans if not already.
> 
> Whatever low end sales are left will be low volume niche users like myself that want faster lenses, convenience, inexpensive, light weight, small and understands FOV, F numbers, DOF, Bokeh, and all other limitations and photo nomenclature gibberish.
> 
> ...


Nice rant, thanks for sharing.

I’ve owned or used (work-provided) a few dozen Macs since my first one (a Macintosh SE with the optional ‘massive, never-to-be-filled’ 20 MB hard drive bought in 1987, and I always lol at that because one R3 CR3 file is bigger). I gave that Mac to the lab where I did my postdoc, and it was still in the lab running a spectrophotometer until at least 2004 (well after I left), happily acquiring data.

My 12 year old MacBook Pro (Mid-2010 17”) is still used daily by my son (it’s older than him). It was my main personal computer until 3 years ago. My wife’s 14 year old MacBook (Late 2008 13” Aluminum) still boots and runs, and it was her main computer until 2 years ago. Her 2004 12”PowerBook G4 still boots and runs, it’s the oldest computer in our house and I keep meaning to pull the HDD and recycle it.

I’ve only ever had one Mac fail, a 2019 16” MacBook Pro (work-provided) that had a bad RAM module and started glitching. That happened during the warranty period.

My experience on the PC side is more limited. Only one company I’ve worked for was PC-only (at first). I was there for 10 years, and in the first 7 years I went through 5 Windows laptops, mostly HP. Only one made it to the 3-year EOL policy replacement, the other 4 failed for various hardware reasons. Then they started a pilot program for Mac use, and I had that laptop for the 3 years until I left.

I’m definitely an Apple fan. I’m on my 5th iPhone, the first was a 3G in 2008 (but I didn’t wait in a line, and never have). My current is a 14 Pro, which I’ll keep for at least 3 years as I’ve done with all my others. None have stopped working, although I did drop one and break the back glass, a $30 fix at the Apple Store.

We have a 2003 iPod (15 GB, the first one with the dock connector), it’s connected to the TV soundbar/subwoofer system in our basement. Has our current music on it because those 12-14 year old still-functional MacBooks have the necessary FireWire ports. We have a bunch of other iPods as well (Shuffles, a Nano, a Mini and a Touch, many I received free as promotional gifts over the years), none of them failed while we were using them.

I also have a really old Apple TV (first or second generation, I think) that still works (for mirroring computers, at least). I did just buy 3 of the recently released 128 GB model, I have not gotten around to connecting them yet. The reason for that is that several of the streaming apps we use are no longer supported on our Samsung TVs, and connecting an Apple TV is a cheaper way to continue accessing that content, than replacing otherwise perfectly functional TVs. 

That speaks to the issue of software/OS obsolescence about which you are complaining, but it’s definitely not just an Apple problem as you imply. A five year old Mac can still run the current version of macOS, but my five year old Samsung TVs could never stream Disney+ or HBO-Max and now can no longer stream Hulu.

So basically, over a 35 year period I’ve had 60-70 Apple products, only one of which failed due to a hardware fault. That’s less than 2% failure rate.

Canon for me has a substantially worse track record. I bought my first Canon camera in 2009, a T1i/500D. Including that one, I’ve owned 4 DSLRs, 3 Ms, 2 Rs and 3 PowerShots. The lens extension mechanism on the PowerShot S100 broke (recycled the camera), the original M just died post-warranty (buying an M2 was only $20 more than Canon’s flat repair charge, so the M was recycled), and the PCB in my 1D X failed (a $200 repair). So for Canon, that’s a 25% failure rate. For bodies, that is…I’ve never had a lens fail, and I own/have owned a whole bunch of them so overall, the Canon hardware failure rate is probably about the same as Apple for me.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 16, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> EF16-435mm/4L


I need that lens! ;p


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 16, 2022)

melgross said:


> these companies have experimented over the decades, and it seems that the large majority of customers have said - FF


There has been a concentration on full-frame cameras but, at least this year, companies have been pushing crop sensors.
Z 30, Z FC, OM-1, GH-6, R10, R7, ZV-1F, FX30, X-H2, X-H2S, and XT5.


----------



## John Wilde (Nov 16, 2022)

The M50/KissM is Canon's best selling M, so it would make sense to replace it with a (with viewfinder) R50 at the same price point.


----------



## shadow (Nov 16, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice rant, thanks for sharing.
> 
> I’ve owned or used (work-provided) a few dozen Macs since my first one (a Macintosh SE with the optional ‘massive, never-to-be-filled’ 20 MB hard drive bought in 1987, and I always lol at that because one R3 CR3 file is bigger). I gave that Mac to the lab where I did my postdoc, and it was still in the lab running a spectrophotometer until at least 2004 (well after I left), happily acquiring data.
> 
> ...



As the saying goes YMMV. My old iPod like yours still operates with that tiny hard drive inside. I bought the iMac that failed for example in 3rd world, so not sure if better QC for 1st world. Many products fall apart, home appliances especially, Maytag and Sears concepts gone forever. Owning all 60-70 Apple's is quite an investment. The SE was built differently, hence why reliable right? Nothing in computer HW in PC's anymore is quality like in the 80-90's. I didnt mention my multitude of PC's since 80's but not one HDD failure until 2000's. Daily 10 hrs per day use too. Had (2) 6 year old laptops fail in 2017 also, Toshiba and Dell, HDD's still worked so I yanked out and tossed the laptops.

But the past 20 years are different across the board. Smaller components, SOC's, more ribbon cables (Do you watch Louis Rossmanns Apple repair YT channel?)

I still believe Japanese and S Korea QC products QC dedication you can trust more than other SE Asia mfg. Look at how Hyundai and Kia have increased acceptance and market share. The design of Apple products to look nice is great. Software too, no disagreement. But latest BLE issue is really bad news imho.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 16, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I need that lens! ;p


The EF16-35/4 is my workhorse above and below water and hasn't let me down in many years of tough working conditions. When it dies, it will be a difficult decision whether to get the RF14-35/4 or just replace it.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 16, 2022)

shadow said:


> But fortunately the good news is unlike computer industry products, my 16 year old Canon powershot camera, Canon 20D, Canon lenses, and the rest still work fine and never had issues other than battery failures. But it remains to be seen if the latest camera body products might not survive as long, if they decide to cut corners for profit pressure and *move away from their past emphasis on excellent Japanese quality.*


Quality stereotypes for different countries is an interesting one. "Jap crap" was the initial poor quality coming out post WWII until kaizen/JIT convinced the world that they knew what they were talking about. The German car manufacturing had to catch up back in the 80s and 90s. Korea was then the next cheap source and now quality has caught up. China is the current one but due to the size/breadth of their manufacturing capability, there is still cheap stuff but quality is catching up. 

If you want to bring up "sweat shops" then the rag trade is the poster industry moving recently from Vietnam to Bangladesh for instance in the hunt for the cheapest labour. Massive profits for plain white T-shirts for instance.

Africa is the last untapped labour pool and their baby-making rates are still high compared to the rest of the world. Future migration and its tax paying workforce will help support us during our doddering years.

In hindsight, the endless search for low labour costs does mean foreign investment and training for local people. They may be exploited if you compare to western health and safety legislation but it can bring long term economic benefits.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 16, 2022)

shadow said:


> "It just works" = 5 years, lol.
> 
> Sweat shops are always profitable with high margins from slave labor building their products that are designed to be replaced every 5 years has been quite a good business. The cult followers help also, some people are so monagamous to their product line, yet FOMO on the latest model religious fervor cause them to replace every other year. They gather smiling as they are waiting with Visa card in hand in the changing September weather overnight for 2 days in a line outside to buy the latest phone. If you look from a distance, it is hilarious.


Clearly YMMV but my (and my family's) experience with Apple's products has been stellar and simple things like airdrop just make non-iPhone users feel a bit useless. I don't want to be the system admin and I don't need to have experience with Linux to keep them running as an ecosystem.

My previous MBP was 7 years old before I put down a substantial chunk of cash for a new one. The old one didn't fail (except for an external power supply) but the R5's files for still/video were just too big for it to manage. Just one data point but it is clear that most Apple users are an avid bunch in general. I have the same positive experience with Lexus and am happy to buy their premium models. What company wouldn't want positive promoters even if they have a misstep eg the butterfly keyboard.

My experience with Windows based PCs is a very different story as I use them for work. 3-4 years max and have regular problems. I have a new Dell and the power cable flexes the motherboard and locks it up for a hard reboot. Yes, different price bracket but it is my personal experience. My 12pro max will easily last a 3rd year and save me AUD1k in the process by not upgrading. 

Your language indicates quite an anti-Apple zeal... and perhaps it is equally negative as the people you describe with religious fervour on the other side.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 16, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The EF16-35/4 is my workhorse above and below water and hasn't let me down in many years of tough working conditions. When it dies, it will be a difficult decision whether to get the RF14-35/4 or just replace it.


I was teasing about the typo


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 16, 2022)

scyrene said:


> I was teasing about the typo


Fixed! can you imagine the size of such a beast?


----------



## shadow (Nov 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You have had a couple of mails about Apple computers having a 5-year lifetime. Your experience on Apple products doesn't match mine over 35 years. Never had an iPhone, MacBook, desktop etc fail. It is reported, for example, by our UK consumers association Which that Apple has the top slot in reliability and customer satisfaction for laptops with 88% of MacBooks not having had a fault in their first 7 years.
> 
> View attachment 206425


The Steve Jobs marketing genius and PR machine still lives. Glad you and others are happy paying $1000+ for a cell phone that spies on you, stock holders have been quite happy too and all that extra free cash parked and buy backs. 

When in the future they build EV's like Tesla, they too will have more devoted followers. Apple customers are like a religious cult, it would be blasphemous to criticize them in public. I would risk getting stoned to death if I were to drive by and laugh as they stand in line in the store front to buy the latest thing.


----------



## Longtermer (Nov 17, 2022)

shadow said:


> The Steve Jobs marketing genius and PR machine still lives. Glad you and others are happy paying $1000+ for a cell phone that spies on you, stock holders have been quite happy too and all that extra free cash parked and buy backs.
> 
> When in the future they build EV's like Tesla, they too will have more devoted followers. Apple customers are like a religious cult, it would be blasphemous to criticize them in public. I would risk getting stoned to death if I were to drive by and laugh as they stand in line in the store front to buy the latest thing.


If the choice is between the Apple iphone ecosystem and most Android set-ups, I know where I would feel most secure. You're entitled to think the opposite (obviously), but your fervour and hyperbole don't seem to be indicative of an evidence-based thought process.


----------



## shadow (Nov 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Your language indicates quite an anti-Apple zeal... and perhaps it is equally negative as the people you describe with religious fervour on the other side



Soapbox time sorry. I have, like many others been a customer and watched in amazement the acceptance of the erosion of privacy in the computer- tech- internet- info-youaretheptoduct industry devolve since 1982. Its not just Apple, but they are the worst. There is a movement to get away from it, Futo.org has a billionaire funding developers to bring us back to normalcy like 80's when your data is your data, not snooped on with Aurora store, F-droid, Micro-G projects in the De-googled world. I posted a video above from Braxman, who has developed SW since 70's and also promotes education in avoiding Behemoth tech.


----------



## shadow (Nov 17, 2022)

Longtermer said:


> but your fervour and hyperbole don't seem to be indicative of an evidence-based thought process.


You need to educate yourself before making such conclusions that what I state is some hyperbole. Read up on in BLE, Airtags, wifi scanning, Amazon sidewalk, mesh networks, Prism, Palintir, Jigsaw, etc etc.. YT channels like Futo.org, Rossmann, Braxman are places to start it is a very deep and intrusive system being used. MS 10 telemetry in Cortana and Edge keylogging too. 

The "passports" for "contact tracing" nonsense on Apple phones were simply pushed to everyone's phones in a security update in 2020, no choice to opt out. Also the Apple csam outbound scanning every device. Highly intrusive. This isn't new either, its been drip fed for years. Plenty of subject matter to study above then if you want to continue the debate, start another thread.


----------



## vignes (Nov 17, 2022)

Skyscraperfan said:


> If Canon does not really put much effort into RF-S lenses, they should allow third party manufacturers to produce those. That would be a nice start. The problem would be of course that those lenses also work on full frame. So they would have to have sure that Tamron and Sigma do not provide a full frame image circle on their RF-S glass.


Agree, Canon should allow Tamron and SIgma to make native RF-S lens. That'll close the lens gaps. Tamron and Sigma has crop sensor lenses for X, E, L and Z mounts. They'll re-use them. Canon could restrict lenses for FF image circle i.e. RF lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Clearly YMMV but my (and my family's) experience with Apple's products has been stellar and simple things like airdrop just make non-iPhone users feel a bit useless. I don't want to be the system admin and I don't need to have experience with Linux to keep them running as an ecosystem.


+1

I offer my new employees a choice of a Mac or Windows laptop, most choose Macs but a few choose Windows. I have an IT provider that manages them. At home we’re all Apple, and there’s no real management needed. 

AirDrop is great, the new Universal Control and Continuity are awesome. I love that I can drag-and-drop files from one computer to another, or copy some text on my phone and paste it on my Mac. 

I’ll see how the new Lenovo PCs hold up. Spec wise and cost wise, they’re very close to the equivalent Mac (if Apppe had stuck with Intel chips). They’ve got fingerprint sensors for logging in, too (I have no idea who started that). But Apple now has a fingerprint sensor on the external keyboard, which is great for clamshell use with an external display. Of course, being fully Apole-ized is better still – I wake up and put on my Apple Watch, then unlocking my iPhone with my face unlocks the watch. Then the watch logs me in to my Macs for the whole day, lid open or closed. So yes, It Just Works.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2022)

shadow said:


> You need to educate yourself before making such conclusions that what I state is some hyperbole. Read up on in BLE, Airtags, wifi scanning, Amazon sidewalk, mesh networks, Prism, Palintir, Jigsaw, etc etc..


Subscribe to a print newspaper. Communicate only face-to-face in an empty meadow, or by letters handwritten or typed on a mechanical typewriter and preferably delivered by hand or bonded courier. Eschew all technology. 




Or just learn to live with the fact that true privacy no longer exists.


----------



## JohnC (Nov 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> +1
> 
> I offer my new employees a choice of a Mac or Windows laptop, most choose Macs but a few choose Windows. I have an IT provider that manages them. At home we’re all Apple, and there’s no real management needed.
> 
> ...


I’ve used Lenovo for years, they have a good product. When it comes to laptops it’s my go to. For desktops I build my own, and haven’t had one go down since sometime in the 2005 range. The quality of the components matter, and the big name builders (Dell, etc) are more concerned with keeping cost down and increasing margin.


----------



## dcm (Nov 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> +1
> 
> I offer my new employees a choice of a Mac or Windows laptop, most choose Macs but a few choose Windows. I have an IT provider that manages them. At home we’re all Apple, and there’s no real management needed.
> 
> ...


Continuing this off-topic discussion ...

Similar story. I permanently moved to Apple in 1992 (PowerBook), then iPhone, iPad, Mac Mini, etc. at home - all while I worked for HP in software R&D for 37 years. Macs/iOS at home, Unix/PCs/Windows at work. I'm fluent in all three since the mid 1980s. At one point while working in Corporate Strategy / CTO organization, I penned a thought document about how the next HP machine I purchased would run MacOS.  It was never really about the hardware for me, it was about the software and ecosystem. All the things people warned that I wouldn't be able to do never mattered. And the things that I did worked much better and were well integrated. It. Just. Works.

As my extended family purchased PCs during that time, I became their "go to" technical support person, even long distance. I got tired of wasting my time on cheap hardware and Windows that regularly failed. I upgraded the immediate family, parents, and in laws to Apple and Macs. If they asked me what to buy, I told them Apple. Others followed suit. I don't think we've ever had an Apple device fail in all that time. Only support calls I get now are from my 91yo mother in law that never used a device until her husband passed away a few years ago. Its never the hardware or software and my wife can take care of most of her questions. The time savings alone over all these years easily made it worth the cost.

Macs are just as popular as Windows or Linux in the academic environment (university Computer Science department) I'm in now.


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> […]
> 
> AirDrop is great, the new Universal Control and Continuity are awesome. I love that I can drag-and-drop files from one computer to another, or copy some text on my phone and paste it on my Mac. […]


Copy/paste also works for photos, that saves you an airdrop or icloud roundtrip.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Copy/paste also works for photos, that saves you an airdrop or icloud roundtrip.


Not just photos. I can copy/paste slide(s) in Keynote from one Mac to another. Sadly, though, MS365 isn’t on board so a PowerPoint slide copied on one Mac pastes as an image in PowerPoint on the other.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> I offer my new employees a choice of a Mac or Windows laptop, most choose Macs but a few choose Windows. I have an IT provider that manages them. At home we’re all Apple, and there’s no real management needed.


I could have got a Macbook for work but there are too many legacy systems that IT won't support on MacOS. We are moving non-core systems to public cloud as soon as possible but a USD170B revenue/200k employee company does take some time!


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 17, 2022)

shadow said:


> Soapbox time sorry. I have, like many others been a customer and watched in amazement the acceptance of the erosion of privacy in the computer- tech- internet- info-youaretheptoduct industry devolve since 1982. Its not just Apple, but they are the worst. There is a movement to get away from it, Futo.org has a billionaire funding developers to bring us back to normalcy like 80's when your data is your data, not snooped on with Aurora store, F-droid, Micro-G projects *in the De-googled world*. I posted a video above from Braxman, who has developed SW since 70's and also promotes education in avoiding Behemoth tech.


If you really want a de-googled world, visit mainland China. Been banned there for a long time. Traveling there shows how much data can be collected and used.

Privacy is dead. Regulation hasn't caught up and companies aren't spending the money on cyber security like they should.

2 major companies in Australia just got hacked badly... 
- Optus (Singtel owned) #2 telco => included ancient account information and unfortunately 100 points of personal identification including driver's license and passport information. They are paying the government to replace those documents. Regulation made it worse by insisting on telco's keeping ID information!

- Medibank Private which is a major healthcare insurance company => exfiltrated personal health information from abortion data to mental health. The hackers are drip feeding the data to try and get a ransom which has been refused. Big wakeup call for everyone.

Apple gets a some applause when they gave Facebook the finger costing them USD10b/year by their Apple's App Tracking Transparency change. Everything can be hacked but the decision years ago that Apple wouldn't build a backdoor to unlock an iPhone showed substantial backbone.

I would rather pay for FB each year and have no ads or tracking/data collection but it isn't an option. Users should have a choice of sharing their data for a price or paying for some privacy.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 17, 2022)

shadow said:


> The Steve Jobs marketing genius and PR machine still lives. Glad you and others are happy paying $1000+ for a cell phone that spies on you, stock holders have been quite happy too and all that extra free cash parked and buy backs.
> 
> When in the future they build EV's like Tesla, they too will have more devoted followers. Apple customers are like a religious cult, it would be blasphemous to criticize them in public. I would risk getting stoned to death if I were to drive by and laugh as they stand in line in the store front to buy the latest thing.


You are the one acting like a member of a cult. You claimed a couple of times that Apple laptops have a life of only 5 years, and when confronted by figures from an independent consumers association that 88% are fault-free after 7 years you go off on a rant about something else.


----------



## shadow (Nov 17, 2022)

.


----------



## shadow (Nov 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Users should have a choice of sharing their data for a price or paying for some privacy.


Absolutely. It's crazy world, I find the intrusion to be quite nefarious. It isn't ad serving that is a threat, but rather data location tracking, snooping unnecessarily that is awful.


----------



## shadow (Nov 17, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You are the one acting like a member of a cult. You claimed a couple of times that Apple laptops have a life of only 5 years, and when confronted by figures from an independent consumers association that 88% are fault-free after 7 years you go off on a rant about something else.



Fringe, not cult. 5, 7 , 10 years... does it matter? Built in obsolescence as a business is what keeps consumerism and buy, buy, buy rolling along. I don't belong to any organizations. Apple has done a fantastic job of b.s.ing the world.


----------



## Kit. (Nov 17, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> They’ve got fingerprint sensors for logging in, too (I have no idea who started that).


Technically, I did (as a part of the team at Identicator Technology, then Identix), for Windows NT 4.0, around 25 years ago.


----------



## EOS 4 Life (Nov 17, 2022)

vignes said:


> Tamron and Sigma has crop sensor lenses for X, E, L and Z mounts. They'll re-use them.


They surely have not brought many of those lenses to the EF-M mount.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> I could have got a Macbook for work but there are too many legacy systems that IT won't support on MacOS. We are moving non-core systems to public cloud as soon as possible but a USD170B revenue/200k employee company does take some time!


Yes, small companies are good that way. Most of the lab instrumentation runs on Windows boxes. However, many newer small instruments are shipping with an iPad for control/output. 




On the software side, almost everything runs on MacOS or is browser-based. The only significant exception is Spotfire (data analysis/visualization software), and for that our IT provider stood up a Windows server that Mac users access via Remote Desktop.


----------



## Michael Clark (Nov 17, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> The question for us (as Canon should already know) is whether there is a significant demand for pro APS-C bodies.
> The last was 7Dii then Canon brought out M6ii/90D and now R7.
> 
> Would Canon sell more R7 if it was priced higher than R6ii with better weather sealing?
> What is missing from the R7 from your perspective? Given 15fps mechanical/30fps, dual slots and pixel density... it seems to fit the "reach" requirement and at a significant discount to the R6ii



For me and my old, worn out right shoulder the lack of vertical controls is the killer. There's no provision for being able to add a grip with duplicate vertical controls.


----------



## Jethro (Nov 19, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> Apple gets a some applause when they gave Facebook the finger costing them USD10b/year by their Apple's App Tracking Transparency change. Everything can be hacked but the decision years ago that Apple wouldn't build a backdoor to unlock an iPhone showed substantial backbone.


+1 These are recent examples of why I have _relative_ confidence in Apple products. I mean, they make certain compromises to be allowed to sell (eg) on the Chinese mainland, but when I compare them to pretty much any other manufacturer, I still see actual advantages.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 19, 2022)

shadow said:


> https://www.wired.com/story/iphone-find-my-malware-attack-vulnerability/
> 
> BLE
> 
> ...





shadow said:


> If you have never had the pleasure of working with low bidder, outsourced software programmers yet, hire one and see. The amount of serious bugs even OS's amaze me, MS windows 10 ruined one SD card full of photos. Some boneheads coding not disallowing cpu interrupts to occur during disk i/o is like basic common sense. I had the stupid windows update start suddenly (never requested permission) start install as a higher priority task without completing and finishing the multi file transfer. Really is a serious design flaw, and crazy that some senior managers didn't QC this.


Oh dear! Isn't there a computer rant group you could join?


----------



## shadow (Nov 19, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Oh dear! Isn't there a computer rant group you could join?


Every forum has at least one mother hen who feels seniority to bash newcomers, so I guess that's you. If you are a moderator, just request my account be deleted. The Apple off topic was commented on by several others, so I guess it's just me who you wish to berate. Par for the course. I have other posts, many of which have received likes and replies. My apologies if I wasted 30 seconds of your precious time.


----------



## shadow (Nov 19, 2022)

AlanF said:


> You have had a couple of mails about Apple computers having a 5-year lifetime. Your experience on Apple products doesn't match mine over 35 years. Never had an iPhone, MacBook, desktop etc fail. It is reported, for example, by our UK consumers association Which that Apple has the top slot in reliability and customer satisfaction for laptops with 88% of MacBooks not having had a fault in their first 7 years.
> 
> View attachment 206425


off topic post ? Yet it's liked by the Apple fans. Pundits I guess need to be censored?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 19, 2022)

shadow said:


> Pundits I guess need to be censored?


You have a high opinion of yourself, yet you don’t seem to know what ‘censored’ means.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 19, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> Yo!
> 
> And you - on purpose - misread my posts. Please read again - carefully.
> 
> ...


Here's what you wrote in your first post:

A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me. 
How else should Canon gain new customers?
*(except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)*

If I have misunderstood or misread the sentence in bold, please forgive me*. *It seems to say that you believe that the entry-level, Rebel level camera market segment is "absolutely dead". And that Canon should have researched this. So, no, I did not - on purpose - misread your post. I have read it carefully. If I misread your post it was unintentional.


----------



## Czardoom (Nov 19, 2022)

Longtermer said:


> Canon uses patents the same as most other large companies - ie to protect the IP which gives rise to their profits. Competitors can (and a number do) design lenses that attach to the RF mount - they just can't (from the little that has been made public) use Canon software to add extra functionality. So those lenses are largely 'manual'. But they can still be 'attached' to RF mount bodies.
> 
> To be clear, I wish Canon would come to some sort of licensing agreement with 3rd party producers - it would mean more lenses to choose from. But let's not completely mischaracterise the situation.


I would imagine - though obviously don't know - that Canon will at some point in the future, negotiate license agreements with at least Sigma and Tamron. I don't believe I have seen any comments or quotes from Canon that rules out this possibility. I know this is the internet where everyone has to have answers today, and needs to know today, and assumes that today's answer will be the answer for all time, but the 3rd party hysteria, like most internet topics, has been blown way out of proportion. Nikon just recently negotiated a license agreement with Tamron and are rumored to be in similar negotiations with Sigma (if those rumors are true), so it seems quite likely that at some point, Canon will do the same. Time will tell and I can wait.


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 20, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> Here's what you wrote in your first post:
> 
> A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
> How else should Canon gain new customers?
> ...


Apology accepted. Let me try to put it right:

To me, my first post was clear:


> A low price, entry market Rebel/Kiss/Rx000 seems to be a no-brainer to me.
> How else should Canon gain new customers?


This meant: "no-brainer" = absolutely clear to be needed, bring that camera on.


> (except for the fact, that this market segment is absolutely dead and shifted over to cells. But this is something Canon should have researched)


This meant: 
Except for the fact, that I have absolutely no idea any more, how much the photography market might have/has changed.
And somehow I have a little fear that it could have, but let's hope it didn't.
But Canon already should and does surely know much better than me (because I cannot do market researches as Canon can do), and they will bring such an entry market body, if there is a big enough market segment. 

So if I understand you right, both of us think/feel/maybe know, that there is a need for an entry market body to get new/keep customers.
I just added some pessimistic thought that it could be worse than I/you think.

Did I come to the right conclusion?


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 20, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> [...]
> Except for the fact, that I have absolutely no idea any more, how much the photography market might have/has changed.
> And somehow I have a little fear that it could have, but let's hope it didn't.
> But Canon already should and does surely know much better than me (because I cannot do market researches as Canon can do), and they will bring such an entry market body, if there is a big enough market segment.
> [...]


I'm very curious about how the spectrum has changed over the years. When I bought my first camera, an IXUS 400, in 2003 there was generally speaking a progression:

No camera
Disposable cameras
Point & shoot
APS-C film cameras
135 film cameras
The very first digital SLRs
Medium format cameras
A few years later, with, what in the US was called 'rebel', cameras being introduced:

No camera
point & shoot
'rebel' camers
135 film cameras
Digital SLRs
Medium format
Nowadays phones seem to have taken over the 'no camera' and 'p&s' group and I bet a lot of the 'rebel' as well. What I'd really like to know is what people who want an ILC right now are thinking when they go shopping. How do they decide between SLRs and mirrorless? Price? Size/weight? The amount of kickbacks the salesperson gets? @neuroanatomist is fond of showing how strong SLR sales keep being, so there's something that keeps people buying them over things like the M series.

I know my father will buy the Olympus OM system body that's on sale or comes with free garbage he thinks he'll use. Arguments like "that's the exact same frame for both bodies, but this one has an accelerometer to automatically rotate your pictures, the other doesn't, for €30 more" fall on deaf ears. But lenses get researched very heavily  The rest of the extended family is pretty much phone-only nowadays. Same for the neighbours, except for the vintage lens collector, but he has 2 kids under 5 now, so not much time for hobbies. The friends circle 'suffers' from the same small kids situation and use mostly their phones, but few of them bought a 'rebel' for their honeymoon and sporadically use it. My former coworkers in the concert industry like action cams, since you can strap them on and use them handsfree. Showing scale and rigging details is much easier on video.

Does anyone here have direct contact with people who are planning to buy their first ILC? What are their reasons for landing on an ILC instead of a bridge camera or phone. And what do they think the deciding factors will be for picking the brand/model/kit?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 20, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> ...
> Nowadays phones seem to have taken over the 'no camera' and 'p&s' group and I bet a lot of the 'rebel' as well. What I'd really like to know is what people who want an ILC right now are thinking when they go shopping. How do they decide between SLRs and mirrorless? Price? Size/weight?
> ...
> Does anyone here have direct contact with people who are planning to buy their first ILC? What are their reasons for landing on an ILC instead of a bridge camera or phone. And what do they think the deciding factors will be for picking the brand/model/kit?


First of all, this might be an interesting topic for a dedicated thread.

I cannot tell much about today's general shopping behaviour, but my personal experience throughout the last decade with friends and relatives is that they first use they first try to get along with the cell, and if they are not satisfied they continue with an ILC system with double zoom kit, no matter what brand. 
Even younger people that have not a classical (film days) background. 
When I then got into contact with them, I heard that either the kit is too big or the performance is not good enough. 
As soon as I showed them the advantages of a dedicated portrait lens with big aperture for low DOF they understood the reason for an ILC system.
Then they either bought such a prime (good if Canon, as the 50STM on APS-C is quite cheap) or they thought about a or super-zoom bridge p&s camera.

So my conclusion: 
A lot of people buy ILC systems (double zoom kits), just because they think it is "the best you can get" or because they were "persuaded" by the salespeople. 
Few have an understanding of photo technique and decide upon knowledge or good counselling. Those decide different then.
As soon as I get into the decision process before buying, I try to share my advice and lead them to the best direction for them (not necessarily Canon  ).


----------



## AntonR (Nov 20, 2022)

Uneternal said:


> The entry segment isn't dead at all. Canon actually makes the most profit there. There's still lots of people who want to upgrade from phone quality and look for something in the sub $1000 range. If you watched any of Canon's video ads for R10 and R7 you'd have seen they're aiming for exactly that kind of customer (notice the age of people, general style and the music). They even did comparison pictures with phones.


As someone whose first DSLR camera was Canon 250D, and now using RP, this segment was definitely the way for me to enter the ecosystem.


----------



## David - Sydney (Nov 20, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> Nowadays phones seem to have taken over the 'no camera' and 'p&s' group and I bet a lot of the 'rebel' as well. What I'd really like to know is what people who want an ILC right now are thinking when they go shopping. How do they decide between SLRs and mirrorless? Price? Size/weight? The amount of kickbacks the salesperson gets? neuroanatomist[ is fond of showing how strong SLR sales keep being, so there's something that keeps people buying them over things like the M series.


Rebel/Kiss/Dxxx/Dxxx are still cheaper and are more flexible in focal length than phone cameras. Mirrorless are currently more expensive than low end DLSRs which seems counterintuitive as there is no pentaprism/mirror assembly/phase detect sensor and are smaller.

Black Friday pricing may apply at the moment....
USD300 Rebel T100 + 18-55mm
USD430 Rebel T7 + 18-55mm
USD450 M100 + 15-45mm
USD550 T7 + 18-55mm + 75-300mm

USD450 Iphone SE/128gb or Pixel 6a or Galaxy A53. Can have multiple cameras but quality isn't great. A new iPhone 14 starts from USD800.

DLSRs are are more ergonomic and can trigger flashes. You may think why would lighting setups that cost as much as the camera (or more) be used.... well the staged wedding/portrait/cruise ship etc industry needs lights but don't need the fancy high ISO/resolution/eye-AF to make money and ultimately making money is the most important aspect of their business. The massive sales of ring lights during covid (11% CAGR 2016-2020 and 14% CAGR 2021-2031) and for insta/vlogging etc shows this trend.

Clearly phones are better in some ways: always on you, filters/LR/PS in-device, publishing and computational photography. Some people may not like the term "computational" but automatic HDR, low light, portrait, panorama stitching, etc is impressive.

There is definitely still a market for those who say "I want a better camera than my phone for a holiday", buy a low end ILC, find that the shots are not better than their phone and can't take selfies hence consigning the camera to a shelf gathering dust.


----------



## victorshikhman (Nov 21, 2022)

Without reading 8 pages of posts, and what looks like a number of personal altercations I have no wish to get involved in, and hope ended amicably...

I REALLY want a small, affordable P&S experience. Something actually pocketable, with IBIS, premium controls for full manual when you want it, and good handling, with a fixed (but excellent!) lens, and an APS-C sensor optimized for low light. Something designed from the ground up to be a versatile, capable family/travel/street camera, that's not trying to push me into full frame world, but just executes well where it is. Something you can actually grab and throw in a backpack or pocket without babying it. Something like the Fuji X100V, or GRIIIx... but cheaper? Even up to $1k is OK, if it's done well.

I know this is not that camera. This camera is probably (maybe I'm wrong) designed to be a crippled, entry-level rebel that can hit the Costco or BestBuy price target, keep the M50 demographic, and move some kit lenses. That's fine. 

Part of me thinks, if Canon thought there was a market for a camera like the one I want, they would update the G1Xiii, even though that's not exactly what I'm looking for (but it would probably work). And, they haven't, so... Even though Fuji can't seem to keep the X100V in stock, and used copies are going for more than retail. And Ricoh... seems overpriced and plasticky (but maybe if I used it I would love it). Oh, Canon, why can't you be all things to all people.


----------



## shadow (Nov 21, 2022)

victorshikhman said:


> Without reading 8 pages of posts, and what looks like a number of personal altercations I have no wish to get involved in, and hope ended amicably...
> 
> I REALLY want a small, affordable P&S experience. Something actually pocketable, with IBIS, premium controls for full manual when you want it, and good handling, with a fixed (but excellent!) lens, and an APS-C sensor optimized for low light. Something designed from the ground up to be a versatile, capable family/travel/street camera, that's not trying to push me into full frame world, but just executes well where it is. Something you can actually grab and throw in a backpack or pocket without babying it. Something like the Fuji X100V, or GRIIIx... but cheaper? Even up to $1k is OK, if it's done well.
> 
> ...



Have you looked at the RX100? 


https://www.sony.com/lr/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m7#product_details_default


----------



## victorshikhman (Nov 21, 2022)

shadow said:


> Have you looked at the RX100?
> 
> 
> https://www.sony.com/lr/electronics/cyber-shot-compact-cameras/dsc-rx100m7#product_details_default


Ya know what... I haven't. And I should. I always kind of dismissed it as a really expensive choice, and the ergonomics seemed bare. But the VII is already 3 years old... maybe I can look for a used copy and play with it.


----------



## melgross (Nov 21, 2022)

AlanF said:


> It might not make sense to you to use an APS-C but it does to enough others for Canon to judge it a worthwhile market. Also, you don't make special telephoto lenses of 400mm or greater for an APS-C because the lenses for FF and APS-C are basically the same for those lengths as it's the front optics that determine the focal length and aperture, and they have a natural image circle that is larger than for even FF.
> 
> As someone who has both a R5 and R7, I can tell you the £2000 combination of an R7 and RF 100-400mm weighing just over 1 kg has very close IQ and reach to a £7000 combo of an R5 and RF 100-500mm coming in at over 2 kg. And you certainly do get more reach using an APS-C with a pixel-dense sensor than cropping. Cropping doesn't increase reach, it just narrows the field of view. If I'm doing BIF, I grab my R5 and RF 100-500mm (or even my RF 100-400mm). If I want the most reach, I grab my R7 and the RF 800mm. I'm beginning to see the R7+RF 100-400mm on my birding trips, and I'll lay odds that it will become the standard gear for enthusiasts.


I never said that it doesn’t make sense to use them. I’m saying that the market has spoken. If there was a lot of demand for true pro APS-C bodies and lenses, manufacturers would supply that market. There isn’t, and so they don’t. That doesn’t mean that nobody would want it, just not enough in this massively shrunken market for them to want to spend the large sums for the R&D and production costs, along with service and parts.

if you have a 45mp camera in FI, and a 32mp camera in APS-C, and you crop the FF to what you have in APS-C, you have more reach. Mostly, it’s a similar result. Exactly the same? No.

and you’re talking about enthusiasts, I was talking about pros, as that was the question that we were discussing. Enthusiasts and prosumers, pretty much the same thing.


----------



## melgross (Nov 21, 2022)

David - Sydney said:


> For me, a cheap FF body (RP replacement) would be ideal. I don't want an APS-C body as it would mean carrying additional wide angle lenses
> 
> "reach" is pixels-on-duck. Crop on R5 is ~17mp ie about the same as 7D vs 32mp with 90D/M6ii/R7.
> Reach also means that telephoto lenses are cheaper... you can use a 70-200mm/2.8 instead of a 300/2.8. RF100-400 instead of RF100-500 or the big whites.
> ...


Again, we were talking about Pro bodies and lenses. As I mentioned, the M series has been very successful, despite being just the opposite, which shows that many (most?) people wanting APS-C want inexpensive, small and light bodies and lenses. They care less about something approaching FF. But, when I say this, some people here seem to think I’m saying that nobody wants more Pro level APS-C, and I’m not saying that. I’m just saying that not enough want that for companies to produce them.


----------



## melgross (Nov 21, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> Apology accepted. Let me try to put it right:
> 
> To me, my first post was clear:
> 
> ...


I don’t understand what you’ve been saying. 

One; Canon MUST come out with the bodies you mentioned

Two; that market is dead.

So, which is it?


----------



## Maximilian (Nov 21, 2022)

melgross said:


> I don’t understand what you’ve been saying.
> 
> One; Canon MUST come out with the bodies you mentioned
> 
> ...


It seems that I think and argue too complicatedly. 
Sorry, if so.

ONE: Canon for sure SHOULD come out with an entry level R body
TWO: Except in the case that there is no longer any entry market (which I do not know).
THREE: Canon surely knows better than me and will decide, if ONE or TWO is right

Have I made myself clear now?


----------



## AlanF (Nov 21, 2022)

melgross said:


> I never said that it doesn’t make sense to use them.


This is what you wrote:


melgross said:


> The excuse that you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. Just crop your image.



Seems to me you said "sense".



melgross said:


> if you have a 45mp camera in FI, and a 32mp camera in APS-C, and you crop the FF to what you have in APS-C, you have more reach. Mostly, it’s a similar result. Exactly the same? No.


If you crop a 45mm FF image to APS-C, you get 17.6 MPx, which is less than 32 Mpx of the APS-C. If you want the math behind it, the Nyquist equation gives a maximum resolution of 1/(2x0.00439) lp/mm = 114 lp/mm for the 45 Mpx FF and a maximum resolution of 1/(2x0.0032) lp/mm = 156 lp/mm, which is 37% more for the APS-C.

On the other hand, an 82 Mpx FF sensor has exactly the same reach as a 32 Mpx APS-C, both having 3.2µ pixels.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 21, 2022)

melgross said:


> if you have a 45mp camera in FI, and a 32mp camera in APS-C, and you crop the FF to what you have in APS-C, you have more reach. Mostly, it’s a similar result. Exactly the same? No.


Reach in this context is really about 'pixels on duck'. The 32 MP APS-C camera will put more pixels on the duck than the 45 MP FF camera, using the same lens.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 21, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Reach in this context is really about 'pixels on duck'. The 32 MP APS-C camera will put more pixels on the duck than the 45 MP FF camera, using the same lens.


Exactly - 88% more pixels.


----------



## osakawayne (Nov 22, 2022)

victorshikhman said:


> Without reading 8 pages of posts, and what looks like a number of personal altercations I have no wish to get involved in, and hope ended amicably...
> 
> I REALLY want a small, affordable P&S experience. Something actually pocketable, with IBIS, premium controls for full manual when you want it, and good handling, with a fixed (but excellent!) lens, and an APS-C sensor optimized for low light. Something designed from the ground up to be a versatile, capable family/travel/street camera, that's not trying to push me into full frame world, but just executes well where it is. Something you can actually grab and throw in a backpack or pocket without babying it. Something like the Fuji X100V, or GRIIIx... but cheaper? Even up to $1k is OK, if it's done well.
> 
> ...


I own a GRIIIX, and let me just say, it's been a great camera. Magnesium alloy body, so not plasticky at all, extremely compact, able to switch to a sort of 'macro mode', and the 40mm equivalent is great for me, it has really been great to just always have it with me, and I've taken it on certain trips and outings where it would seem very silly to take my EOS R6. 
Downsides would be that the sensor is a little older, so can get noisy at higher ISO, I am also spoiled by having an R6 to compare with. Color is not Canon color, and menus is tough to deal with after you've used Canon menus, which I'm very comfortable with.
If canon finally releases an M50 or M6mkII body for RF, I'm willing to sacrifice they extreme compactness of the Ricoh, for the ability to change lenses on occasion, and a little more bulk, but a newer sensor (hopefully) and the canon controls and menu familiarity.
But all that being said, the GRIIIX is not a bad camera in the slightest, best non-Canon camera I've owned.


----------



## melgross (Nov 22, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> It seems that I think and argue too complicatedly.
> Sorry, if so.
> 
> ONE: Canon for sure SHOULD come out with an entry level R body
> ...


I think that if the market was there in sufficient numbers, they would be produced. Nothing to say about that, as that’s just the way it works.


----------



## melgross (Nov 22, 2022)

AlanF said:


> This is what you wrote:
> 
> 
> Seems to me you said "sense".
> ...


Ok, I was t clear there. What I meant was cropping to the same resolution, not the same sensor size. So crop 45 to 32. As I said, similar, it not the same.


----------



## AlanF (Nov 22, 2022)

melgross said:


> Ok, I was t clear there. What I meant was cropping to the same resolution, not the same sensor size. So crop 45 to 32. As I said, similar, it not the same.


As @neuroanatomist put it: if with the same lens you crop a 45 Mpx sensor to 32 Mpx, you put far fewer pixels per duck than a 32 Mpx APS-C does - the APS-C puts 88% more pixels on it.


----------



## citytrader (Nov 27, 2022)

I just bought a M6mkII and I'm buying M lenses, I don't care if Canon discontinued it, I have the budget to buy any R Camera with the lens I could need, but I like the size of lens and camera of M system for what I need ( I don't do video)
Canon did a stupid decision to discontinue the M system, something that for people like me, this system fill our needs.
(I sold my old 5dmk4)


----------



## koenkooi (Nov 27, 2022)

citytrader said:


> [...] Canon did a stupid decision to discontinue the M system, something that for people like me, this system fill our needs.[...]


Canon has not discontinued the M system yet, just most of the cameras. We'll see if that's a distinction without a difference in a few months...


----------



## photographer (Nov 27, 2022)

citytrader said:


> I just bought a M6mkII and I'm buying M lenses, I don't care if Canon discontinued it, I have the budget to buy any R Camera with the lens I could need, but I like the size of lens and camera of M system for what I need ( I don't do video)
> Canon did a stupid decision to discontinue the M system, something that for people like me, this system fill our needs.
> (I sold my old 5dmk4)


For travel, I prefer the M system, but it is true that some RF-S lenses are not very large. Compare, for example, CANON EF-M 15-45 and CANON RF-S 18-45.


----------



## melgross (Dec 1, 2022)

AlanF said:


> As @neuroanatomist put it: if with the same lens you crop a 45 Mpx sensor to 32 Mpx, you put far fewer pixels per duck than a 32 Mpx APS-C does - the APS-C puts 88% more pixels on it.


That majes no sense. 32mp is 32mp no matter how you achieve it.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 1, 2022)

melgross said:


> That majes no sense. 32mp is 32mp no matter how you achieve it.


The important phrase is not "_32 MP_" but "_far fewer pixels per duck_".

Because @AlanF and @neuroanatomist already put clear that a 45 MP FF sensor delivers less MP over the same area as an APS-C sensor:


AlanF said:


> If you crop a 45mm [MP] FF image to APS-C, you get 17.6 MPx, which is less than 32 Mpx of the APS-C. ...
> On the other hand, an 82 Mpx FF sensor has exactly the same reach as a 32 Mpx APS-C, both having 3.2µ pixels.


If you still don't want to understand that, I'll recommend you to draw it down and start counting pixels (..._ per duck_).

Edit: maybe that wiki-page will help you with drawing: Sensor Sizes


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 1, 2022)

melgross said:


> That majes no sense. 32mp is 32mp no matter how you achieve it.


Really? Lol. So you believe all pixels in all sensors are the same size? 

If you take a picture of a duck with the R5 and an R7, the duck will have far fewer pixels on it in the R5 image (assuming you take the picture from the same distance and with the same focal length, as stated). The duck will cover the same area of whatever sensor is behind the lens. The R5 has 4.39 µm pixels, the R7 has 3.2 µm pixels, therefore the area covered by the duck on the R7 sensor will have far more pixels in it than the same area on the R5. 

Maybe this will help you understand the concept of pixels on duck. 




Or maybe you'll just keep on making daffy statements and embarrass yourself further.


----------



## melgross (Dec 6, 2022)

neuroanatomist said:


> Really? Lol. So you believe all pixels in all sensors are the same size?
> 
> If you take a picture of a duck with the R5 and an R7, the duck will have far fewer pixels on it in the R5 image (assuming you take the picture from the same distance and with the same focal length, as stated). The duck will cover the same area of whatever sensor is behind the lens. The R5 has 4.39 µm pixels, the R7 has 3.2 µm pixels, therefore the area covered by the duck on the R7 sensor will have far more pixels in it than the same area on the R5.
> 
> ...


You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. I said,mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2022)

melgross said:


> You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. I said,mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.


Lol, yes comprehension problems are happening. If you crop the R5 image to 32 MP, it will put fewer pixels on the duck than the 32 MP sensor of the R7. In other words, _how_ you achieve 32 MP _does_ matter (despite your incorrect statement to the contrary), because pixel size matters. What part of that do you not comprehend?


----------



## AlanF (Dec 6, 2022)

melgross said:


> You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. I said,mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.


Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.


----------



## Del Paso (Dec 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.


Thanks for this excellent (as usual !) explanation.


----------



## snapshot (Dec 7, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.


I am sure you have studied the matter in the case of wild-life, but when I went from 5D mark 4 to R5, i went from 30MP to 45MP, both full frame. Shooting tennis with my EF100-400 IS II, I am not sure I see a PQ improvement. (way fewer AF missses and more frames around contact ... but that is different). Thus, I am not convinced that the sensor is my resolution limiter.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2022)

snapshot said:


> I am sure you have studied the matter in the case of wild-life, but when I went from 5D mark 4 to R5, i went from 30MP to 45MP, both full frame. Shooting tennis with my EF100-400 IS II, I am not sure I see a PQ improvement. (way fewer AF missses and more frames around contact ... but that is different). Thus, I am not convinced that the sensor is my resolution limiter.


Tennis shooting has different demands from wild life, which is often reach and detail limited. For shooting birds, unless it was mainly BIF where I wanted the better AF of the 5DIV, I would grab my 5DSR over my 5DIV because of the extra detail from the 50 Mpx, and subsequently the R5 over the R6 (or 5DIV). However, for more general photography I was more than happy with the R6. I like the detail I can squeeze out of the R7 but if I had only one body, it would be the R5.


----------



## Czardoom (Dec 7, 2022)

snapshot said:


> I am sure you have studied the matter in the case of wild-life, but when I went from 5D mark 4 to R5, i went from 30MP to 45MP, both full frame. Shooting tennis with my EF100-400 IS II, I am not sure I see a PQ improvement. (way fewer AF missses and more frames around contact ... but that is different). Thus, I am not convinced that the sensor is my resolution limiter.


In my experience, when talking about the resolution increases in sensors, there are many factors that people do not consider. This is not a scientific evaluation, but just some things I have noticed in use. In my experience, perhaps the most important limiting factor in resolution is whether you are using a tripod or hand holding. Hand holding, I have taken pics with the 24 MP R10 and the 32 MP R7. No noticeable difference in resolution in many cases and when there was, a slight edge to 32 MP but had to zoom in over 100%. A few years ago took shots with the R in crop mode, about 12 MP, and a 24 MP crop camera with the same lens, the consumer Canon 70-300 II. Some of each batch showed greater resolution, leading me to the conclusion that it was the shots that I was able to hand hold more effectively that was the deciding factor. Later on I did the same test with a better lens the 70-300 L, and in that case the 24 MP out resolved the 12 MP in almost all cases, so lens matters, too. Just watched a YouTube video where the photographer was comparing hand held shots with a Fuji 26MP crop sensor versus their new 40 MP crop sensor. At 100% viewing, he said maybe her could see a very slight improvement. Maybe. Of course, diffraction also becomes an issue as pixels get smaller. So I think that the actual resolution increase in higher MP sensors is limited in real life hand held situations far more than many people think. Again, just a casual observation, so could be way off base. But that's my limited experience.


----------



## AlanF (Dec 7, 2022)

Czardoom said:


> In my experience, when talking about the resolution increases in sensors, there are many factors that people do not consider. This is not a scientific evaluation, but just some things I have noticed in use. In my experience, perhaps the most important limiting factor in resolution is whether you are using a tripod or hand holding. Hand holding, I have taken pics with the 24 MP R10 and the 32 MP R7. No noticeable difference in resolution in many cases and when there was, a slight edge to 32 MP but had to zoom in over 100%. A few years ago took shots with the R in crop mode, about 12 MP, and a 24 MP crop camera with the same lens, the consumer Canon 70-300 II. Some of each batch showed greater resolution, leading me to the conclusion that it was the shots that I was able to hand hold more effectively that was the deciding factor. Later on I did the same test with a better lens the 70-300 L, and in that case the 24 MP out resolved the 12 MP in almost all cases, so lens matters, too. Just watched a YouTube video where the photographer was comparing hand held shots with a Fuji 26MP crop sensor versus their new 40 MP crop sensor. At 100% viewing, he said maybe her could see a very slight improvement. Maybe. Of course, diffraction also becomes an issue as pixels get smaller. So I think that the actual resolution increase in higher MP sensors is limited in real life hand held situations far more than many people think. Again, just a casual observation, so could be way off base. But that's my limited experience.


A lot of truth there, and you have to work on it to get the best from the R7. Another crucial factor is shutter speed, especially with hand holding telephotos. You see claims of sharp images of say 1/30s for lenses with good IS and IBIS thrown in, but it doesn't work for me when I am trying to get sharp details of feathers etc. Even on the rare occasions when I use a tripod I like keeping the shutter speed up because of movement of the subject. I don't like going below 1/320s when hand holding long telephotos and prefer to get to 1/500s and faster.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 8, 2022)

melgross said:


> You guys are obviously have reading comprehension problems. ...


Thank you very much. I'll take that into account.
I'll give that compliment directly back to you. Do you want a mirror to see the one with reading comprehension problems?



melgross said:


> I said, mcropping to the same number of pixels, not to the same sensor size. Seriously, if you can’t understand that simple,statement,, then just go home.


No! Concerning reading comprehension you said:


melgross said:


> ... The excuse that you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. Just crop your image. ...


Here you said nothing about same amount of pixels.
And when most people compare FF to APS-C it is about how big is the subject is on the sensor from the same distance with the same FL of the lens.
And this is what most of the people interests. Especially if you can get more pixels on the subject at the same time.
And therefore, @neuroanatomist 's example picture with Duffy Duck directly hits the nail on the head.
And @AlanF 's maths showed you that cropping 45 MP FF to APS-C size will deliver significantly less pixels per duck compared to a 32 MP APS-C sensor.

If you now (later) come with the argument of the same amount of MP per cropping it will deliver you significantly less duck on your FF sensor area that you will use for your photo after cropping. In other words: The duck is smaller on the picture area.
So if you still think that


melgross said:


> ... you get longer reach with APS-C gas never made sense to me anyway. ...


fell free to do so, but


melgross said:


> ... Just crop your image. ...


is just plain and simply wrong, as long as you don't have the same pixel size _(edit: ) and density_ on both APS-C and FF sensor.


----------



## Michael Clark (Dec 16, 2022)

koenkooi said:


> I'm very curious about how the spectrum has changed over the years. When I bought my first camera, an IXUS 400, in 2003 there was generally speaking a progression:
> 
> No camera
> Disposable cameras
> ...



"Rebels" were around in the U.S. long before any consumer level (including "pro" bodies) mass marketed digital cameras. I still have an EOS Rebel IIs that shoots 135 format film. It came out in the mid-1990s. The whole "Rebel" moniker was based on the marketing campaign that featured tennis icon Andre Agassi. Andre had the image of a "rebel" on the men's tennis tour.


----------



## melgross (Dec 16, 2022)

AlanF said:


> Let me have one last try at explaining this. The R5 has pixels that are 4.39 µ square, that is they have an area of 19.27 square microns. The R7 has pixels that are 3.2 µ square, that is they have an area of 10.24 square microns. So, the R5 pixels have 1.88 times more area (19.27/10.24 = 1.88). If you take a photo of an object, say a duck at the same distance with the same lens on an R7 and an R5 and the image of the duck fits on the sensor, there will be 1.88x more pixels on the duck on the R7 sensor. It doesn't matter how much you crop the R5 image, you cannot increase the number of pixels on the duck, there will always be 1.88x more on the R7 as cropping doesn't affect pixel size.


It doesn’t have to be the same length lens. I’m not saying that. You’re saying that. I know the “disadvantages“ to a longer lens, but that not the question.


----------



## melgross (Dec 16, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> Thank you very much. I'll take that into account.
> I'll give that compliment directly back to you. Do you want a mirror to see the one with reading comprehension problems?
> 
> 
> ...


No, none of that is talking about the issue. Crop to the same number of pixels. Obviously using the appropriate lens length. I thought that with all the experienced people here that it was obvious, that it didn’t need explanation in detail. I suppose I was wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

melgross said:


> I suppose I was wrong.


Well, at least you are correct about one thing. Well done!


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 16, 2022)

melgross said:


> No, none of that is talking about the issue. Crop to the same number of pixels. Obviously using the appropriate lens length. I thought that with all the experienced people here that it was obvious, that it didn’t need explanation in detail. I suppose I was wrong.


This reads to me like another attempt to maneuver out of a false argument. 
An APS-C vs FF discussion is either about using the same focal length and to get more "reach" or achieving the same angle of view or depth of field. 
Only the same focal length argument can apply here in our discussion. Especially if you were talking about "reach". 
So everyone understood you correctly, especially @AlanF and @neuroanatomist.

But you are still wrong, unfortunately.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 16, 2022)

Maximilian said:


> This reads to me like another attempt to maneuver out of a false argument.
> An APS-C vs FF discussion is either about using the same focal length and to get more "reach" or achieving the same angle of view or depth of field.


Perhaps what he really meant was if you're using an R7 and RF 800/11, instead of that you can use your FF R5 and just crop it to 32 MP...you just have to buy the $20K RF 1200mm f/8. Yes, that must be it. Such a logical argument it was!


----------

