# Interview: Canon engineers talk Canon EOS R development



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 17, 2018)

> Imaging resource had a chance to sit down with Canon engineers to discuss the development of the brand new Canon EOS system.
> We cherry-picked a couple of our favourite questions and answers from the interview.
> *Does AF coverage change with EF-mount lenses?*
> Since EF-mount lenses used via the adapter are so much further from the sensor surface, it seems likely that they wouldn’t be able to support as large an AF area as native RF-mount ones. I asked, and it turns out this is true. It will vary some based on the specific lens design, but some EF-mount lenses won’t have quite as wide AF coverage as the native ones. Native RF-mount coverage is 100% vertically and 88% horizontally, but some EF-mount lenses will only have 80% horizontal coverage (again, depending on the specific lens design).
> ...



Continue reading...


----------



## jolyonralph (Sep 17, 2018)

There is one huge advantage in the crop mode on the EOS R compared to the 5D Mark IV in that you can fit adapted EF-S lenses onto it. I wrote a whole lump about this that I won't repeat here on my blog (see link below) in my article about what on earth is going to happen to EF-M next...

www.everyothershot.com


----------



## CarlMillerPhoto (Sep 17, 2018)

I guess this is what you get when photo-centric websites ask about video specs. The C700FF sensor is indeed full frame. Specifically, it's 38 x 20 and shoots in a 1.89 aspect ratio. 

Canon is just reserving FF 4k readout for higher priced models. Why is that so hard for them to admit and consumers to understand?


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 17, 2018)

No one is going to use 100% of a sensor for focusing, this sounds like a gimmick and that's probably because it is, sure more may be better but if you are trying to focus on the edge of what you are trying to capture is the image really worth capturing or is the image worth seeing? I'm all for advancement but this is cheap advertising also my c200 does a full sensor read out, the c700 does a full sensor read out. We all like canon but this interview is like listening to the apple keynote, just getting bludgeon with bs.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 17, 2018)

I wonder if there's any technical reason why they wouldn't update codec options for 5D IV.


CarlMillerPhoto said:


> Canon is just reserving FF 4k readout for higher priced models.


I do very much believe this. I have a hard time believing they lack any technical know-how regarding full-frame 4K readout.


----------



## sdz (Sep 17, 2018)

shunsai said:


> I wonder if there's any technical reason why they wouldn't update codec options for 5D IV.
> 
> I do very much believe this. I have a hard time believing they lack any technical know-how regarding full-frame 4K readout.



It's possible that Canon must maneuver around Sony patents, fabrication process issues, etc. Still, Canon has patents in hand that point to a new sensor platform.


----------



## melgross (Sep 17, 2018)

This is all interesting. Thom Hogan states that the crop leads to BETTER quality in video, not worse, because full sensor use results in interpolation with resulting smear and artifacts. The negative is the loss of angle, requiring a wider lens.


----------



## vjlex (Sep 17, 2018)

sdz said:


> It's possible that Canon must maneuver around Sony patents, fabrication process issues, etc. Still, Canon has patents in hand that point to a new sensor platform.


Yeah, I wonder about the patent maneuvering from time-to-time. It's hard to know what is being withheld for technological, financial, or legal reasons.


----------



## ken (Sep 17, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I guess this is what you get when photo-centric websites ask about video specs. The C700FF sensor is indeed full frame. Specifically, it's 38 x 20 and shoots in a 1.89 aspect ratio.
> 
> Canon is just reserving FF 4k readout for higher priced models. Why is that so hard for them to admit and consumers to understand?



I think it is more than just segmentation. I firmly believe it's technical.

In the a7riii Sony is able to apply interpolation to the entire sensor readout of 7952 x 5304 to produce a video frame of 3,840 x 2,160, and do it fast enough to keep high data stream rates. Canon simply can't do that yet. They crop out of the middle of the high-resolution photocentric sensor to get the precise resolution needed for 4K rather than attempting to downsample in real time. Why? Because it's a CPU intensive process and they can't maintain the data stream rate required for video.

I'm fairly certain that Sony's big breakthrough was parallelizing this process on the sensor itself. It's the most logical place to do it, as so much of the sensor handling is inherently parallelized to the pixel. Think of how nVidia does similar processing with vertex shaders and pixel shaders on the GPU. One or two clock cycles and you have an interpolated frame output, vs iterating over each "effective" pixel on an external processor that has to iterate over every pixel and perform "nearest neighbors" interpolation. Canon's sensors don't do that. Yet.

There are other ways to approach the problem, but the most obvious place to solve this is on the sensor itself.

This is just an educated guess, but I bet a more programmable sensor is in the future for Canon.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 17, 2018)

melgross said:


> This is all interesting. Thom Hogan states that the crop leads to BETTER quality in video, not worse, because full sensor use results in interpolation with resulting smear and artifacts. The negative is the loss of angle, requiring a wider lens.




Yes, I have read other articles that also point this out.

As usual, all the internet nobodies that cry and whine when crop video is mentioned are just Canon bashers and can be ignored.


----------



## dak723 (Sep 17, 2018)

shunsai said:


> Yeah, I wonder about the patent maneuvering from time-to-time. It's hard to know what is being withheld for technological, financial, or legal reasons.



While no doubt some of the reasons that certain features are withheld or downgraded are product segmentation, only ignorant reviewers and forum dwellers automatically believe it is all because Canon is BAD and wants to screw the consumer. It has been brought up numerous times that perhaps Canon's dual pixel architecture is one of the problems in processing speed. So their can indeed be technical issues that they have not yet overcome. Patents play a big part. Just cause Sony does it, doesn't mean that Canon can do it. Not sure why people can't get that. Overheating issues also get scorned by the internet crowd. Perhaps that is one of the issues why their is no Canon IBIS yet. Maybe Sony can do it because they also have the worst weather sealing in the business. Maybe better weather sealing doesn't allow for heat dissipation? Maybe there is a trade-off there (just guessing). If so, what would you rather have, top notch weather sealing with no IBIS, or IBIS with awful weather sealing?


----------



## Roy Hunte (Sep 17, 2018)

dak723 said:


> While no doubt some of the reasons that certain features are withheld or downgraded are product segmentation, only ignorant reviewers and forum dwellers automatically believe it is all because Canon is BAD and wants to screw the consumer. It has been brought up numerous times that perhaps Canon's dual pixel architecture is one of the problems in processing speed. So their can indeed be technical issues that they have not yet overcome. Patents play a big part. Just cause Sony does it, doesn't mean that Canon can do it. Not sure why people can't get that. Overheating issues also get scorned by the internet crowd. Perhaps that is one of the issues why their is no Canon IBIS yet. Maybe Sony can do it because they also have the worst weather sealing in the business. Maybe better weather sealing doesn't allow for heat dissipation? Maybe there is a trade-off there (just guessing). If so, what would you rather have, top notch weather sealing with no IBIS, or IBIS with awful weather sealing?


On the topic of heat dissipation, I borrowed my cousin's A7R II to do a 4K shoot, and I wasn't impressed with how hot the body got. Also it ate battery life like crazy. So maybe there is something to what Canon is saying. I wonder how the Z6/Z7 fares temperature wise in full frame 4K.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 17, 2018)

melgross said:


> This is all interesting. Thom Hogan states that the crop leads to BETTER quality in video, not worse, because full sensor use results in interpolation with resulting smear and artifacts. The negative is the loss of angle, requiring a wider lens.


Sony A7sII reads every pixel in FF and downsizes ... much better than crop


----------



## tmroper (Sep 17, 2018)

ken said:


> I think it is more than just segmentation. I firmly believe it's technical.
> 
> In the a7riii Sony is able to apply interpolation to the entire sensor readout of 7952 x 5304 to produce a video frame of 3,840 x 2,160, and do it fast enough to keep high data stream rates. Canon simply can't do that yet. They crop out of the middle of the high-resolution photocentric sensor to get the precise resolution needed for 4K rather than attempting to downsample in real time. Why? Because it's a CPU intensive process and they can't maintain the data stream rate required for video.
> 
> ...



Doesn't a dedicated piece of silicon process raw information it gets from the sensors? And if so, maybe Sony is better able to design that chip (dedicated registers, etc) to process video, and get patents on what they design. Canon doesn't have the silicon flexibilty that Sony apparently has (being such experts in the whole silicon process).


----------



## fullstop (Sep 17, 2018)

As I always said: "EF lenses are legacy in relation to Canon R. They will perform *within their mount- and communications-related limits*. 

Some folks here did not (want to) believe it. So, here's one prof. Other EF limitations will surface in due course. 



> Since EF-mount lenses used via the adapter are so much further from the sensor surface, it seems likely that they wouldn’t be able to support as large an AF area as native RF-mount ones. I asked, and it turns out this is true. It will vary some based on the specific lens design, but some EF-mount lenses won’t have quite as wide AF coverage as the native ones. Native RF-mount coverage is 100% vertically and 88% horizontally, but some EF-mount lenses will only have 80% horizontal coverage


----------



## mppix (Sep 17, 2018)

Full frame video is and remains problematic in any foto-cam. While good downsampling improves rather than deteriorates IQ, it is computationally expensive. Hence several photo-centric cams use line-skipping, which enhances iq issues, especially in sensors without low pass filter. To my knowledge, this is why videographers often prefer the crop image.

The fundamental issue is that a camera needs to read a 6k-8k image and process it for proper downsampling. This is still teritory of cams with dedicated sensor or 6k-8k video cams costing $30k+ (with active cooling)


----------



## 6degrees (Sep 17, 2018)

Wow, this is like a bombshell.
I think neither Sony nor Nikon want their customers to read this: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2018/09/15/canon-eos-r-qa-with-the-canon-engineers, especially Sony. The consequenc of this can last 30 years long.
- This may impact DSLR/EF lenses sales if customers read this. DSLR/EF look obsolete to me.
- It implies that RF lenses will be much better than EF lenses. It is really bad news for the EF lenses providers, which are still developing EF lenses and more to come.
- This seems to imply that Canon EF-to-RF/ND filter adpater + Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25 may not be a smart purchase. Better wait for RF wide angle lenses?
- If Canon can develop RF 100-200 F2 or RF 135-200 F2 with similar image quality to Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS III USM, and if Zeiss will develop RF native wide angle lenses with manual focus only, like 1.4/20 or 1.4/25, it will be perfect.
- Another issue, left untouched, is about adapting Leica M-lenses to Canon RF. Will that present similar issue that Sony E Mount has due to the sensor glass thickness?


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 17, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I guess this is what you get when photo-centric websites ask about video specs. The C700FF sensor is indeed full frame. Specifically, it's 38 x 20 and shoots in a 1.89 aspect ratio.
> 
> Canon is just reserving FF 4k readout for higher priced models. Why is that so hard for them to admit and consumers to understand?



I don't think that's entirely accurate nor is the interviewer entirely incorrect. I beleive the C700FF reads 6K from the entire sensor. 4K is a crop to a size similar to Super 35 as stated in the interview. In each case Canon is reading the sensor at 1:1 and it's a much lower resolution sensor than the one in the Canon R.

If Canon has demonstrated that they can read an entire high resolution sensor and downsample to 4K in camera I haven't seen it. I think we can assume that it is a technical challenge they are working on vigorously.


----------



## tron (Sep 17, 2018)

Regarding "(and in steps of just 1/8 EV, vs. the 1/3 EV of EF-series optics)" mentioned in the article. The writer is not familiar with the Technical Back E which worked with Canon EOS 620, 600(630 and RT.

With its help autobracking could be done and the step was selectable starting from 1/4 of a stop! YES 1/4 of a stop (Referred in the manual as 0.25) from the late 80s! So all EF lenses already supported that.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 17, 2018)

Graphic.Artifacts said:


> I don't think that's entirely accurate nor is the interviewer entirely incorrect. I beleive the C700FF reads 6K from the entire sensor. 4K is a crop to a size similar to Super 35 as stated in the interview. In each case Canon is reading the sensor at 1:1 and it's a much lower resolution sensor than the one in the Canon R.
> 
> If Canon has demonstrated that they can read an entire high resolution sensor and downsample to 4K in camera I haven't seen it. I think we can assume that it is a technical challenge they are working on vigorously.



Actually C700 FF reads full sensor for 4k. This is from their marketing material:

"Capable of ProRes and XF-AVC internal recording up to 4K to CFast™ cards, the camera can also record 5.9K RAW up to 60 frames per second with the optional Codex CDX-36150 Recorder. The camera uses the full 5.9K of the sensor to create oversampled 4K, resulting in improved video quality. "


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 17, 2018)

CarlMillerPhoto said:


> I guess this is what you get when photo-centric websites ask about video specs. The C700FF sensor is indeed full frame. Specifically, it's 38 x 20 and shoots in a 1.89 aspect ratio.
> 
> Canon is just reserving FF 4k readout for higher priced models. Why is that so hard for them to admit and consumers to understand?



Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are _completely _different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.


----------



## drd79 (Sep 17, 2018)

melgross said:


> This is all interesting. Thom Hogan states that the crop leads to BETTER quality in video, not worse, because full sensor use results in interpolation with resulting smear and artifacts. The negative is the loss of angle, requiring a wider lens.



The info you were given is somewhat misleading. A cropped 1:1 image will have better IQ than one created using pixel binning. If one uses pixel binning, then the pixels have sizable gaps between them, and the surrounding pixels are expanded to fill in the gaps. But beyond that, a super-sampled image provides the highest image quality of all.

Let's compare the Sony a7III and a7RIII to what Canon does. Canon gives you only one option, 1.8x crop 1:1 readout. 
The a7III does full sensor readout and super-samples at 6K in FF with no binning, along with an option for an APS-C crop at 1:1 in 4K. 
The a7RIII has a much higher pixel count so rather than sampling each pixel in FF, they bin pixels. The a7RIII also allows you to film in APS-C offering a 6K oversampled image that is converted to 4K. 

If what Canon was saying was true, they could have given an option for both FF and APS-C. The reason we have a 1.8X crop is so the Canon Cxx line would be the only Canon cameras with APS-C and 4K. If you want FF, with full readout from Canon it is only available in the $33,000 C700. If you look at their cinema line vs. their entire lineup, it's easy to see their product segmentation is the real reason for gimping the EOS R.

Canon's cheapest FF 4K camera with full sensor readout is $33,000.
Sony's cheapest FF 4K camera with full sensor readout is $2,000.


----------



## padam (Sep 17, 2018)

Etienne said:


> Sony A7sII reads every pixel in FF and downsizes ... much better than crop



If we compare with the same field of view (obviously there is that crop on the Canon) the A7sII does not look any better than the 5D IV or the EOS R, it is less detailed and while the filesizes are much smaller the quality does suffer from the heavy compression.

The A7III (or A9) does raise the bar in terms of detail, although it is weird that it does not maintain a true 16:9 aspect ratio, it squeezes it a little bit (somewhat proving that 6k downsampling is not that easy to implement).


----------



## padam (Sep 17, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are _completely _different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.


That's true, but they could very easily put a more video-centric FF sensor in any body they would like.
But for now, they won't even do that for a lower-end cinema camera, let alone mirrorless cameras. Their best sensor available right now is the one 1DX II and it's up to them if they want to release a mirrorless model like that and at what price.


----------



## drd79 (Sep 17, 2018)

padam said:


> If we compare with the same field of view (obviously there is that crop on the Canon) the A7sII does not look any better than the 5D IV or the EOS R, it is less detailed and while the filesizes are much smaller the quality does suffer from the heavy compression.
> 
> The A7III (or A9) does raise the bar in terms of detail, although it is weird that it does not maintain a true 16:9 aspect ratio, it squeezes it a little bit (somewhat proving that 6k downsampling is not that easy to implement).



What are you basing the image quality comparison on? You are the first person I've EVER heard say that the 5D mkIV has better quality video than the a7sII. 

The Sony has a gapless lens design in front of the sensor and bigger photo diodes. The Canon does not have gapless pixels, and it's sensor uses smaller diodes to accommodate Dual-Pixel AF. This design is dated in comparison, and captures less data per-pixel. Not to mention the huge ISO advantage on top of the additional 2 stops of DR, the Sony is noticeably sharper and more detailed. The codec that Sony uses is also found in their $100,000 broadcast cameras, it is as rock-solid as it gets.

The slight stretching of the frame (only present in [email protected] on one model, the a7III) is definitely a bug that that Sony needs to fix. Fortunately for me, I have no use for 24p. I shoot [email protected] or [email protected], and deliver to [email protected] for 99% of what I do (professional sports). Since I'm shooting for broadcast TV, my output is always at 30fps and gets sampled down 720p for HD broadcast. We still deliver in 1080p because most content gets distributed on the web where 1080p is an option, unlike broadcast which is still stuck at 720P.

For my personal stuff, the a7III provides the best quality imaging I can afford for stills and video in one package, with one set of lenses. At work, if I'm shooting to tape I'll always grab the a7III because it is small, and lightweight, allowing me to handle the camera easier at more angles than I can with a heavy broadcast camera. The best part is that the image quality is indistinguishable from our $100,000 ENG cameras, and our editors love it because it is the same codec and color profile they are used to working with already.

I'm really excited that Canon is coming out with new stuff, I started as a Canon shooter originally. As I got more serious about broadcast television, and got more high-end gigs I noticed that in the sports world, Sony dominates for video, and Canon dominates for stills. For people like me, who shoot both stills and video professionally, a camera that forces a crop at your highest-quality settings is a deal-breaker. I often shoot on a long prime, and don't have the time to swap lenses between stills and video. Canon gave the professional crowd a big middle-finger with their implementation of 4K in the 5DkmIV and EOS R.


----------



## BurningPlatform (Sep 17, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are _completely _different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.


The C700FF sensor is actually 20.8 MP.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 17, 2018)

padam said:


> That's true, but they could very easily put a more video-centric FF sensor in any body they would like.
> But for now, they won't even do that for a lower-end cinema camera, let alone mirrorless cameras. Their best sensor available right now is the one 1DX II and it's up to them if they want to release a mirrorless model like that and at what price.



Easily? What are you talking about? The C700FF is their first FF camera that does oversampled uncropped 4K. There's a reason it's priced like that. The 1DX2 has a 20MP sensor and 1.3x cropped 4K — yes, it's the exact same 1:1 sampling as in other Canon 4K stills bodies. Yes, Canon _could_ release a lowish-resolution higher-fps less-cropped-4K FF mirrorless, and maybe they will.


----------



## Sharlin (Sep 17, 2018)

BurningPlatform said:


> The C700FF sensor is actually 20.8 MP.



Oops, right, confused with the non-FF C700 resolution. It's apparently Canon's first sensor that records oversampled uncropped 4K.


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Sep 17, 2018)

BurningPlatform said:


> Actually C700 FF reads full sensor for 4k. This is from their marketing material:
> 
> "Capable of ProRes and XF-AVC internal recording up to 4K to CFast™ cards, the camera can also record 5.9K RAW up to 60 frames per second with the optional Codex CDX-36150 Recorder. The camera uses the full 5.9K of the sensor to create oversampled 4K, resulting in improved video quality. "



I stand corrected. You are right, the 700 FF does appear to be able to down-sample the 6K FF sensor to 4K.


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 17, 2018)

Just got done playing with this, it felt great in your hands, the 24-105 felt cheap but was nice, the adapter was solid, the variable nd and polarizers will not work in telephotos, I was told Canon will be making a more video centered r body but no other details. The wheel on the lenses is interesting, the lack of second wheel and no joystick is awkward. But all in all it's not a bad first step.


----------



## padam (Sep 17, 2018)

drd79 said:


> What are you basing the image quality comparison on? You are the first person I've EVER heard say that the 5D mkIV has better quality video than the a7sII.


There are several comparisons out there, I'm not going to link them. The cropped 4k on the Canon is a little sharper than the A7sII with much higher bitrate (but huge file sizes) and no motion artifacts (the Sony XAVC-S interframe codec causes macroblocking) and 8-bit 4:2:2 sampling in case of the 5D Mark IV and the colors are clearly better (they always were).
Of course as a tool it can be considered as fiddly to use (and the EOS R fixed most of those points while being cheaper) and the rolling shutter is not good and it is not a full-frame camera in 4k mode, but apart from that it is a nice camera for video (and photo) that got too much trashing, because it is certainly doesn't carry the same level of importance as the 5D Mark II did.

While the A7III is obviously sharper, personally I don't feel like it's that important for video (especially if people are being filmed and not landscapes with lots of detail).
It's kind of boring that one comment just gives a huge wave of protective response with no sense for balancing from either sides, whether that's Canon or Sony. 

They are all good cameras with different strengths and weaknesses.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 17, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> Just got done playing with this, it felt great in your hands, the 24-105 felt cheap but was nice, the adapter was solid, *the variable nd and polarizers will not work in telephotos*, I was told Canon will be making a more video centered r body but no other details. The wheel on the lenses is interesting, the lack of second wheel and no joystick is awkward. But all in all it's not a bad first step.


Why??


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 18, 2018)

Jethro said:


> Why??


Because its canon, why make it so simple!?!? Menus are a little different aswell, if you shoot on a D series like the 1D or 5D having this camera as a back up or switching between the two systems will take some getting use to.


----------



## RayValdez360 (Sep 18, 2018)

melgross said:


> This is all interesting. Thom Hogan states that the crop leads to BETTER quality in video, not worse, because full sensor use results in interpolation with resulting smear and artifacts. The negative is the loss of angle, requiring a wider lens.


the crop is 1.8 though. if it was super 35 it would be less of an issue. that means even s35 lens will lose MMs


----------



## Jethro (Sep 18, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> Because its canon, why make it so simple!?!? Menus are a little different aswell, if you shoot on a D series like the 1D or 5D having this camera as a back up or switching between the two systems will take some getting use to.


I get the whole 'canon' thing and that sort of goes without saying - but are you saying that the polarisers etc _literally_ won't work on legacy teles, or just not as well as on (say) primes? All the teles?


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 18, 2018)

Jethro said:


> I get the whole 'canon' thing and that sort of goes without saying - but are you saying that the polarisers etc _literally_ won't work on legacy teles, or just not as well as on (say) primes? All the teles?


I'm saying that the new mount with the polarizers will work on all lenses but some of us were hoping that the drop in filter would drop in to the slot on the tele lenses and they wont work for that.


----------



## Jethro (Sep 18, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> I'm saying that the new mount with the polarizers will work on all lenses but some of us were hoping that the drop in filter would drop in to the slot on the tele lenses and they wont work for that.


Ah clang - I see what you mean!!


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> As I always said: "EF lenses are legacy in relation to Canon R. They will perform *within their mount- and communications-related limits*.
> 
> Some folks here did not (want to) believe it. So, here's one prof. Other EF limitations will surface in due course.



You know, it isn't about EF limitations. EF continues to function like it always has. It didn't get worse. You keep implying people have blinders on. The only person around here that refuses to believe things is you.

BTW: Are you in love with those big, heavy new RF lenses like I am?


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 18, 2018)

Sharlin said:


> Ooooooor it might have something to do with the fact that the C700FF has 11MP resolution, is actively air-cooled and costs $35000? The engineering constraints are _completely _different in that kind of a body! There's no way you can even compare it to a sealed $2000 30MP body.


 Sharlin, look at all the ink you just wasted. Conspiracy theories, and Canon being evil, are a given around some members.

"Canon should stuff every high end camera feature into a sub $500 body or else Canon is crippling the cameras in a scheme to force people to give Canon their money."

In other words. "If it doesn't have everything a C700 and 1DX Mark II have for under $500, Canon is screwing you."


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 18, 2018)

Having worked with some large Japanese companies, standards between them can vary.
What is an acceptable amount of heat generated by one company's products is acceptable to company number 1, may not be deemed acceptable by company number 2.
I think Canon is very cautious about their cameras and would prefer to seal their cameras up to weather proof them, rather than allow them to be open to the atmosphere to let out the heat.
Full sensor 4K rendering makes a lot of heat. It's OK in your PC or a large camera, but in a small camera the heat can cause components to fail faster - and Canon wants to make stuff that takes a beating and lasts for years of heavy use.
IMHO, this is the conundrum that Canon faces. How do they weather seal their bodies, yet allow the processors to cool without burning the hands of their operators?
Short videos of a couple of minutes or so are not so bad, but if a camera is left on recording for half and hour or more, how do you dissipate the heat properly if your body is sealed?
I think Canon would rather weather seal a body and take the heat from the internet for crippled video, rather than have their cameras fail in use.
Let's face it, most pros don't do 4K video anyway, so for all intents and purposes, the video they give you and the great focussing system that comes along with it, is more than adequate for most amateurs and pros alike.
That's my take on it.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> You know, it isn't about EF limitations. EF continues to function like it always has. It didn't get worse. You keep implying people have blinders on. The only person around here that refuses to believe things is you.
> BTW: Are you in love with those big, heavy new RF lenses like I am?



as so often, you are just trying to obfuscate things. Yes, adapted EF lenses will keep working - about as well as they have in live view on mirrorslappers. But they will never have enhanced performance and functionality possible with new native RF lenses. EF lenses are "legacy" on mirrorfree FF and are subject to all sorts of limitations. Which is exactly what i've said all along and got criticized for it. NOW it is "obvious". lol

Starting RF lens lineup looks a bit weird. But at least all Canon RF lenses are AF, as opposed to the pre-announced pink unicorn Nikon 58/0.95 Noct "folly". 

Personally I'd have preferred a good IQ, really compact 24-70/4 plus a few f/1.8 primes - but not as big and expensive as the Nikon Z's. 
RF 35mm/1.8 - yes ok, but not much interested in "1:2 pseudo macro". 
RF 50/1.2 and RF 28-70/2 pickle jars - will be interesting how many of those Canon will really sell. The air gets pretty thin at those price levels. 
RF 24-105: honestly surprised Canon was not able to do better than EF Mk. II in terms of IQ and size/weight. Anyways, in typical Canon fashion they charge 30% more for it ... 

In summary mixed feelings towards Canon RF system launch:
1. lens mount parameters perfectly chosen [FFD and throat width pretty much as per my earlier speculations] ... excellent!
2. EOS R body is for me on the large side and way overpriced for only 6D III specs and 2-years old sensor ... meh 
3. RF lens lineup ... for amateur/enthusiasts with no unlimited budget ... also meh

My course of action: will not pre-order but sit back and see what more will come. Either a much lower price "entry level body" and/or street prices falling to "reasonable" levels. A "summer 2019 cashback" offer or firesale resulting in € 1999 for R + basic adapter + kit lens ... might get me tempted.


----------



## adamfilip (Sep 18, 2018)

not much new info in this interview, most of this was covered in the Whitepaper on the R system


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> EF lenses are "legacy" on mirrorfree FF



Does that mean that EF lenses are 'legacy' when put onto M series cameras?


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> as so often, you are just trying to obfuscate things. Yes, adapted EF lenses will keep working - about as well as they have in live view on mirrorslappers. But they will never have enhanced performance and functionality possible with new native RF lenses. EF lenses are "legacy" on mirrorfree FF and are subject to all sorts of limitations. Which is exactly what i've said all along and got criticized for it. NOW it is "obvious". lol
> 
> Starting RF lens lineup looks a bit weird. But at least all Canon RF lenses are AF, as opposed to the pre-announced pink unicorn Nikon 58/0.95 Noct "folly".
> 
> ...




As I see it, EF lenses are not 'limited' at all when mounted onto an R series body - the RF lenses offer more functionality in as much as you can assign a function to the extra ring, but that is not the same as saying the EF is limited compared to what it can do when mounted on a native EF body.

The RF launch range is very well chosen IMO - they offer the opportunity for those with a a strong wedding/portrait to replace a host of wide aperture primes with a single wide constant aperture zoom as an inducement to the system and they cover most focal ranges that person would use. If they had offered a 24-70 f4 and 1.8 primes they would have been doing no more than replicating EF series and interest would have been more equivocal.
Given that you would not have been interested in this release no matter what they would have offered, then my guess is that this round was never aimed at you anyway. SO I am sure Canon are really worried by the fact you will not buy it (nor ever would).

As for the size of the 24-105 f4L can you explain again why you think they were able to make to smaller but for some inexplicable reason decided not to?

Something more in your line of interest will come, but this was all about tweaking interest in the system and giving people something to think about.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 18, 2018)

NorskHest said:


> Just got done playing with this, it felt great in your hands, the 24-105 felt cheap but was nice, the adapter was solid, the variable nd and polarizers will not work in telephotos, I was told Canon will be making a more video centered r body but no other details. The wheel on the lenses is interesting, the lack of second wheel and no joystick is awkward. But all in all it's not a bad first step.



Grab that 1DC for me, please


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> As I see it, EF lenses are not 'limited' at all when mounted onto an R series body - the RF lenses offer more functionality in as much as you can assign a function to the extra ring, but that is not the same as saying the EF is limited compared to what it can do when mounted on a native EF body.
> 
> The RF launch range is very well chosen IMO - they offer the opportunity for those with a a strong wedding/portrait to replace a host of wide aperture primes with a single wide constant aperture zoom as an inducement to the system and they cover most focal ranges that person would use. If they had offered a 24-70 f4 and 1.8 primes they would have been doing no more than replicating EF series and interest would have been more equivocal.
> Given that you would not have been interested in this release no matter what they would have offered, then my guess is that this round was never aimed at you anyway. SO I am sure Canon are really worried by the fact you will not buy it (nor ever would).
> ...



Unless I misread the interview, the main things that RF offers over EF are more light coming in from the sides, allowing 100% horizontal DPAF coverage, versus 80% on some EF lenses (a benefit of the shorter FFD), and the ability to transmit more data, like the lens profile immediately upon mounting. Sure, that can be construed as "limitations". On the other hand, nobody has ever complained about DPAF coverage limitations on EF before, and frankly, I've never wanted to autofocus on something that extremely close to the edge. When it comes to the difference between 80%, 88%, and 100% coverage, I think they're all practically the same anyways, because I'm not trying to photograph subjects with one foot out of the field of view. With regards to the lens profiles, that's great for future (RF) lenses, but who cares about EF lens profiles, because every EF lens profile will be preloaded on to the camera.

Will there be other RF benefits? I guess there could be, but we shouldn't assume that. It could end up being that Canon develops an RF lenses that has a certain awesome feature, that doesn't require RF, but happens to only be on an RF lens. For example, EFS has a really awesome fast/quiet STM motor in the EFS 18-135 nano, but this isn't a benefit of EFS. Likewise, we may never the latest-generation super-powerful nano USM motors described in the articles in EF, but that doesn't mean it's a mount limitation.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> As I see it, EF lenses are not 'limited' at all when mounted onto an R series body - the RF lenses offer more functionality in as much as you can assign a function to the extra ring, but that is not the same as saying the EF is limited compared to what it can do when mounted on a native EF body.



you seem to have some reading/understanding problem. Control ring functionality can be retrofitted with the adapter, it is the "least of legacy EF lens limitations in EOS R service".

Here we were discussing less "AF area coverage" for many/most/certain ? EF lenses, since they cannot utilize RF mount geometry the same way as native new RF lenses can. It is just the *first proven* limitation of legacy EF lenses on EOS R cameras. More limitations will surface soon enough.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

Talys said:


> Will there be other RF benefits? I guess there could be,



you bet there are. They will transpire soon enough.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Does that mean that EF lenses are 'legacy' when put onto M series cameras?



yes. EF-M lenses perform better than any adapted EF lens - except the ones with STM (40/2.8, 50/1.8 TM) or Nano USM AF (70-300 II).


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> you seem to have some reading/understanding problem. Control ring functionality can be retrofitted with the adapter, it is the "least of legacy EF lens limitations in EOS R service".
> 
> Here we were discussing less "AF area coverage" for many/most/certain ? EF lenses, since they cannot utilize RF mount geometry the same way as native new RF lenses can. It is just the *first proven* limitation of legacy EF lenses on EOS R cameras. More limitations will surface soon enough.




Not much of a limitation. How often do you need a point on the fringe of your sensor?
Maybe focus and recompose is a thing of the past to.

EF lenses will do one thing that an RF lens can not do. 
Fit on all the current Canon DSLR bodies.
RF lenses are very limited in that respect.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> you seem to have some reading/understanding problem. Control ring functionality can be retrofitted with the adapter, it is the "least of legacy EF lens limitations in EOS R service".
> 
> Here we were discussing less "AF area coverage" for many/most/certain ? EF lenses, since they cannot utilize RF mount geometry the same way as native new RF lenses can. It is just the *first proven* limitation of legacy EF lenses on EOS R cameras. More limitations will surface soon enough.



If you tell me that EF lenses are 'limited' when put on R system camera, that says to me that the EF lens cannot do its full range of activities on the R camera - maybe the AF is slower, maybe focussing is compromised - but there is nothing I have seen so far to suggest that is the case. If you tell me that native R lenses offer something more to take full advantage of the R body then that is a different matter.

semantics? Yep. But we are in an age where tired old trolls use words like 'crippled' and 'protecting their XXX cameras' because they want to join in the discussion but are too damned lazy to think about the language they are using and cannot be arsed to think so they quote a cliche they think makes them sound intelligent. And from there it is a quick step to hyperbole and closed minds because someone disagrees and it is a point they find impossible to defend because it is someone else's thought, not theirs.


[/rant]


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> If you tell me that EF lenses are 'limited' when put on R system camera, that says to me that the EF lens cannot do its full range of activities on the R camera - maybe the AF is slower, maybe focussing is compromised - but there is nothing I have seen so far to suggest that is the case. If you tell me that native R lenses offer something more to take full advantage of the R body then that is a different matter.
> 
> semantics? Yep. But we are in an age where tired old trolls use words like 'crippled' and 'protecting their XXX cameras' because they want to join in the discussion but are too damned lazy to think about the language they are using and cannot be arsed to think so they quote a cliche they think makes them sound intelligent. And from there it is a quick step to hyperbole and closed minds because someone disagrees and it is a point they find impossible to defend because it is someone else's thought, not theirs.
> 
> ...


EF lenses can do what they have always done. RF lens can do more. It’s all relative.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> If you tell me that EF lenses are 'limited' when put on R system camera,



no. I say, 
* a number of limitations apply when using EF lenses on any EOS R camera. 
* legacy EF lenses can only perform within the LIMITATIONS of their old legacy design for "mirrorslappers with detached Phase AF sensors and legacy old, slow 8-pin communications interface" capabilities. Which is a substantially smaller set of capabilities and functionality than what a mirrorfree EOS R body can really do. 
* Using legacy EF lenses does not allow you to use the full functionality of any EOS R body. 

clear now? Or you want more semantics wanking?


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no. I say,
> * a number of limitations apply when using EF lenses on any EOS R camera.
> * legacy EF lenses can only perform within the LIMITATIONS of their old legacy design for "mirrorslappers with detached Phase AF sensors and legacy old, slow 8-pin communications interface" capabilities. Which is a substantially smaller set of capabilities and functionality than what a mirrorfree EOS R body can really do.
> * Using legacy EF lenses does not allow you to use the full functionality of any EOS R body.
> ...



You do seem very good at wanking the semantics.

Not even the RF lenses are performing to the max of their ability, since several of those super fast new pins are not even used.
Most likely the new ones used are those allowing the ring function, but wait the ring function can work with those old slow EF lenses to.
Or, do you have some insight and you can point us to the information otherwise?


----------



## BeenThere (Sep 18, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> You do seem very good at wanking the semantics.
> 
> Not even the RF lenses are performing to the max of their ability, since several of those super fast new pins are not even used.
> Most likely the new ones used are those allowing the ring function, but wait the ring function can work with those old slow EF lenses to.
> Or, do you have some insight and you can point us to the information otherwise?


The ring function is incorporated into the adapter when using EF lens. The adapter talks to the camera and then the camera talks to the EF lens through the old contacts. Round and round we go.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 18, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> The ring function is incorporated into the adapter when using EF lens. The adapter talks to the camera and then the camera talks to the EF lens through the old contacts. Round and round we go.



Yes round and round we go, left and right to adjust.


----------



## Talys (Sep 18, 2018)

fullstop said:


> no. I say,
> * a number of limitations apply when using EF lenses on any EOS R camera.
> * legacy EF lenses can only perform within the LIMITATIONS of their old legacy design for "mirrorslappers with detached Phase AF sensors and legacy old, slow 8-pin communications interface" capabilities. Which is a substantially smaller set of capabilities and functionality than what a mirrorfree EOS R body can really do.
> * Using legacy EF lenses does not allow you to use the full functionality of any EOS R body.
> ...



So, just take us all on a journey. What do you think some of the advantages of the new mount could be, other than those already stated? I think part of the problem in the argument for me is just that I don't see a limitation or deficiency in EF mount. But I'm all ears, hypothesize on!


----------



## fullstop (Sep 18, 2018)

Limited AF area is bad enough for starters. It is a limitation that diminishes one of the key advantages of mirrorfree cameras. 

Other limitations for legacy EF lenses in use with EOS R cameras I expect could surface sooner or later? 
* no or limited support only for future "more AI" AF-systems due to insufficient communication bandwidth 
* future, improved (wireless) E-TTL flash control implementations may be limited with adapted EF lenses
* limited or no support for multi-functional focus rings on lenses - due (most) to EF lenses not being focus-by-wire 
* no support for additional, multi-functional lens buttons - eg. for pre-set focus distance etc.
* if Canon ever implements IBIS there may be limitations for EF lenses with IS ... possibly inability to work in tandem, it may well be only "the one or the other"
... 
etc. 

Just some examples. Other limitations may apply to all sorts of video cr*p, but at least those won't bother me.


----------



## NorskHest (Sep 19, 2018)

scyrene said:


> Grab that 1DC for me, please


That is my 1dc and you should have one


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 19, 2018)

fullstop said:


> as so often, you are just trying to obfuscate things. Yes, adapted EF lenses will keep working - about as well as they have in live view on mirrorslappers. But they will never have enhanced performance and functionality possible with new native RF lenses. EF lenses are "legacy" on mirrorfree FF and are subject to all sorts of limitations. Which is exactly what i've said all along and got criticized for it. NOW it is "obvious". lol
> 
> Starting RF lens lineup looks a bit weird. But at least all Canon RF lenses are AF, as opposed to the pre-announced pink unicorn Nikon 58/0.95 Noct "folly".
> 
> ...



I'm obfuscating what?

You won't pre-order and you won't order anything. Never have. Never will.

The new R/RF series is the complete opposite of what you predicted and wanted. As usual, you were 100% wrong.

EF is legacy? Um, no. EF is current. Observe the latest super telephoto lenses.

BTW: Want smaller and lighter? Go with EF. LOL!


----------



## fullstop (Sep 19, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> The new R/RF series is the complete opposite of what you predicted and wanted. As usual, you were 100% wrong.
> 
> EF is legacy? Um, no. EF is current. Observe the latest super telephoto lenses.
> 
> BTW: Want smaller and lighter? Go with EF. LOL!




lol. You seem to have a short memory. 

My prediction was spot on: 
1. Canon FF mirrorfree system comes (only) with new, native "slim" mount, not with legacy EF mount. 

2. R mount lens parameters: "at least as wide as EF (54mm) and FFD a bit longer than Sony FE (18mm) - ideally between 20-24mm. 

so, i'd say:







And while 1st gen EOS R body is somewhat larger than what I'd prefer and starting lens lineup includes 2 big, fat, exotic "show-off lenses", i am very confident that many more compact and reasonable RF lenses and R cameras will follow soon enough. 

Already today EOS R with RF 24-105 is noticeably more compact and lighter than a 5D or 6D series mirrorslapper with EF 24-105 II. 

So, i guess I shot a few of your legacy crows out of the sky. You can eat them now.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 19, 2018)

fullstop said:


> lol. You seem to have a short memory.
> 
> My prediction was spot on:
> 1. Canon FF mirrorfree system comes (only) with new, native "slim" mount, not with legacy EF mount.
> ...



Nawwww... you didn't.  Showoff lens? EF 50mm F1/2L is about 3/4 pound lighter than the RF 50 f/1.2. But go ahead and cherry pick like I just did. To be honest, the only reason I would go R series is precisely because of the bigger and heavier lenses. Why don't we wait and see what the "full size" R camera weighs rather than the obviously compact entry level R (at twice the price you said it should cost and substantially larger than the M) you want to compare to a 5 series.

This is what you said:


fullstop said:


> i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.
> 
> what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not not be possible and available retail for usd/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?



But you did get a 6 bar battery indicator. Did not get the FPS of a *ugh* mirrorslapper.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 19, 2018)

> i said all along "mirrorless FF can do everything a DSLR can and then some and in a smaller form factor throughout the most frequently used focal length range". and i still say there are millions of potential customers for a very compact, capable, decent and affordable FF MILC system.



I stand by that. No matter, to what extent the first Canon EOS R body and the first few Canon RF lenses cater to this market demand ... or not. 



> what would a slightly larger "EOS M50 with FF sensor and LP-E6N power pack" really cost? in Canon lot sizes, couple 100.000? and why should that not be possible and available retail for USD/€ 999,- body only? and a few EF-X pancake primes at twice the price of an EF-M 22/2.0 along with it? and/or a 24-105 kit zoom priced like the EF non L but noticeably more compact? or a more compact EF-X 16-35/4.0 IS STM?



I also stand by that. And remain convinced that we'll get gear along these lines and in these price brackets. Probably also from Canon. If not ... well, there is more choice for mirrorfree imaging gear every day now. 

Let me go out on a limb and "speculate" we'll see the "first-ever FF camera body priced at 999 USD retail" ... before end of 2019. Canon or other brand.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 19, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> But you did get a 6 bar battery indicator.



yes, a sub-par spec by "innovative" Canon. 
Me and [likely] most of the market would prefer a % battery gauge. As on every decent phone in 2018 ...


----------



## Talys (Sep 19, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I stand by that. No matter, to what extent the first Canon EOS R body and the first few Canon RF lenses cater to this market demand ... or not.



Well, no, mirrorless FF cannot do everything a DSLR can, because the EVF requires power, which means that there are applications for which a mirrorless will never be good at. For example, surveillance, because you can't use a mirrorless as a (nearly) battery-free telescope with the ability to record imagines using just a little power. It won't ever change until batteries are orders of magnitude more powerful than they are today. 

From a bird enthusiast's point of view, I often spend a whole day (dawn to dusk) enjoying birds and nature, and spend a lot of time observing birds and taking photographs only when there's a worthy moment, which may be a few pictures every few hours. DSLRs will just be a better tool for this for the forseeable future.

From a sports or nature photography perspective, I am certain that at some point, _eventually_, there will be a 1DXII caliber autofocus system in terms of raw AF speed, especially with less available light (that's especially important when extenders are considered). But I wouldn't lay any bets on DPAF being as good as dedicated PDAF sensor by Tokyo 2020. I certainly wouldn't bet on any other mirrorless vendor having competitive autofocus by then.



fullstop said:


> Let me go out on a limb and "speculate" we'll see the "first-ever FF camera body priced at 999 USD retail" ... before end of 2019. Canon or other brand.



I think it's highly unlikely. First of all, we're really only talking about Sony, Nikon and Canon. On one hand, this bumps against their APSC offerings, and on the other, $1k passes the point in price elasticity, where lowering the price isn't getting any more customers. There are a lot of people who will buy an ILC for $200 or $300, but no matter how amazing the camera is, they will never buy a camera that costs $1,000. 

Once manufacturers are looking at enthusiast cameras, they need to maximize their profits, because there are pretty few of us.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 19, 2018)

Oh well, I believe there is a whole lot of "price elasticity" between a 2.5k EOS R and a 999,- mirrorfree FF "Rebel". I'd expect the latter to outsell the former by ... factor 100 or 1000? 

And even if it is not as low as 999, but "only" 1500 - it will sell a lot more than at 2500. 
1 grand and 2 grand are 2 rather solid price points.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 19, 2018)

Talys said:


> or example, surveillance,



is done with video cameras and drones. Not with mirrorslappers.


----------



## Ozarker (Sep 19, 2018)

fullstop said:


> is done with video cameras and drones. Not with mirrorslappers.


Tell it to the private investigators, cops, etc.


----------



## sfeinsmith (Sep 21, 2018)

That what I worry about Canon's behavior again for the second time. The first incident; they killed R, FL, FD, and FDn lenses when EF lenses released onto the market.

The EF lenses are heavier, large physical size, and more expensive. This reason caused average photographers abandoned due to crazy prices for camera bodies and lenses due to skyrocketing. The RF lenses show much expensive over the EF lenses. They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.

Professional photographers want to use "SIMPLE" lenses. Because we preferred to control focus and f/stop manual setting instead of slow electronic controls. My advice to everyone not to support or buy Canon RF series at all.

I use Zeiss ZF lenses plus Canon FD lenses with EdMika lens mount converter kit. I can control focus and f/stop manually. This method is much faster and accurate over EF lenses. Without concern about turn knob or pushbutton to change the setting. All of my pictures are razor-sharp images and perfect exposure range. Other photographers were shocked by what they saw as my camera fitted with simple lenses. Real pro photographers love Zeiss ZF lenses over EF because of the manual designed.


----------



## Mikehit (Sep 21, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.
> 
> Professional photographers want to use "SIMPLE" lenses. Because we preferred to control focus and f/stop manual setting instead of slow electronic controls. My advice to everyone not to support or buy Canon RF series at all.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> That what I worry about Canon's behavior again for the second time. The first incident; they killed R, FL, FD, and FDn lenses when EF lenses released onto the market.
> 
> The EF lenses are heavier, large physical size, and more expensive. This reason caused average photographers abandoned due to crazy prices for camera bodies and lenses due to skyrocketing. The RF lenses show much expensive over the EF lenses. They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.
> 
> ...


Well, we're barely a quarter of the way through the day, but I feel confident in awarding you the trophy for the Most Asinine Post of the Day. 





Congratulations.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Well, we're barely a quarter of the way through the day, but I feel confident in awarding you the trophy for the Most Asinine Post of the Day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Another totally unwarranted personal attack on another forum member who simply expressed his personal experience and preferences and gave some advice, that others may heed or not. 

Only surprise is that you did not reserve your attack for me. 

Reported nevertheless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Another totally unwarranted personal attack on another forum member who simply expressed his personal experience and preferences and gave some advice, that others may heed or not.
> 
> Only surprise is that you did not reserve your attack for me.
> 
> Reported nevertheless.


No. Expressions of _personal_ opinion do not begin with, "Professional photographers want…," "Because we preferred," or, "Real pro photographers love…"

Believing that you speak for a large group about whom you have no direct knowledge is presumptuous and…asinine. It's also something you do with some frequency.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 21, 2018)

@stevelee 
While I appreciate your longstanding personal experience and opinions, my own preferences are mostly opposite. 

I started out analog, manual focus, manual exposure as well, shooting mainly color positive (slide) film. I was a fairly early adopter of the first Autofocus SLRs (Minolta) and never regretted it. Neither did i ever regret my move to digital photography when it became an "affordable" possibility (Canon Powershot S40 first and "EOS 350D" later). 

Reason: I do not enjoy the "technicalities of photography". To me it is "all about getting the images I want to get". Any technology that works reasonably well and reliably helping me having to care less about "correct exposure", "focus plane exactly where I want it" etc. and allows me to spend as much of my attention as possible on "subject (plus interaction if needed), right moment, expression, light, composition" ... the better. In short, I consider myself (amateur) photographer, not an "imaging gear operator". While it does depend a bit on situation and subject, current AF systems are both faster and more precise than even well-practised. manual focusing. Just have a look at the Eye-AF 

Therefore I am very happy that we are finally getting 35mm format digital cameras that do away with the last moving mechanical contraptions and with Electronic viewfinders and state-of-the-art AF systems make it so much easier for me to capture and create the images I want. I also gladly accept the transition to a new mount (Canon R) as a pre-requisite to get - hopefully, eventually - smaller, lighter, less conspicuous and less expensive gear for my hobby. 

Especially when the transition from EF to RF mount and lenses is simple and smooth and only requires a little adapter. It really is objectively not comparable to the hard switch from FD to EF back in 1987. 

I therefore recommend to anybody starting out new with a keen enough interest in photography asking me for personal advice to not buy into legacy DSLR systems any longer but to go with a mirrorfree system. And of all 4 currently available systems, I do consider Canon EOS R to have the technically best foundation thanks to 1. very well-chosen EOS R mount parameters (throat width, flange focal distance) and 2. Dual-Pixel AF approach and 3. User Interface. Only piece of technology missing at the moment is in-body-stabilization, but I think they'll have to add that n the near future.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 21, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Believing that you speak for a large group ...



I don't want to "speak" for others, but am convinced my use case and my "imaging gear/functionality preferences" are highly representative for a very large group of people:
* stills-centric
* very good IQ but "stellar" not needed
* functionally capable but "extreme case/pro-grade" not needed
* as small & light as possible
* intuitive in use
* affordable to normal income earners



But probably you find that "asinine" too.


----------



## scyrene (Sep 21, 2018)

sfeinsmith said:


> That what I worry about Canon's behavior again for the second time. The first incident; they killed R, FL, FD, and FDn lenses when EF lenses released onto the market.
> 
> The EF lenses are heavier, large physical size, and more expensive. This reason caused average photographers abandoned due to crazy prices for camera bodies and lenses due to skyrocketing. The RF lenses show much expensive over the EF lenses. They added unnecessary features such as autofocus, electronic-control f/stop, reduced mechanical interface and made incompatibly 42mm-based flange focal length by increased flange focus length to 44mm.
> 
> ...



Hilarious!


----------



## jedy (Sep 21, 2018)

The main issue I have with mirrorless at the moment is cost. Sony produces some great gear but their lenses are overpriced. I currently use Canon DSLR's for filming and purchased a couple of f4 zoom lenses for really bargain prices. I'd love to buy into mirrorless (for stills and video) as the technology, for my needs outstrips DSLR technology (especially with manual focusing and proper, clean HDMI output). I have never been keen on using adapters and they always feel like a compromise. I am concerned FF mirrorless will be be very expensive for a good number of years yet, especially the lenses as stellar picture quality/ large size/expensive price seems to be the current trend (in Sony's case you can question stellar picture quality with some of their lenses) When would we be likely to see a bargain native R mount nifty fifty for example?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 21, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I don't want to "speak" for others, but am convinced my use case and my "imaging gear/functionality preferences" are highly representative for a very large group of people:
> * stills-centric
> * very good IQ but "stellar" not needed
> * functionally capable but "extreme case/pro-grade" not needed
> ...


Those are perfectly reasonable characteristics, and likely to be representative of many users. 

But…millions of people who would buy an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM lens or who are outraged over a 17% difference in battery life? Asinine.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 22, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Those are perfectly reasonable characteristics, and likely to be representative of many users.
> But…millions of people who would buy an EF-M 85mm f/2.4 IS STM lens or who are outraged over a 17% difference in battery life? Asinine.



If people were told that Canon f*cked them over by sticking a 5 year old *sorry little weak toy battery* into M50 when a newer, better power pack would also have been available at little or no extra cost ... they would revolt and set fire to the Tokyo octagenarian board room.

EF-M 85/2.4 IS STM would likely sell 1000x more copies than exotic, full-fat, super-expensive RF 50/1.2 or 28-70/2.0


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> If people were told that Canon f*cked them over by sticking a 5 year old *sorry little weak toy battery* into M50 when a newer, better power pack would also have been available at little or no extra cost ... they would revolt and set fire to the Tokyo octagenarian board room.


If people were told that Canon f*cked them over by forcing them to buy a brand new set of spare batteries for their M50 when the power packs they had bought for their M/M2 would have worked just fine at absolutely no extra cost and given the lame excuse that they could take 40-50 more shots per charge with a slightly larger and barely more powerful new battery ... they would revolt and set fire to the Tokyo wise and experienced board room.


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> If people were told that Canon f*cked them over by sticking a 5 year old *sorry little weak toy battery* into M50 when a newer, better power pack would also have been available at little or no extra cost ... they would revolt and set fire to the Tokyo octagenarian board room.



I am sitting at my desk bored watching Ancient Aliens and reading this board for entertainment.

I am not sure which has more validity, your statement or the TV show.
At this point it appears to be a tie.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 22, 2018)

sure. watch more TV to further soften the remaining few brain cells.
and get a 4k TV set to make it happen 4x as fast.


----------



## fullstop (Sep 22, 2018)

you did not respond to EF-M 85/2.4 vs. RF 28-70/2.0 yet ...


----------



## takesome1 (Sep 22, 2018)

fullstop said:


> sure. watch more TV to further soften the remaining few brain cells.
> and get a 4k TV set to make it happen 4x as fast.




Yep..4k monitor and TV. Well on the way.
I just watched the episode where they claim Steve Jobs was under the influence of Extraterrestrials.


----------



## SaP34US (Sep 24, 2018)

There maybe a new lower spec coming in Q1 along the lines of the 6DMII in mirrorless.
There is a YouTube video named as follows Canon Next Fullframe Mirrorless Camera Canon 26 Megapixel DPAF sensor, Coming in 2019.
What does everyone think?


----------

