# Canon announcements coming at the end of August [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 19, 2019)

> We’ve been told again that Canon will be announcing new gear at the end of August. Since the availability of new products rarely happens right away, there’s always the possibility of an announcement being delayed into September.
> What’s coming?
> The Canon EOS 90D received another mention from this source, along with another camera body. If I was to bet on what that second camera would be, I’d wager it’s a new EOS M body. Likely to replace both the EOS M5 and EOS M6.
> The same source also said new lenses were coming at the same time. Canon has stated there would be no EF lenses coming 2019. I could see the EOS M getting a new kit lens, as well as the official announcements of the outstanding RF mount lenses, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8L, IS USM, RF 24-70mm f/2.8L IS USM, RF 15-35mm f/2.8L IS and RF 85mm f/1.2L DS USM.
> More to come…



Continue reading...


----------



## Hector1970 (Jul 19, 2019)

It will be interesting what the 90D is.
Will it have as good weather sealing as a 7DII.
Will it show any improvements on a 7D II performance wise?
For sure it will be someway better than the 80D.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 19, 2019)

I've been waiting for a canon 24-70 2.8 IS forever... That's the lens that I'm really waiting for to buy into the RF system.


----------



## nostrovia (Jul 19, 2019)

Seems like an updated EF-S17-55 2.8 would pair nicely with an improved XXD body.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 19, 2019)

Mid August has been typically a time that Canon has announced new products. The goal is to have the latest and greatest gear available in time for the Christmas Holiday season. Buying seems to pickup by October / November.


----------



## KrisK (Jul 19, 2019)

Hm. I thought the RF lenses were coming at the end of this month


----------



## edoorn (Jul 19, 2019)

Those RF lenses would be nice; new M body too. Is February then likely for a new R body?


----------



## navastronia (Jul 19, 2019)

KrisK said:


> Hm. I thought the RF lenses were coming at the end of this month



I believe that's what they officially stated, though I don't have a source handy. Feels unlikely, doesn't it?


----------



## navastronia (Jul 19, 2019)

edoorn said:


> Those RF lenses would be nice; new M body too. Is February then likely for a new R body?



I thought we were getting the high megapixel R in 2019, not 2020. It would be disappointing to see no further R body releases this year.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I thought we were getting the high megapixel R in 2019, not 2020. It would be disappointing to see no further R body releases this year.


Always good to remember that rumors are not promises.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 19, 2019)

nostrovia said:


> Seems like an updated EF-S17-55 2.8 would pair nicely with an improved XXD body.


I don't think Canon agrees. Personally, I'd like to see the mythical 150-500 f5.6 paired with the next XXD body, but I doubt that's happening either.


----------



## navastronia (Jul 19, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Always good to remember that rumors are not promises.



Wait a minute . . . Is this not canonpromises.com?


----------



## edoorn (Jul 19, 2019)

Well it was always late 2019/1st half 2020 I believe. We’ll see.


----------



## cellomaster27 (Jul 19, 2019)

This is their chance I think to save people from going into the Sony a7r4. That camera is a beast. It's coming in September so I hope canon will announce something for their RF system, even if it means waiting past September for a better R model.


----------



## flip314 (Jul 19, 2019)

nostrovia said:


> Seems like an updated EF-S17-55 2.8 would pair nicely with an improved XXD body.



That lens always seemed like an odd one to me. It's quite pricy for EF-S, so apart from some 7D owners I've never seen it having wide appeal.


----------



## NeverPlayMonopoly (Jul 19, 2019)

Ah yes, the 90D. Or as I'd like to call it: "The last DSLR I'll probably ever need"


----------



## Trey T (Jul 19, 2019)

Improvement for M5: bigger grip!!!


----------



## Mistral75 (Jul 19, 2019)

KrisK said:


> Hm. I thought the RF lenses were coming at the end of this month





navastronia said:


> I believe that's what they officially stated, though I don't have a source handy. Feels unlikely, doesn't it?



Canon only stated these four lenses would be available during the second half of 2019.


----------



## BillB (Jul 19, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> This is their chance I think to save people from going into the Sony a7r4. That camera is a beast. It's coming in September so I hope canon will announce something for their RF system, even if it means waiting past September for a better R model.


For quite a while now, a big part of Sony's growth strategy has been to get owners to switch brands at the $3500 price point with attractive specs. We shall see whether it works any better this time than it has in the past. As time goes by, more and more buyers are pretty happy with the cameras they already have, especially considering the costs of switching brands. On the other hand, with the a7r4, Sony may have come out with some interesting competition for the a9.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 19, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> It will be interesting what the 90D is.
> Will it have as good weather sealing as a 7DII.
> Will it show any improvements on a 7D II performance wise?
> For sure it will be someway better than the 80D.


The 80D already has a better sensor than the 7DII, so the 90D could be even better, and possibly 30 mpx as well. Canon AF systems have improved, and using the 1DXII system as in the 5DIV could be a significant improvement. I'm looking forward to adding a 90D to my armoury as I miss my 7DII, which I shouldn't have sold.


----------



## ashmadux (Jul 19, 2019)

It is rather amazing how many *kit lens* redesigns they can do in just a few short years. 

Maybe the 50 1.4 EF upgrade plans just got ....lost... along with the 85 1.8. _Nothing like 20+ year old designs selling for 400 bucks to keep the competition in check, eh?_

#lameonyoucanon


----------



## BillB (Jul 19, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 80D already has a better sensor than the 7DII, so the 90D could be even better, and possibly 30 mpx as well. Canon AF systems have improved, and using the 1DXII system as in the 5DIV could be a significant improvement. I'm looking forward to adding a 90D to my armoury as I miss my 7DII, which I shouldn't have sold.


Something like the 1DXII AF system would likely mean multi precessors. This may well happen, but I doubt that it would be labeled a 90D. So far as I know the 90D designation is a product of the rumor world.


----------



## Jasonmc89 (Jul 19, 2019)

nostrovia said:


> Seems like an updated EF-S17-55 2.8 would pair nicely with an improved XXD body.



Absolutely! That lens is looong overdue in my opinion.


----------



## 6degrees (Jul 19, 2019)

Currently interested in:


EOS R pro body, functions equivalent to a7riv
RF 16-28mm F2 L, or
RF 14-21mm F1.4 L & RF 35mm F1.2 L
RF 135-200mm F2 L, no interest for 70-135 F2 L

And prices, prices, prices!!!


----------



## Stuart (Jul 19, 2019)

BillB said:


> For quite a while now, a big part of Sony's growth strategy has been to get owners to switch brands at the $3500 price point with attractive specs. We shall see whether it works any better this time than it has in the past. As time goes by, more and more buyers are pretty happy with the cameras they already have, especially considering the costs of switching brands. On the other hand, with the a7r4, Sony may have come out with some interesting competition for the a9.


It seems that Sony's main critics cite ergonomics and Sony's menu system - a7r4 is said to address ergonomics. Surely someone can pimp a better skin on the software interface. 
Also I wonder is Canon's RF mount will allow more large aperture lenses than Sony's FE mount might?


----------



## Tangent (Jul 20, 2019)

nostrovia said:


> Seems like an updated EF-S17-55 2.8 would pair nicely with an improved XXD body.



Not likely to happen, though for an update I'd like to see a 15-[50 or55] 2.8 lens; give us something more on the wide end. And include the hood.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jul 20, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> This is their chance I think to save people from going into the Sony a7r4. That camera is a beast. It's coming in September so I hope canon will announce something for their RF system, even if it means waiting past September for a better R model.



The new Sony is a piece-meal of good and bad. It has no fully functional touchscreen, and the LCD is smaller with less dots than Canon or Nikon's newest bodies. There is no S-RAW or M-RAW. The resolution is only a ladder rung beyond the 5DSR, which can be found now for excellent prices.

Oh, Tony Northrup recently confirmed the pixel shift feature of the Sony A7R iv is basically a calamity -- very inconsistent. dpreview noted that the pixel shift images can't be previewed to ascertain what really happened before leaving the scene.

If the A7R iii prices drop a bit more, even that body may be the better option right now for Sony lens owners.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

kraats said:


> I never met anyone who traded his/her canon stuff for sony stuff and I do meet a lot of people in my workshops.



Weird. My classes have gone from predominantly Canon to predominantly Sony in the span of a year. It’s a community college photography program though, so there are more younger people than usual.

The most popular camera is the Sony A7Riii, followed by the A7iii by far.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 20, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> The new Sony is a piece-meal of good and bad. It has no fully functional touchscreen,



What does that mean? It's the second time I see it mentioned but I couldn't find actual specs on why it's not fully functional.



M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> Oh, Tony Northrup recently confirmed the pixel shift feature of the Sony A7R iv is basically a calamity -- very inconsistent. dpreview noted that the pixel shift images can't be previewed to ascertain what really happened before leaving the scene.



After Tony's ridiculous talk about aperture and diffraction, I completely stopped watching that channel, he's incompetent in technical reviews and talks about what he doesn't understand.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> The new Sony is a piece-meal of good and bad. It has no fully functional touchscreen, and the LCD is smaller with less dots than Canon or Nikon's newest bodies. There is no S-RAW or M-RAW. The resolution is only a ladder rung beyond the 5DSR, which can be found now for excellent prices.
> 
> Oh, Tony Northrup recently confirmed the pixel shift feature of the Sony A7R iv is basically a calamity -- very inconsistent. dpreview noted that the pixel shift images can't be previewed to ascertain what really happened before leaving the scene.
> 
> If the A7R iii prices drop a bit more, even that body may be the better option right now for Sony lens owners.



A calamity? There isn’t even software available to view it properly yet. A little early for the calamity claims I think. 

That said, the a7riii at $2500 is probably the best value in the industry right now.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> What does that mean? It's the second time I see it mentioned but I couldn't find actual specs on why it's not fully functional.



Most people don’t realize that you can use the LCD on the A7Riii as a pad just like the eos r, meaning you can drag to focus. You can even set it to only use the right side. 

You can’t however use it to select menu options, which is stupid.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 20, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Most people don’t realize that you can use the LCD on the A7Riii as a pad just like the eos r, meaning you can drag to focus. You can even set it to only use the right side.
> 
> You can’t however use it to select menu options, which is stupid.


How do we know it's the same in A7RIV?


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> How do we know it's the same in A7RIV?



It's already been reported you can't navigate the menu via touch by the early youtube peeps.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

I really, really need the 15-35 by late October. If it's not announced by the end of this month, I'll probably go to Sony =( I don't want to.


----------



## Quarkcharmed (Jul 20, 2019)

I'd like to see a Canon's equivalent of A7R4. That is a high-res successor of 5D4 or 5DsR. And in beginning of September. But wishful thinking doesn't help here. It's not even rumoured for this year.

But I'm disappointed that A7R4 isn't a 16bit ADC. If it were, I'd seriously consider switching as Canon would be highly unlikely to catch up. The A7R4's dynamic range will likely be the same as A7R3's, which is great, but not great enough to switch from Canon 5D4. Now I'll be waiting for what Canon offers and will check the reviews/comparisons.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

I'd be happy to wait until February for the high res R *IF *I can get the lenses I want in time for 45 day trip in November. The R is a good camera, and its IQ is OK for what I want to do (42 would be better, 60 would be awesome). The only thing keeping me in the Canon camp are ergos/body design, and the lenses. I've seen how crappy the variance is on the Sony 70-200 GM first hand. Canon is still making its L lenses in Japan, while Sony is making GM lenses in China and Thailand, and the variance within their lens line up is sort of alarming. Supposedly they've fixed the issues.... I'm not sure I believe it. On the flip side if Canon can't even get me the lenses I'm willing to invest in almost a year after the R is released... Sony deserves my money.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 20, 2019)

I deeply wish for an M5 Mark II. There is a lot of potential with this camera system if they would just invest in it. Maybe even have a grip option for the camera to help hold the camera when adapting lenses too? Oh, and improve the battery life, please! haha


----------



## tron (Jul 20, 2019)

Hector1970 said:


> It will be interesting what the 90D is.
> Will it have as good weather sealing as a 7DII.
> Will it show any improvements on a 7D II performance wise?
> For sure it will be someway better than the 80D.


Will it have spot AF?
Will it have customizable buttons?


----------



## edoorn (Jul 20, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I really, really need the 15-35 by late October. If it's not announced by the end of this month, I'll probably go to Sony =( I don't want to.


Stick a 16-35 with adapter on the R for the time being? You could get a second hand for a good price and sell it later for the same amount. The f4 version is superb and lightweight. I do think however these new R lenses will hit market in time.


----------



## edoorn (Jul 20, 2019)

Quarkcharmed said:


> I'd like to see a Canon's equivalent of A7R4. That is a high-res successor of 5D4 or 5DsR. And in beginning of September. But wishful thinking doesn't help here. It's not even rumoured for this year.


 
I just hope the Canon will have mraw options (and not some aps c crop mode).


----------



## LensFungus (Jul 20, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I really, really need the 15-35 by late October. If it's not announced by the end of this month, I'll probably go to Sony =( I don't want to.


You can rent the Sony stuff you need for late October and after that still buy (or rent) the 15-35 for your Canon gear. By doing so you could make your own experience / first hand comparison instead of relying on Youtubers or tech pages.


----------



## LSXPhotog (Jul 20, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I really, really need the 15-35 by late October. If it's not announced by the end of this month, I'll probably go to Sony =( I don't want to.


Why? You can't adapt a single lens for the time being or rent? You would rather switch your entire camera system?


----------



## bergstrom (Jul 20, 2019)

6d3 please


----------



## 12Broncos (Jul 20, 2019)

I get Canon doesn't want to upend its DSLR faithful, which I respect. However, the mirrorless babies who are holding out for Pro/Prosumer camera(s) are starving. Quite frankly, I'm little frustrated that Canon hasn't announced a Mirrorless camera, (Pro/Prosumer that is) by now. I've been faithful to Canon, and I want to continue that, and one way Canon can do that is by giving an announcement that a mirrorless pro camera is coming, it doesn't have to be released yet.


----------



## EOBeav (Jul 20, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> Why? You can't adapt a single lens for the time being or rent? You would rather switch your entire camera system?


I'd like to know what the stats are in CR history for somebody saying, "If this camera doesn't have X, I'm switching to Y". Better yet, I'd like to know how many of those people actually do switch.


----------



## SouthpawSD (Jul 20, 2019)

As much as I would love an M52, if one camera is coming to replace both the M5 and the M6, I worry it will be like the G5/G7 updates, with no viewfinder or a pop-up. Having the dedicated EVF on the M5 is really great.

For me, if the 90D has at least 10fps burst, touchscreen and dual cards, I would probably buy 2. 120/1080p video would be icing on the cake.


----------



## Etienne (Jul 20, 2019)

I'll take a killer M5 mark II and a EF-M 55 f/1.4 IS . Build them right, and top notch, and charge what you have to. Just don't chimp on features please.


----------



## amorse (Jul 20, 2019)

bergstrom said:


> 6d3 please


I think you're going to be waiting a while. The 6D II came out in 2017, and with the past 4 year release cycle you'd be looking at summer 2021. That's assuming that they ever release a new 6D series camera. The RP might be a suitable alternative in all honesty - it's not exactly the same, but it's close.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

LSXPhotog said:


> Why? You can't adapt a single lens for the time being or rent? You would rather switch your entire camera system?



I sold my R and 50 1.2 because someone offered more than I could buy them for new again. So, I was starting fresh sort of... I still have the 35 and accessories. 

However, I just scored a crazy good deal on greentoe this morning for an eos r, so.... I’m back in haha. Less than gray market pricing, I could not pass it up. 

I guess Canon won’t let me leave.


----------



## lawny13 (Jul 20, 2019)

navastronia said:


> I believe that's what they officially stated, though I don't have a source handy. Feels unlikely, doesn't it?


It was a C1 rumor. So August is still good to me. Holy f2.8 trilogy in about ten months after launch. Took Sony 6 years to put out GM lenses. Nikon isn’t there yet either. So.... patience?


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 20, 2019)

flip314 said:


> That lens always seemed like an odd one to me. It's quite pricy for EF-S, so apart from some 7D owners I've never seen it having wide appeal.



I've seen more than a few 40D/50D/60D cameras with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS hung on it in the past. More recently owners of the 60D/70D/80D seem to go for EF lenses because they plan to upgrade to or already also have a FF body. This seems to have happened around the time the first 6D was released and lowered the entry price to the FF club.

Although it was introduced at around $1,100 in the U.S., it has been priced at around $750-800 from authorized Canon USA dealers for several years now.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 20, 2019)

AlanF said:


> The 80D already has a better sensor than the 7DII, so the 90D could be even better, and possibly 30 mpx as well. Canon AF systems have improved, and using the 1DXII system as in the 5DIV could be a significant improvement. I'm looking forward to adding a 90D to my armoury as I miss my 7DII, which I shouldn't have sold.



The 80D has a better sensor at ISO 100-400 than the 7D Mark II. At ISO 800 they're about even. At ISO 1600 and above, the 7D Mark II sensor has better low light/low noise performance as well as better DR than the 80D.

All of the credible rumors so far say the 90D will have the same 45 point AF system that the 80D has. The 7D Mark II already has a 65 point AF system very similar to the 61 point system in the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark III and IV. The current 1/5/7 bodies also allow more user configurable options to the AF system than the 80D does.

Anyone who thinks the 90D will be a significant upgrade to the 7D Mark II fails to understand why Canon is not calling it the 7D Mark III.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 20, 2019)

> I also looked into other brands. I came to the conclusion that switching brands costs a lot of money. It will certainly not improve photography. I think lots of people look at it that way. Then there are always pros and cons for every brand. As a landscapephotograper I have never seen people switch. The mainreason might be the lack of weatherresistance in Sonycameras.



I think the weather resistance thing is completely overblown. The A7RIII has slightly better weather resistance than the EOS R, and you don't see people screaming about the weather resistance for it here. As for better photos, you're probably right there, though at this point 60+MP and better DR than we currently have in the mirrorless offering from Canon would be a welcome advantage for landscape.


----------



## st jack photography (Jul 20, 2019)

cellomaster27 said:


> This is their chance I think to save people from going into the Sony a7r4. That camera is a beast. It's coming in September so I hope canon will announce something for their RF system, even if it means waiting past September for a better R model.


They better get to it. That new SONY a7m4 is THE camera that is going to push me to the dark side, especially after I have gotten a taste using the badass rx1rm2. (Sorry, Canon, you had nothing even comparable to that tiny badass that scores 97 on dxo, or I would have gladly given you that $4k that went to SONY and SONY periphs.) Ever since I started shooting SONY, I put my 5DSr away, except for commercial or forensics jobs or where I am doing 3D or auto-focus stacks. I even adapted all of my strobes for SONY, since even they sync better and more consistently, and hey- don't get me started on how STUPID the WIFi interfaces for Canon are. They have been stupid and unusable since the 6d or longer. Canon plus WiFi equals MIGRAINE, Sony plus WiFi works instantly every time.
As it stands, all of my L glass will work on Sony adapters just as well as a Canon adapter-to-RF, which was a pathetic solution, IMHO. An adapter was a real way to make my EF L glass collection feel obsolete. A native EF solution was the only way to go. RF completely negates the EF-M line. What, so will there be an adapter for that too? An adapter to make a RF lens fit a mirrorless APSC is the stupidest thing I can think of, but I bet Canon is working on one. Smart, guys.
Besides, go look at DxO scores, and see who scores the highest on lenses and sensors. I LOVE the colors my CANON produces, but those colors are looking less and less attractive with such great post options and getting to use GEAR THAT HAS NOT BEEN INEXPLICABLY CRIPPLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I would love to have a reason to stay with Canon after using them for the past 5 years and spending many thousands of dollars on only them, preferring even their peripherals, which are expensive but well-made. However, day by day I lose more and more interest with the direction they are going, with releases that come out 5 years behind SONY and others, with features I don't want or appreciate. I recognize the "RF Adaptergate" as my perfect jump-off point to leave Canon with minimal investment loss, and I CANNOT be the only serious, working, established professional considering this.

I am trying very hard not to be a troll with this one, guys, but I have definitely failed again. But when you pick up a APS-C g1m3, set it to RAW burst continuous, and it does one or 2 VERY SLOW shots before the buffer hangs, then you pick up a full frame SONY rx1rm2 no bigger than a cigarette pack, and the thing shoots 18 RAW faster than I need them, so fast that I want to slow it down, so fast that it outbursts a 1dx, it becomes a no-brainer: better colors mean nothing when all else is trumped; better colors are meaningless when you want decisive moments, sharpness, AF speed, RAW burst speed, processing and buffer speeds, insane plethora of options for buttons.......I could go on and on.


----------



## BillB (Jul 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The 80D has a better sensor at ISO 100-400 than the 7D Mark II. At ISO 800 they're about even. At ISO 1600 and above, the 7D Mark II sensor has better low light/low noise performance as well as better DR than the 80D.
> 
> All of the credible rumors so far say the 90D will have the same 45 point AF system that the 80D has. The 7D Mark II already has a 65 point AF system very similar to the 61 point system in the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark III and IV. The current 1/5/7 bodies also allow more user configurable options to the AF system than the 80D does.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the 90D will be a significant upgrade to the 7D Mark II fails to understand why Canon is not calling it the 7D Mark III.


I don't think we know at this point what Canon is calling the replacement to the 80D and 7DII. So far as I now, 90D was something that came out of rumor world. We can hope that whatever it is called, it does have a robust AF system.


----------



## BillB (Jul 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I've seen more than a few 40D/50D/60D cameras with the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS hung on it in the past. More recently owners of the 60D/70D/80D seem to go for EF lenses because they plan to upgrade to or already also have a FF body. This seems to have happened around the time the first 6D was released and lowered the entry price to the FF club.
> 
> Although it was introduced at around $1,100 in the U.S., it has been priced at around $750-800 from authorized Canon USA dealers for several years now.


The introductory price for the 6D was $2099, or just about the clearance price for the 5DII.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 20, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> The 80D has a better sensor at ISO 100-400 than the 7D Mark II. At ISO 800 they're about even. At ISO 1600 and above, the 7D Mark II sensor has better low light/low noise performance as well as better DR than the 80D.
> 
> All of the credible rumors so far say the 90D will have the same 45 point AF system that the 80D has. The 7D Mark II already has a 65 point AF system very similar to the 61 point system in the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark III and IV. The current 1/5/7 bodies also allow more user configurable options to the AF system than the 80D does.
> 
> Anyone who thinks the 90D will be a significant upgrade to the 7D Mark II fails to understand why Canon is not calling it the 7D Mark III.


DxOmark has the 7DII with better DR above iso1600 but Bill Claff has the 80D and 7DII sensor the same DR at iso 1600 and above. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D

The 5DIII has the 1DX AF system, which is not the same as the 1DXII or 5DIV. The 5DIV has the superior IDXII system. According to TDP, "_Canon U.S.A.'s Chuck Westfall called the 1D X Mark II's AF system a "massive upgrade" featuring "much improved performance". It was hard to believe that the 1D X Mark II's new 61-point High-Density Reticular AF II system was going to be substantially better than its predecessor, but ... it definitely was_." https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV.aspx
The 7DII has an upgraded version of the 1DX AF with iTR and more points.

We will know soon enough what the 90D or whatever it is called will be like. If it has a good 30 mpx sensor and point focus, I will possibly buy. If it has a superior AF, I will definitely buy.


----------



## scyrene (Jul 20, 2019)

12Broncos said:


> I get Canon doesn't want to upend its DSLR faithful, which I respect. However, the mirrorless babies who are holding out for Pro/Prosumer camera(s) are starving. Quite frankly, I'm little frustrated that Canon hasn't announced a Mirrorless camera, (Pro/Prosumer that is) by now. I've been faithful to Canon, and I want to continue that, and one way Canon can do that is by giving an announcement that a mirrorless pro camera is coming, it doesn't have to be released yet.



I don't think it's a matter of protecting the DSLRs, it's just a higher-specced MILC takes more time to develop, and Canon's profits rely on mid- and lower-range products more than the flagship bodies. Not to mention 1-series users are likely to be the hardest to sway away from DSLRs. They'll bring something out, but it might take a bit more time - better to do it right then rush things. Nikon haven't got a D5/6 MILC yet equivalent either.


----------



## Architect1776 (Jul 20, 2019)

Trey T said:


> Improvement for M5: bigger grip!!!



I would like to see the M5 replacement to be a real technical beast in the small body format for hiking etc. Great eye focus for animals too, 10 fps and in the 30 MP range. Small lenses, don't meed to be hyper fast so easy to carry. Sort of like the old original Leicas. In other words make it a real system camera.


----------



## slclick (Jul 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I would like to see the M5 replacement to be a real technical beast in the small body format for hiking etc. Great eye focus for animals too, 10 fps and in the 30 MP range. Small lenses, don't meed to be hyper fast so easy to carry. Sort of like the old original Leicas. In other words make it a real system camera.


I'd like to see a merger of the M5/6/50 bodies. NO protrusion but with a viewfinder, Canon's version of an X-E3. EOS menu system, not Powershot. A sparse backside as to lessen the M series biggest flaw imho, accidental touches of buttons, switches and settings. I had to turn off nearly everything in my M5 to keep from knocking things. I was happy with the EVF so an improvement there will be nothing but icing on the cake. (Try the Pen-F EVF, so unrealistic) I would though like to see Canon upgrade their Jpeg Monochrome files. Basically I want a Fuji/Canon mashup for a travel body while I wait for an R series to replace my 5D3. It won't happen as they don't make cameras because we whine on CR.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 21, 2019)

12Broncos said:


> ...However, the mirrorless babies who are holding out for Pro/Prosumer camera(s) are starving. Quite frankly, I'm little frustrated that Canon hasn't announced a Mirrorless camera, (Pro/Prosumer that is) by now.



Apparently you missed the release of the Canon EOS R, which is a Pro/Prosumer camera.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2019)

slclick said:


> I'd like to see a merger of the M5/6/50 bodies. NO protrusion but with a viewfinder, Canon's version of an X-E3. EOS menu system, not Powershot. A sparse backside as to lessen the M series biggest flaw imho, accidental touches of buttons, switches and settings. I had to turn off nearly everything in my M5 to keep from knocking things. I was happy with the EVF so an improvement there will be nothing but icing on the cake. (Try the Pen-F EVF, so unrealistic) I would though like to see Canon upgrade their Jpeg Monochrome files. Basically I want a Fuji/Canon mashup for a travel body while I wait for an R series to replace my 5D3. It won't happen as they don't make cameras because we whine on CR.


I absolutely wouldn’t. I find the M5 layout, controls, and tilt not swivel screen ideal for photography, and the raised viewfinder is well placed to optimize drag AF whilst using said viewfinder.

Please Canon keep the M5 MkII as close as possible to the MkI, a photography orientated small mirrorless, and play entry level and sudo vlogger with the other models in the range.

The only things I’d like from an M5 MkII are snappier AF, quicker image review, an intervalometer and the ability to tether it to a computer. Oh and a better IQ 15-45 f2.8 zoom, don’t care if it is twice the weight, and the size of the 18-150.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2019)

BillB said:


> The introductory price for the 6D was $2099, or just about the clearance price for the 5DII.



For most of the time the 5D Mark II was the newest 5-series camera, it sold for around $2,700-2,800. For most of the time the 6D was the newest 6-series camera, it sold for around $1,400-1600. That's quite a difference. Clearance prices usually only appear a few weeks before the product is superseded by a newer model. Introductory prices rarely lasted more than 6 months to a year back in the late 2000s and early 2010s. Fluctuations in the yen/dollar ratio also played a significant role in the mid 2010s.

Since it wasn't as obvious as I assumed it would be: the $1,100 to $750-800 price reference is to the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS, not to the the EOS 6D.


----------



## M. D. Vaden of Oregon (Jul 21, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I sold my R and 50 1.2 because someone offered more than I could buy them for new again. So, I was starting fresh sort of... I still have the 35 and accessories.
> 
> However, I just scored a crazy good deal on greentoe this morning for an eos r, so.... I’m back in haha. Less than gray market pricing, I could not pass it up.
> 
> I guess Canon won’t let me leave.



I'd buy a 2nd EOS R today, but really want the next RF with 2 cards. But I've looked at a lot of EOS R's lately. I also like the 5DS and noticed an Amazon Renewed category Canon 5DS for $1318.00 today. Tempting to buy at that price for an extra. But for the moment, my funds are set aside and ready for another RF body.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> DxOmark has the 7DII with better DR above iso1600 but Bill Claff has the 80D and 7DII sensor the same DR at iso 1600 and above. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon EOS 7D Mark II,Canon EOS 80D
> 
> The 5DIII has the 1DX AF system, which is not the same as the 1DXII or 5DIV. The 5DIV has the superior IDXII system. According to TDP, "_Canon U.S.A.'s Chuck Westfall called the 1D X Mark II's AF system a "massive upgrade" featuring "much improved performance". It was hard to believe that the 1D X Mark II's new 61-point High-Density Reticular AF II system was going to be substantially better than its predecessor, but ... it definitely was_." https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-IV.aspx
> The 7DII has an upgraded version of the 1DX AF with iTR and more points.
> ...



At ISO 1600 and above, SNR is more critical than DR for most of us who shoot at those ISOs. That's where the 7D mark II is better than the 80D.

You can hype it all you want, but the only difference I notice between the AF system in my 5D Mark III and my 5D Mark IV is the vertical spread of the AF points. The 7D Mark II is not quite as good because the baseline for an APS-C mirror/sensor is narrower. This would also be the case for an APS-C version of the 1D X Mark II/5D Mark IV AF system. Most of the improvements between the 1D X and 1D X Mark II seem to be in processing algorithms for the data gathered by the PDAF sensor (and RGB+IR light meter when using iTR). The 5D Mark IV got the same PDAF sensor array hardware, but not all of the same processing algorithms. The 1D X Mark II AF system noticeably outperforms the 5D Mark IV AF system according to those I know who shoot with both. YMMV.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Apparently you missed the release of the Canon EOS R, which is a Pro/Prosumer camera.



In Sony terms, the EOS R is a pro camera. (e.g. it doesn't have to be robust enough to take daily abuse for years, be able to continue shooting in harsh, wet, and high dust environments, have batteries that last for days, not be released with a beta level firmware, etc.)

In Canon terms, it is not.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2019)

BillB said:


> I don't think we know at this point what Canon is calling the replacement to the 80D and 7DII. So far as I now, 90D was something that came out of rumor world. We can hope that whatever it is called, it does have a robust AF system.



Hope all you want, but the near certainty, based on what Canon has allowed to be leaked, is that the 7D line is dead, and the 90D will not exceed the 7D Mark II at all parameters. It will have a (possibly improved) version of the 45-point AF system found in the 80D.


----------



## wockawocka (Jul 21, 2019)

Sorry guys, it's just an 80mp printer


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> At ISO 1600 and above, SNR is more critical than DR for most of us who shoot at those ISOs. That's where the 7D mark II is better than the 80D.
> 
> You can hype it all you want, but the only difference I notice between the AF system in my 5D Mark III and my 5D Mark IV is the vertical spread of the AF points. The 7D Mark II is not quite as good because the baseline for an APS-C mirror/sensor is narrower. This would also be the case for an APS-C version of the 1D X Mark II/5D Mark IV AF system. Most of the improvements between the 1D X and 1D X Mark II seem to be in processing algorithms for the data gathered by the PDAF sensor (and RGB+IR light meter when using iTR). The 5D Mark IV got the same PDAF sensor array hardware, but not all of the same processing algorithms. The 1D X Mark II AF system noticeably outperforms the 5D Mark IV AF system according to those I know who shoot with both. YMMV.


I was not hyping it in any way, merely quoting Bryan Carnahan of TSP verbatim. No more, no less. It was about the AF of the 5DIII versus the 5DIV not being the same, which was the point, not the the 5DIV vs 1DX. The AF of the 5DIII does not have the iTR that was introduced for the 7DII and is now in the 1DX, 1DXII, 5DSR and 5DIV.

Regarding YMMV, In contrast to your experience, I have used the 7D, 7DII, 5DSR, 5DIII and 5DIV extensively for bird photography and whereas the 5DSR is now my go to camera for static shots, the 5DIV is my first choice for birds in flight because its AF is noticeably the best of that bunch when fast accurate AF is required for rapidly moving small birds. You will find it repeated in many of my posts that the 5DSR is pretty competent for BIF (and even dragonflies in flight), but the AF of the 5DIV is the best for difficult shots.

My experience may differ from yours because we cover different mileage and you don’t shoot rapidly moving birds close up.

_Later addition_
I just remembered that Ari Hazeghi, whose specialty is difficult BIF photos, wrote a detailed critique of the 5DIV before before he went over to Nikon. http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blog/eos-5d-mark-iv-field-review/ There is a long section on the AF, in which he wrote: "_First the good news, the EOS-5D Mark IV AF consistency is greatly improved over the EOS-5D Mark III which itself was quite a capable camera in the right hands. With the EOS-5D Mark IV, right off the bat, I noticed a higher percentage of tack sharp files with challenging subjects. It tracks very well against complex backgrounds, like the examples below_." And there is a lot more. So, in your hands the 5DIII is quite capable, but for difficult BIF the 5DIV scores.


----------



## edoorn (Jul 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> In Sony terms, the EOS R is a pro camera. (e.g. it doesn't have to be robust enough to take daily abuse for years, be able to continue shooting in harsh, wet, and high dust environments, have batteries that last for days, not be released with a beta level firmware, etc.)
> 
> In Canon terms, it is not.



I partly agree with that. The R could be used profesionally, but I’m thinking more like portrait stuff for example. For fast action (sports, wildlife) but also events/weddings it’s lacking robustness, second card slot, best in class ergonomics (lack of multicontroller, some oddly placed controls, etc), readout speed of sensor and af tracking compared to competition. Also, less options to customize AF tracking cases.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 21, 2019)

M. D. Vaden of Oregon said:


> I'd buy a 2nd EOS R today, but really want the next RF with 2 cards. But I've looked at a lot of EOS R's lately. I also like the 5DS and noticed an Amazon Renewed category Canon 5DS for $1318.00 today. Tempting to buy at that price for an extra. But for the moment, my funds are set aside and ready for another RF body.



I scored one for $500 off current msrp on greentoe. US authorized dealer that I’ve actually dealt with in the past. I was leaning towards buying the new Sony, or an A7Riii, but I’m going to gamble that Canon releases the RF lenses I want into the wild before my trip in early November. 

I’m not interested in buying EF lenses. Hopefully this works out. 

The minute the new R is released I will preorder. I hope Canon doesn’t try to compete straight with Sony on MPs; I’d rather have something in the high 40s with better DR than 60. I mean... I’d still take 60. Hell, I’d even take an eos r with the new Sony sensor.


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 21, 2019)

Architect1776 said:


> I would like to see the M5 replacement to be a real technical beast in the small body format for hiking etc. Great eye focus for animals too, 10 fps and in the 30 MP range. Small lenses, don't meed to be hyper fast so easy to carry. Sort of like the old original Leicas. In other words make it a real system camera.


Sounds like an interesting concept, I hope that Canon realizes it!


----------



## Del Paso (Jul 21, 2019)

12Broncos said:


> I get Canon doesn't want to upend its DSLR faithful, which I respect. However, the mirrorless babies who are holding out for Pro/Prosumer camera(s) are starving. Quite frankly, I'm little frustrated that Canon hasn't announced a Mirrorless camera, (Pro/Prosumer that is) by now. I've been faithful to Canon, and I want to continue that, and one way Canon can do that is by giving an announcement that a mirrorless pro camera is coming, it doesn't have to be released yet.


Agree! 
I owned the EOS R for a while...
Then, when it came to deciding which camera I'd take to Italy, in order to get pictures from rare orchids, I sold it and replaced it with the 5 D IV.
I really liked the R, but relying on one single SD for pictures I could never repeat was something I disliked, having been an SD failure- victim once.
I know the EOS R Pro is coming, and I'll buy it immediately, just impatiently waiting for a little hint by somebody in the know... (CR 2 ?)


----------



## edoorn (Jul 21, 2019)

either way, it would somehow feel a bit strange to have the pro L lenses lined up, but not the proper body to match it. Something must be around the corner, right?


----------



## uri.raz (Jul 21, 2019)

flip314 said:


> That lens always seemed like an odd one to me. It's quite pricy for EF-S, so apart from some 7D owners I've never seen it having wide appeal.



I kinda wonder why Canon hasn't upgraded it to EF-S 15-45mm f/2.8. It's the crop equivalent of 24-70mm, and there's an EF-M 15-45mm already.


----------



## canonical (Jul 21, 2019)

i


privatebydesign said:


> I absolutely wouldn’t. I find the M5 layout, controls, and tilt not swivel screen ideal for photography, and the raised viewfinder is well placed to optimize drag AF whilst using said viewfinder.
> 
> Please Canon keep the M5 MkII as close as possible to the MkI, a photography orientated small mirrorless, and play entry level and sudo vlogger with the other models in the range.
> 
> The only things I’d like from an M5 MkII are snappier AF, quicker image review, an intervalometer and the ability to tether it to a computer. Oh and a better IQ 15-45 f2.8 zoom, don’t care if it is twice the weight, and the size of the 18-150.


am looking forward to EOS M 5 and 50 mk II using g5XII form factor. no more mini-dslr style with central viewfinder bump, but range-findet style with corner pop-up EVF and swivel screen (like sony a6####). pop up evf for smallest possible transport size. tilt screen is useless for my photography with 40% images in portrait orientation.


----------



## sfericean (Jul 21, 2019)

Any word on if it will have 24fps in 1080p? Seems to be all the rage lately with Canon to remove 24fps in 1080p and only leave 30fps in 1080p. If I can get the same quality of 1080p at 24fps that I’m getting on the EOS R but on the 90D I’d be one happy camper. Then I’d be covered for all my photo (nature and sports/wildlife which I’m horrible at Lol) and my video (hiking/backpacking/gear) needs for my YT channel. Either way I’m pretty flippin excited for this. I love the EOS R but man do I miss the simplicity and button layout of the 80D. If the specs are correct and it has high quality 24fps in 1080p like the EOS R, then this may be the work horse camera that I’ve been waiting for. But then again the possibility of a 5D Mark V would keep me in the FF game with the friendlier cost of EF L Lenses. Can’t imagine the RF stuff will be priced too kindly. 

Man my brain is so screwed up right now. Lol.


----------



## LesC (Jul 21, 2019)

amorse said:


> I think you're going to be waiting a while. The 6D II came out in 2017, and with the past 4 year release cycle you'd be looking at summer 2021. That's assuming that they ever release a new 6D series camera. The RP might be a suitable alternative in all honesty - it's not exactly the same, but it's close.


 Yep, I doubt there'll be a 6D MKIII. Having said that, I love my 6d MKII but recently got the EOS R and since have used that 95% of the time - a bit smaller & lighter with a better sensor, although for action shots I'd probably still use the 6DMKII as first preference. I think they make a good pair together though...


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 21, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Weird. My classes have gone from predominantly Canon to predominantly Sony in the span of a year. It’s a community college photography program though, so there are more younger people than usual.
> 
> The most popular camera is the Sony A7Riii, followed by the A7iii by far.



Interesting. So new tech literate buyers, mostly. Makes sense. If I was that age, buying my first camera, with a lot of disposable income, I’d likely buy the Sony too. Sounds great on paper. These days, I just love the canon ergo, reliability, & lenses too much, and the promise of the RF mount to ever get anything else.

But I’d have definitely bought the Sony back then if I’d been able to afford it. And that’s the other surprise to me - they’re spending that much?


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 21, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Interesting. So new tech literate buyers, mostly. Makes sense. If I was that age, buying my first camera, with a lot of disposable income, I’d likely buy the Sony too. Sounds great on paper. These days, I just love the canon ergo, reliability, & lenses too much, and the promise of the RF mount to ever get anything else.
> 
> But I’d have definitely bought the Sony back then if I’d been able to afford it. And that’s the other surprise to me - they’re spending that much?



It's a relatively affluent area in CA. There are quiet a few of them with nicer cars at 19-20 than I have at 39. Demographics aside, it's been my experience that Sony is winning the younger crowed by a LARGE margin; who knows how that translates to the wider market.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 21, 2019)

sfericean said:


> Any word on if it will have 24fps in 1080p? Seems to be all the rage lately with Canon to remove 24fps in 1080p and only leave 30fps in 1080p. If I can get the same quality of 1080p at 24fps that I’m getting on the EOS R but on the 90D I’d be one happy camper. Then I’d be covered for all my photo (nature and sports/wildlife which I’m horrible at Lol) and my video (hiking/backpacking/gear) needs for my YT channel.


It seems like they're too busy protecting their cinema camera lineup to let the plebes have p24 in their non-cinema cameras.


----------



## RobbieHat (Jul 21, 2019)

I also shoot landscapes and almost every photographer I am in workshops with has switched to Sony or Nikon. Canon has two compelling offerings at this point. 11-24 which many adapt to Sony and 5 dsr which just got one upped by Sony.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 21, 2019)

EOBeav said:


> I'd like to know what the stats are in CR history for somebody saying, "If this camera doesn't have X, I'm switching to Y". Better yet, I'd like to know how many of those people actually do switch.


In contrast, I don't much care about that. They are entitled to that point of view, and whether they are being honest doesn't affect me either way.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> It seems like they're too busy protecting their cinema camera lineup to let the plebes have p24 in their non-cinema cameras.


Does 24 fps really look that different from 25fps?

And if so, wouldn't the affect be even greater with shooting at 25fps and converting in Compressor or the like to 24fps?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2019)

sfericean said:


> Any word on if it will have 24fps in 1080p? Seems to be all the rage lately with Canon to remove 24fps in 1080p and only leave 30fps in 1080p. If I can get the same quality of 1080p at 24fps that I’m getting on the EOS R but on the 90D I’d be one happy camper. Then I’d be covered for all my photo (nature and sports/wildlife which I’m horrible at Lol) and my video (hiking/backpacking/gear) needs for my YT channel. Either way I’m pretty flippin excited for this. I love the EOS R but man do I miss the simplicity and button layout of the 80D. If the specs are correct and it has high quality 24fps in 1080p like the EOS R, then this may be the work horse camera that I’ve been waiting for. But then again the possibility of a 5D Mark V would keep me in the FF game with the friendlier cost of EF L Lenses. Can’t imagine the RF stuff will be priced too kindly.
> 
> Man my brain is so screwed up right now. Lol.


Has anybody ever met anybody that can tell the difference between 25p and 23.976 frames/s? 

What are the downsides of recording in 25p PAL and outputting 24p NTSC?

What processes are you using to output 24p to 50/60Hz video?

It seems to me it doesn’t matter what footage I throw at the various video editing programs they output to the timeline settings or the output settings.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2019)

AlanF said:


> I was not hyping it in any way, merely quoting Bryan Carnahan of TSP verbatim. No more, no less. It was about the AF of the 5DIII versus the 5DIV not being the same, which was the point, not the the 5DIV vs 1DX. The AF of the 5DIII does not have the iTR that was introduced for the 7DII and is now in the 1DX, 1DXII, 5DSR and 5DIV.
> 
> Regarding YMMV, In contrast to your experience, I have used the 7D, 7DII, 5DSR, 5DIII and 5DIV extensively for bird photography and whereas the 5DSR is now my go to camera for static shots, the 5DIV is my first choice for birds in flight because its AF is noticeably the best of that bunch when fast accurate AF is required for rapidly moving small birds. You will find it repeated in many of my posts that the 5DSR is pretty competent for BIF (and even dragonflies in flight), but the AF of the 5DIV is the best for difficult shots.
> 
> ...



I think Bryan was the one doing a little bit of hyping.

Bryan's Quote from Chuck Westfall was with regard to the 1D X vs. 1D X Mark II. He translated that to the 5D Mark III vs. 5D Mark IV himself, apparently not realizing that the same PDAF sensor array hardware does not always equate to the same performance if the same processing hardware and routines are not used. I will admit that I have not used iTR with my relatively new 5D mark IV yet. My opinion may change after the upcoming fall football season.

A few paragraphs later in the same review, Bryan says: "The improved part of the 5D IV's AF system comes from the 150,000-pixel, 252-zone RGB+IR Metering Sensor. The 5D III has an iFCL (Focus, Color and Luminance) 63-zone (9x7 grid), dual-layer ambient/flash metering sensor with one layer sensitive to red/green only and the other layer being sensitive to blue/green only. "

The 5D Mark III does not have an RGB+IR metering sensor. The 7D Mark II does have an RGB+IR metering sensor with the same resolution and number of zones as the 5D Mark IV (which, apart from AF, also gives both the 5DIV and 7DII better metering in difficult lighting situations than the 5D Mark III). So in that sense, the 5D Mark IV _is_ an improvement over the 5D Mark III, but not necessarily over the 7D Mark II.

Much further down in the cited review, Bryan says this: "Overall, I'm very happy with my 5D IV results. I still give the AI Servo performance edge to the 1D X Mark II, but the difference I'm perceiving is only very slight. The 5D IV is performing among the best-ever EOS DSLRs. " So even he eventually acknowledges that the AF systems in the 1D X Mark II and 5D Mark IV are not _identical._

iTR was introduced with the 1D X in early 2012, not with the 7D Mark II that came out in late 2014. The 1D X was the first Canon EOS camera to have an RGB metering sensor (100,000 pixels in 252 zones with no IR) , which is a necessary component of iTR.

Further, iTR is only active with _61-point (1DX, 1DXII, 5DS/r, 5DIV)/65-point (7DII) automatic selection_ chosen as the _AF Area Selection Mode_. Far too many users of cameras with iTR stop reading there and do not realize that in _AI Servo AF_ mode, the user selects the initial AF point with _65-point automatic selection_ . So even though iTR is available, not many shooters seem to use it. I use it sometimes when the situation warrants, but even with _Accel./decel. tracking_ and _AF pt auto switching_ set at maximum, it sometimes still tracks a little slower than I would like.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 21, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Does 24 fps really look that different from 25fps?


It doesn't matter if they look similar. Film content isn't 25fps. You can't display 25fps content correctly on TVs in North America. This isn't a matter of p25 displayed at 25Hz on a monitor vs. p24 displayed at 24Hz on a monitor.



> And if so, wouldn't the affect be even greater with shooting at 25fps and converting in Compressor or the like to 24fps?


There's only one acceptable way to "convert" 25fps to 24/1.001fps. Slow it down. If you want to slow everything down by 4.27% and then have to stretch the audio by the same amount because Canon, be my guest.



privatebydesign said:


> What are the downsides of recording in 25p PAL and outputting 24p NTSC?


What are you going to do? Discard every 25th frame and then drop 1 extra frame every 1000 frames? Blend the 25 frames at the right percentages to get 24/1.001 frames per second instead?



> What processes are you using to output 24p to 50/60Hz video?


Why would you do that? If you're shooing p24 you most likely keeping it at p24.

There's no possible logical reasonable explanation for why Canon has removed p24 from their recent consumer cameras other than protectionism. Now that the difference in video quality no longer creates a sufficiently large enough market segmentation between their consumer cameras and the cinema lineup, they've removed p24 to make sure they don't lose Cx00 sales to the consumer models. Because you know lots of people out there were going to get a Cx00 but would buy a G7X III or G5X II instead if they could shoot at p24. 

Even if you accepted that sort of fantasy land logic, you'd still have to conclude that Canon hasn't thought this through. Canon apparently would rather lose those Cx00 sales to cameras from Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, etc. instead. Only in Canon land is making no money from a buyer preferable to making some money from them.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 21, 2019)

Quirkz said:


> Interesting. So new tech literate buyers, mostly. Makes sense. If I was that age, buying my first camera, with a lot of disposable income, I’d likely buy the Sony too. Sounds great on paper. These days, I just love the canon ergo, reliability, & lenses too much, and the promise of the RF mount to ever get anything else.
> 
> But I’d have definitely bought the Sony back then if I’d been able to afford it. And that’s the other surprise to me - they’re spending that much?



Those youngsters think a spec sheet is all that matters.

With the death of full-time photojournalism, their generation possibly will never realize the value of reliability under adverse conditions. They're also too young to remember an era when highly complex electronic devices just worked as they should right out of the box instead of needing three firmware revisions after the fact to get the bugs worked out of the beta level firmware things are released with now.

It's the same thing with lenses. All they care about is MTF and how sharp the edge of a flat test chart is, not realizing how much other properties of the lens (i.e. soft, creamy out of focus highlights) might be compromised to get that performance with a flat test chart or on a lab bench. More power to them if they want to be remembered for taking ultra sharp photos of flat test charts.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 21, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> I think Bryan was the one doing a little bit of hyping.
> 
> Bryan's Quote from Chuck Westfall was with regard to the 1D X vs. 1D X Mark II. He translated that to the 5D Mark III vs. 5D Mark IV himself, apparently not realizing that the same PDAF sensor array hardware does not always equate to the same performance if the same processing hardware and routines are not used. I will admit that I have not used iTR with my relatively new 5D mark IV yet. My opinion may change after the upcoming fall football season.
> 
> ...


You are quite correct about the introduction of iTR. This morning, having read about it again, I turned it off to see if I got faster first acquisition, and I think I did. You should add the 5DIV to your list of gear! As I wrote, I prefer my 5DSR for IQ for squeezing the last bit of resolution, but the 5DIV is really good for fast and accurate AF. I sold my 7DII because the superb AF and excellent sensor of the 5DIV on the one hand and the reach of the 5DSR and its handling on the other, but I do miss a crop that gives me the good reach and smaller file size.


----------



## slclick (Jul 21, 2019)

RobbieHat said:


> I also shoot landscapes and almost every photographer I am in workshops with has switched to Sony or Nikon. Canon has two compelling offerings at this point. 11-24 which many adapt to Sony and 5 dsr which just got one upped by Sony.


And I who also shoot landscapes know there's a lot more to it than a wide lens and that the 5Ds(r) is a top landscape body.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Why would you do that? If you're shooing p24 you most likely keeping it at p24.



Don't get me wrong I'm not making excuses for a seemingly petty omission, but my point has validity. How is the outputted 24p being played? If it is in an NTSC region on a monitor it is going to be at 60, 120 or 240Hz, which kinda means the differences are not noticeable by anybody, 24 doesn't go in to 60!

I believe Canon's bean counters know what they are doing and have got corporate approval to do it, I don't know what that reasoning is and I don't profess to know the subsequent impact on sales, but their sales record does seem to indicate they have a plan. But, as a consumer I don't get bent out of shape about it because I am smart enough to know how to achieve whatever frame rate I desire.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 21, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Why would you do that? If you're shooing p24 you most likely keeping it at p24.



And then doing what with it? Transferring it directly to film so you can project it?

Do people using consumer-grade still cameras actually do that?


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 21, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> Don't get me wrong I'm not making excuses for a seemingly petty omission, but my point has validity. How is the outputted 24p being played? If it is in an NTSC region on a monitor it is going to be at 60, 120 or 240Hz, which kinda means the differences are not noticeable by anybody, 24 doesn't go in to 60!


Which is why most midgrade or better modern TVs have a 120Hz refresh rate so they can display p24 content without judder by using a 5:5 cadence instead of 3:2. You can't do that with p25.



stevelee said:


> And then doing what with it? Transferring it directly to film so you can project it?


 Is this is a serious question? How about watch it on a TV like you would any other p24 content... You know, like you do with Blu-ray, UHD Blu-ray, pretty much any scripted TV show, etc. that are all produced at p24.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 22, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Which is why most midgrade or better modern TVs have a 120Hz refresh rate so they can display p24 content without judder by using a 5:5 cadence instead of 3:2. You can't do that with p25.



But many can't and very few people have issues with the 3:2 cadence, in fact most people don't even know it is happening! Even then you are ignoring my point about video editing programs, I can load any input footage with any frame rate and output at any other and all editing programs I have known just deal with it. Indeed I have made some basic input and output errors and even those get covered up.

Yes it is a seemingly mindless omission, but it is so easy to work around the only people that say it is an 'issue' seem to be incredibly naive or just out for page hits and vlog views.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 22, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> But many can't and very few people have issues with the 3:2 cadence, in fact most people don't even know it is happening!


So, ignorance is bliss? Using this argument we should all just be using our camera phones because it's good enough for more people and most people looking at our photos can't tell the difference.



> Even then you are ignoring my point about video editing programs, I can load any input footage with any frame rate and output at any other and all editing programs I have known just deal with it. Indeed I have made some basic input and output errors and even those get covered up.


I'm not ignoring your point. You seem to think there's some magic happening in editing programs. There's not. They can either blend frames or decimate to change the frame rate. Both leave readily apparent undesirable visual artifacts unless the decimation is by an integer multiple of the original framerate. Even then shutter angle can bite you. No competent person shooting video shoots at a different framerate than they plan to output their project as unless they're overcranking the footage to slow it down later.

Your "solution" is no solution at all. It's like arguing that shooting the lowest res JPEGs in camera is basically the equivalent of shooting RAW because I can just resize the image in Photoshop later to the same overall size. Photo editing programs can load any input resolution and quality and output at any other so they're basically the same.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> And then doing what with it? Transferring it directly to film so you can project it?
> 
> Do people using consumer-grade still cameras actually do that?


Only the artistic history buffs, and they always lead with 414 feet of red film for the orchestral overture before switching to blue and dimming the lights. At least, that’s how Robert said it should be done.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 22, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Those youngsters think a spec sheet is all that matters.
> 
> With the death of full-time photojournalism, their generation possibly will never realize the value of reliability under adverse conditions. They're also too young to remember an era when highly complex electronic devices just worked as they should right out of the box instead of needing three firmware revisions after the fact to get the bugs worked out of the beta level firmware things are released with now.
> 
> It's the same thing with lenses. All they care about is MTF and how sharp the edge of a flat test chart is, not realizing how much other properties of the lens (i.e. soft, creamy out of focus highlights) might be compromised to get that performance with a flat test chart or on a lab bench. More power to them if they want to be remembered for taking ultra sharp photos of flat test charts.



Yeahhhh.... I don’t get this position. The youngsters are adopting Sony because Sony is offering functionality at a value, not because they are looking at MTF charts. Sony has some of the fastest cameras out, and the best overall AF period. 

I love Canon. I just bought the EOS R a second time instead of jumping ship, but Sony isn’t just flash... they are offering the FAR better mirrorless product RIGHT NOW. The youngsters don’t have ANY brand loyalty (for the most part), they are going for what’s perceived as the “best”right now. I don’t blame them, I get it; I hope I’m not the sucker that stuck it out with Kod... I mean Canon while the industry got pushed forward by an innovator. 

Obviously I placed my bet on Canon, even though I think the R is a bit of a clunker, I believe that in the long run Canon will catch up with their tech, and offer what Sony has been unable to... soul.


----------



## PVCC (Jul 22, 2019)

Sadly, my expectations that Canon could release a EF 24-70 2.8L *IS* USM lens have dropped to almost none... There were rumors posted here months ago indeed. I do hope I'm wrong!

What a pitty.
Most other brands offer 24-70 2.8 with Image Stabilization...

I.S. is always a very helpful feature, even at wide angle

If I could get a 3rd party 24-70 2.8 lens to be enabled for the Lens Correction features (Chromatic & Peripheral aberration, Diffraction correction, etc) on my 5D4 I would buy it.

But I could only do it with a specific 17-35 Tamron lens, which the camera recognized as a Canon. Obviously the corrections weren't so good as with Canon lens, but very helpful anyway, especially since I work mainly with .JPGs (and for video are even more important!)

I wonder how much the RF 24-70 2.8L IS lens will cost..

(((


----------



## sfericean (Jul 22, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Even if you accepted that sort of fantasy land logic, you'd still have to conclude that Canon hasn't thought this through. Canon apparently would rather lose those Cx00 sales to cameras from Sony, Panasonic, Fuji, etc. instead. Only in Canon land is making no money from a buyer preferable to making some money from them.



Totally agree.

Here’s the crazy thing that I’ve often wondered about. I’m a dual shooter video first and then photo (I love photo I’m just not the best at it, yet). I take my camera (currently the EOS R) to all sorts of places. Just a few weeks ago I took it to 11.5k ft. I hiked up a flippin mountain with it on a peak design capture clip. NEVER ONCE did I say to myself “you know what would make my YT videos better on the side of this mountain? An even bigger cinema camera.”

I would venture to say that no one wanting to shoot video whether on the side of a mountain or at a child’s birthday party or at a friends wedding or vlogging or really anything other than shooting a legitimate movie with actors and sets and crew etc., have ever longed for an even more bulky and “hey look at me, I’ve got a cinema camera” setup.

I just don’t get why canon would ever think that when presented with a camera that can do all in a smaller package, would I as a consumer (I have no empirical data to cite rather than what seems logical; there are more consumers than movie directors) choose to go to their cinema line over something like an EOS R or 90D. As a consumer the protectionism seems illogical as the cinema line is not even in my purchasing thought process. Even remotely.

I guess having a C100/200 (whatever) would be badass, but I’m not lugging that thing up a mountain or bringing it to my daughter’s birthday party, etc. Just saying.


----------



## PVCC (Jul 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> And then doing what with it? Transferring it directly to film so you can project it?
> 
> Do people using consumer-grade still cameras actually do that?



Well, not many people, but some do shoot at 24p for filming, yes.

Actually, some movies (not many, but some in part or completely) were shot on DSLRs thanks to that capability.

I do miss the 24p in the GX7 III (on which I'm so interested).

Again as someone said, if you don't cannibalize your products, someone else will do.

EOS Cinema Cxxx are everyday more expensive features/price wise than other options. But Canon Product Managers are like stone mind.

Time will show that Canon will loose market share. Brand's reputation is not enough to keep king sales position.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Is this is a serious question? How about watch it on a TV like you would any other p24 content... You know, like you do with Blu-ray, UHD Blu-ray, pretty much any scripted TV show, etc. that are all produced at p24.


Of course it is a serious question. I'm still trying to figure out your point.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2019)

unfocused said:


> Apparently you missed the release of the Canon EOS R, which is a Pro/Prosumer camera.


I've been shooting with the R at work for the past month just getting used to it before my busy season starts. Today, I took it out for some personal shooting. Wanted to see how this camera that gets so much disrespect on this forum does with birds in flight. Not much to shoot today, but some pelicans. The R nailed the focus using a third-party lens. (Shot with the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary.)


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Of course it is a serious question. I'm still trying to figure out your point.


If you can't understand why people want to be able to shoot video in p24 then perhaps it is best to stay out of the conversation instead of just blindly jumping in to defending Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> If you can't understand why people want to be able to shoot video in p24 then perhaps it is best to stay out of the conversation instead of just blindly jumping in to defending Canon.


Condescension > explanation. Kinda makes you look like an ass, but maybe that’s the look you were going for.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 22, 2019)

PVCC said:


> Time will show that Canon will loose market share. Brand's reputation is not enough to keep king sales position.


Will it, though? 

People here have been saying that for a decade, it hasn’t happened yet. But even a broken analog clock shows the correct time twice a day – that’s an accuracy of 0.14%. So if you and others keep on predicting it, maybe one of you will be right some day.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Will it, though?
> 
> People here have been saying that for a decade, it hasn’t happened yet. But even a broken analog clock shows the correct time twice a day – that’s an accuracy of 0.14%. So if you and others keep on predicting it, maybe one of you will be right some day.


You misread his post. He didn't say Canon would lose market share. He said they would loose market share. I think he means they will let loose with a huge increase in market share.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 22, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Condescension > explanation. Kinda makes you look like an ass, but maybe that’s the look you were going for.


Drawing from your vast experience being one as a point of comparison no doubt.

Edit:
People want to shoot p24. His presumption that the only use for p24 is to output it to film is bizarre. My point is abundantly clear. People want p24 and Canon won't provide it to "protect" their cinema cameras from even their own 1" sensor P&S cameras. Just because he doesn't realize what can be done with p24 content and where it's used doesn't invalidate the point.

Every camera reviewer should be loudly and proudly ridiculing Canon from the rooftops for such crippling rather than sucking up so they don't lose their Canon paid vacations and free gear. We'd get a firmware update adding the feature in a week if every established reviewer and influencer prominently took them to task and encouraged buyers to not buy their artificially crippled cameras.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> If you can't understand why people want to be able to shoot video in p24 then perhaps it is best to stay out of the conversation instead of just blindly jumping in to defending Canon.


Perhaps you are right. If I can’t understand why someone wants to do something , it is stupid for me to ask them why they want to do it.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 22, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Perhaps you are right. If I can’t understand why someone wants to do something , it is stupid for me to ask them why they want to do it.


Most professionally produced scripted primetime content is p24. Virtually all movies are p24. p24 is the standard. You seem to be unaware of this. People want to emulate what they see. This is why all of Canon's competitors offer p24 capability in their cameras. Their potential customers want it and they offer it. Canon's potential customers want it, but Canon only sees lost Cx00 sales.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 22, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Most professionally produced scripted primetime content is p24. Virtually all movies are p24. p24 is the standard. You seem to be unaware of this. People want to emulate what they see. This is why all of Canon's competitors offer p24 capability in their cameras. Their potential customers want it and they offer it. Canon's potential customers want it, but Canon only sees lost Cx00 sales.


Thanks for the straight answer, unworthy of one though I am. I am aware that movies have been shot at 24fps for a long time. The standard for silents was 16fps, but really depended upon how fast the cameraman cranked. I guess for a real cinematic look you would use repeated frames at 48fps in both cases.

Apparently Canon believes that this is not a huge factor in deciding whether to buy a G7X, and I doubt they worry about it taking away from Cx00 sales.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 22, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Yeahhhh.... I don’t get this position. The youngsters are adopting Sony because Sony is offering functionality at a value, not because they are looking at MTF charts. Sony has some of the fastest cameras out, and the best overall AF period.
> 
> I love Canon. I just bought the EOS R a second time instead of jumping ship, but Sony isn’t just flash... they are offering the FAR better mirrorless product RIGHT NOW. The youngsters don’t have ANY brand loyalty (for the most part), they are going for what’s perceived as the “best”right now. I don’t blame them, I get it; I hope I’m not the sucker that stuck it out with Kod... I mean Canon while the industry got pushed forward by an innovator.
> 
> Obviously I placed my bet on Canon, even though I think the R is a bit of a clunker, I believe that in the long run Canon will catch up with their tech, and offer what Sony has been unable to... soul.



You are equating spec sheet items with "functionality" but not including durability, the ability to continue working under extremely adverse environmental conditions, and just working the way it should out of the box as part of "functionality" as well. "Functionality" should include all of the above. That's the entire point of my comment. You're only considering as important what the Sony marketers and fanboys tell you is important.


----------



## Michael Clark (Jul 22, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Most professionally produced scripted primetime content is p24. Virtually all movies are p24. p24 is the standard. You seem to be unaware of this. People want to emulate what they see. This is why all of Canon's competitors offer p24 capability in their cameras. Their potential customers want it and they offer it. Canon's potential customers want it, but Canon only sees lost Cx00 sales.



Many of us are aware that 24p is the standard in many production circles. What we don't understand is why it is considered so _vital_ when the content is being broadcast on 30/60 hz systems to 30/60hz televisions.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> You are equating spec sheet items with "functionality" but not including durability, the ability to continue working under extremely adverse environmental conditions, and just working the way it should out of the box as part of "functionality" as well. "Functionality" should include all of the above. That's the entire point of my comment. You're only considering as important what the Sony marketers and fanboys tell you is important.



Yes, I can only see what fanboys tell me. 

I doubt you’ve ever actually spent much time with a Sony camera. They work just fine... out of the box, in the box, whatever.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> People want to shoot p24.


I’m sure some people do. Some people want to eat detergent pods to garner likes on social media.

The question is, how many want to shoot p24, and for what fraction of the global market does that desire represent a critical factor in the decision of whether or not to buy a particular camera? It’s a rhetorical question, you don’t have a clue as to the answer. However, it’s fairly likely that Canon does.



Stereodude said:


> Just because he doesn't realize what can be done with p24 content and where it's used doesn't invalidate the point.


That’s basically what he asked — what can be done with p24 content that can’t be done with other frame rates? Are you unwilling to provide an answer to that question, or unable?

The point being made by several people boils down to viewing. If one is shooting footage to be used in a cinematic production shown in theaters, it seems reasonable to adhere to the established standard p24. Do you really think that cinematic productions are a majority use case for people buying Canon digital cameras? LOL.

Far more likely that people are going to watch footage they shoot on their own televisions. Those televisions typically offer frame interpolation (called different things by various manufacturers, TruMotion, AutoMotion, MotionFlow, etc.) that boosts p24 content to 60/120/240 fps, matching the refresh rate of the panel. Sure, there are technogeeks out there who will wade into the advanced menu settings and turn the feature off, to ‘experience the pure cinematography of 24 fps’ or some such, but I suspect most people don’t bother, and of course Canon’s target market is ‘most people’.

But I’m not a video guy, so I’ll pose the question again: in the context of viewing footage at home, what are the advantages of shooting in p24 and what can be done that is impossible to achieve with another frame rate?



Stereodude said:


> Every camera reviewer should be loudly and proudly ridiculing Canon from the rooftops for such crippling...


So why aren’t they? Is it because they’re ‘sucking up’ as you suggest? Or could it be this issue has far more prominence in your own mind than it does in the real world?



Stereodude said:


> This is why all of Canon's competitors offer p24 capability in their cameras. Their potential customers want it and they offer it. Canon's potential customers want it, but Canon only sees lost Cx00 sales.


All of Canon’s competitors offer it. Canon sells more digital cameras and more ILCs than any of their competitors...in fact, last year they sold more than their nearest two or three competitors (depending on segment) combined, bolstered by a ~4% increase market share. If you have some grasp of logic, those facts should tell you something about the importance of p24 video to the broader stills market.

Note that Canon’s consumer camcorders seem to shoot p24, from their current releases to at least as far back as my Vixia HF M41 from 2011. But as far as the stills market, the available evidence indicates that p24 is essentially irrelevant, despite your hyperbole about its apparent importance.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 23, 2019)

Michael Clark said:


> Many of us are aware that 24p is the standard in many production circles. What we don't understand is why it is considered so _vital_ when the content is being broadcast on 30/60 hz systems to 30/60hz televisions.


Except any decent television doesn't display p24 content at 60Hz. It displays it at 120Hz with a 5:5 cadence when fed a p24 signal. On top of that good modern TVs can recover the original p24 frames from i60 and p60 signals and display them at 120Hz with a 5:5 cadence too. If you want the same look as professional content you shoot at p24. If you want to lobby the industry to try to move them away from p24 I'm sure they'll eager welcome your letters, faxes, and e-mails.



neuroanatomist said:


> That’s basically what he asked — what can be done with p24 content that can’t be done with other frame rates? Are you unwilling to provide an answer to that question, or unable?


You really need to up your trolling game if this is the best retort you've got. Other frames rates don't look like p24, which why you shoot at p24.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 23, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Except any decent television doesn't display p24 content at 60Hz. It displays it at 120Hz with a 5:5 cadence when fed a p24 signal. On top of that good modern TVs can recover the original p24 frames from i60 and p60 signals and display them at 120Hz with a 5:5 cadence too. If you want the same look as professional content you shoot at p24. If you want to lobby the industry to try to move them away from p24 I'm sure they'll eager welcome your letters, faxes, and e-mails.
> 
> 
> You really need to up your trolling game if this is the best retort you've got. Other frames rates don't look like p24, which why you shoot at p24.


This is such bull. Not one person alive can tell the difference between 24p displayed at 3:2 at 60Hz and 24p displayed at 5:5 at 120Hz, not one.

Other frame rates? 25p is indistinguishable from 24p, all Canon cameras can shoot 25p even those that can't shoot full width 1080 24p, and that was my point, those people complaining so bitterly that Canon has deliberately prevented them from making the most amazing videos ever because of a lack of 24p are talking bull.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 23, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> You really need to up your trolling game if this is the best retort you've got. Other frames rates don't look like p24, which why you shoot at p24.


That whooshing sound was the point sailing over your head. p24 doesn’t look like p24 when it’s interpolated up to 60/120/240 fps. 

This discussion is manifestly pointless, but by all means go on whining about whatever trivial stuff matters to you, rest assured Canon couldn’t care less.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 23, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I really, really need the 15-35 by late October. If it's not announced by the end of this month, I'll probably go to Sony



Does Sony have a 15-35mm f/2.8?


----------



## flip314 (Jul 23, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Does Sony have a 15-35mm f/2.8?



I mean... devil's advocate here, but Sony does have a 16-35mm f/2.8 which is probably equivalent enough for a lot of people. IMO the EF 16-35 would work at least as well as the Sony lens (even adapted), but you're passing up IBIS and if you don't already own one I could see not wanting to buy for the older mount at this point in time.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 23, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> Does Sony have a 15-35mm f/2.8?



I made the choice to stick with Canon, and will take the risk of the 15-35 being available by trip time. I am not going to be investing in any EF lenses, but I might break down and rent one or two if I have to.

That said, I'd be more than happy with the FE 16-35 2.8 GM. When I had my A7III it was one of my favorite lenses; quiet frankly I'd be thrilled if the new Canon just matched its optical quality, let alone beat it. I doubt very much the 15-35 will be significantly better than Sony's GM in any way, save for consistency in manufacturing.


----------



## Antono Refa (Jul 23, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> That said, I'd be more than happy with the FE 16-35 2.8 GM. When I had my A7III it was one of my favorite lenses; quiet frankly I'd be thrilled if the new Canon just matched its optical quality, let alone beat it. I doubt very much the 15-35 will be significantly better than Sony's GM in any way, save for consistency in manufacturing.



I wasn't aware there was such a big difference between the Sony FE 16-35mm 2.8 GM and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mkIII. I'll go and read some reviews.


----------



## tarjei99 (Jul 23, 2019)

If a camera is coming at the end of August, Canon would be leaking like mad by now.

So unless Canon thinks that it is time for shock and awe, no camera in August.


----------



## tron (Jul 23, 2019)

Antono Refa said:


> I wasn't aware there was such a big difference between the Sony FE 16-35mm 2.8 GM and the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L mkIII. I'll go and read some reviews.











Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens Image Quality


View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.




www.the-digital-picture.com





Actually it seems that the opposite is true. Canon looks better than its Sony counterpart. And anyway certainly not worse.


----------



## andrei1989 (Jul 23, 2019)

tarjei99 said:


> If a camera is coming at the end of August, Canon would be leaking like mad by now.



really? how long before the announcement of the R have you read the first rumors?


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 23, 2019)

tron said:


> Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens Image Quality
> 
> 
> View the image quality delivered by the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM Lens using ISO 12233 Resolution Chart lab test results. Compare the image quality of this lens with other lenses.
> ...



It certainly is. You can cherry pick images on different bodies on a web site like that, or you can adapt the canon to a Sony body and see how they both really perform, and the GM is simply sharper, especially at center.


----------



## tron (Jul 23, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It certainly is. You can cherry pick images on different bodies on a web site like that, or you can adapt the canon to a Sony body and see how they both really perform, and the GM is simply sharper, especially at center.
> 
> View attachment 185766
> View attachment 185767
> ...


TDP proves that Sony sucks at corners at 16mm for starters.

But lets check LensRentals:









Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM Sharpness Tests


Well, I'll say to start with I've probably had more requests for the Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM MTF tests than any lens in recent memory. People are excited about it. About half the requests have been very reasonable "I'm hoping to see MTF results before I decide between this lens and that." And...



www.lensrentals.com





*Comparisons*
*Sony FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM vs Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L Mk III*

The Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L Mk III is arguably the best 16-35mm f/2.8 lens, and therefore we consider it the standard at this focal length.

You can read the whole article and focal length comparisons yourself.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 23, 2019)

andrei1989 said:


> really? how long before the announcement of the R have you read the first rumors?


2 days?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2019)

tron said:


> TDP proves that Sony sucks at corners at 16mm for startets.
> 
> But lets check LensRentals:
> 
> ...


Oh please. Don’t bother the guy with data, he has *an opinion*!


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 24, 2019)

tron said:


> TDP proves that Sony sucks at corners at 16mm for startets.
> 
> But lets check LensRentals:
> 
> ...



Again, you cherry pick. The Canon is better at the corners at literally one focal length, which is the weak area of the Sony. 

I’ll say it again, you can cherry pick specific spots on different bodies, or you can look at both lenses on the same body. The Sony is the better overall.


----------



## tron (Jul 24, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Again, you cherry pick. The Canon is better at the corners at literally one focal length, which is the weak area of the Sony.
> 
> I’ll say it again, you can cherry pick specific spots on different bodies, or you can look at both lenses on the same body. The Sony is the better overall.


As neuro said whatever you like. Unless you want to check with lensrentals.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> I’ll say it again, you can cherry pick specific spots on different bodies, or you can look at both lenses on the same body. The Sony is the better overall.


Apparently you either didn’t read the article, or you failed to understand it. Regarding Canon vs. Sony 16-35/2.8 Roger concludes they’re basically similar, which directly contradicts your claim that the Sony is better overall. Hopefully everyone (but realistically, probably everyone but you) will trust Roger’s conclusions over yours.

But speaking of cherry picking, while you probably don’t have a bunch of copies to choose from, Roger does...and he tested them all. One notable observation he made: “_The FE 16-35 f/2.8 GM repeats a pattern we’ve seen fairly often, but it’s a bit more extreme than usual. At 16mm and 24mm it’s pretty consistent. At 35mm it’s a random crap shoot. How random? At 35mm, copy-to-copy variation is, well, going to cause some issues._” Hopefully you got lucky in the crapshoot.

I’ll say it again, you just stick with your opinion in spite of data to the contrary. Just like those Flat Earth Society fools.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 24, 2019)

I think it is a completely and utterly ridiculous argument/debate to even waste your time having. There is not a decent quality lens on the market that will not produce fantastic results even on large prints and nobody would ever notice the difference(barring the purchase of a seriously faulty copy). Unless of course you enjoy viewing fine art prints of test charts. In which case I would suggest you visit a psychiatrist.


----------



## PGSanta (Jul 24, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Apparently you either didn’t read the article, or you failed to understand it. Regarding Canon vs. Sony 16-35/2.8 Roger concludes they’re basically similar, which directly contradicts your claim that the Sony is better overall. Hopefully everyone (but realistically, probably everyone but you) will trust Roger’s conclusions over yours.
> 
> But speaking of cherry picking, while you probably don’t have a bunch of copies to choose from, Roger does...and he tested them all. One notable observation he made: “_The FE 16-35 f/2.8 GM repeats a pattern we’ve seen fairly often, but it’s a bit more extreme than usual. At 16mm and 24mm it’s pretty consistent. At 35mm it’s a random crap shoot. How random? At 35mm, copy-to-copy variation is, well, going to cause some issues._” Hopefully you got lucky in the crapshoot.
> 
> I’ll say it again, you just stick with your opinion in spite of data to the contrary. Just like those Flat Earth Society fools.



Data like this? https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-iii-lens-review/

It’s easy to play the review site game. 

You’re still wrong. On the same body, the Sony is a sharper lens.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 24, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Data like this? https://www.dxomark.com/canon-ef-16-35mm-f-2-8l-iii-lens-review/
> 
> It’s easy to play the review site game.
> 
> You’re still wrong. On the same body, the Sony is a sharper lens.


Yes, another site that *tests just one copy*. That’s one thing that differentiates LensRentals – they average many copies, typically ~10. Another is that their tests are done on an optical bench, no camera required (dynamic range is a factor DxOMark’s Lens Score, and that’s obviously extrinsic to the lens). 

Personally, I have no skin in the game – I sold my 16-35/2.8L II long ago, have a 16-35/4L IS, and have no interest in the Sony 16-35/2.8. However, I do have an interest in correcting the misinformation spouted by some people who’s opinions are clearly contradicted by reliable data. 

Meanwhile, you go right on living in your fantasy world where your opinion is always right. Your earth can be flat there, because reality doesn’t apply.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 24, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> I think it is a completely and utterly ridiculous argument/debate to even waste your time having. There is not a decent quality lens on the market that will not produce fantastic results even on large prints and nobody would ever notice the difference(barring the purchase of a seriously faulty copy). Unless of course you enjoy viewing fine art prints of test charts. In which case I would suggest you visit a psychiatrist.


What do you expect people spending lots of time on a GEAR website to be discussing? Art history? If anybody needs a little counselling, I'd suggest it is somebody who reads through pages and pages of threads debating the finest and silliest points about GEAR--all while despising the topic.

These debates are just as valuable as whether SOLO is true to the Star Wars canon (  ) or should be excluded. Or whether Chris Pine was properly cast as Captain Kirk. Or whether Honda has a red paint job worth buying (or keeping as-is, once purchased). In fact, these debates are essential to the mental health of geeks throughout the galaxy!


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 24, 2019)

YuengLinger said:


> What do you expect people spending lots of time on a GEAR website to be discussing? Art history? If anybody needs a little counselling, I'd suggest it is somebody who reads through pages and pages of threads debating the finest and silliest points about GEAR--all while despising the topic.
> 
> These debates are just as valuable as whether SOLO is true to the Star Wars canon (  ) or should be excluded. Or whether Chris Pine was properly cast as Captain Kirk. Or whether Honda has a red paint job worth buying (or keeping as-is, once purchased). In fact, these debates are essential to the mental health of geeks throughout the galaxy!


Not sure you can exclude SOLO entirely. Maybe exclude the 3 prequels though and execute the person who decided JaJa was a good idea


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 24, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It's a relatively affluent area in CA. There are quiet a few of them with nicer cars at 19-20 than I have at 39. Demographics aside, it's been my experience that Sony is winning the younger crowed by a LARGE margin; who knows how that translates to the wider market.



I wonder what it’s like in less affluent areas. Then there might be a lot more lowly aps-c cameras which are a lot cheaper.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 24, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> Yeahhhh.... I don’t get this position. The youngsters are adopting Sony because Sony is offering functionality at a value,



While I agree that the a7r4 (sounds like a Star Wars droid name!) is really nicely impressive specs wise, it’s still damn expensive. I’d suggest that the best *value* in full frame is actually the lowly RP.


----------



## Quirkz (Jul 24, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Most professionally produced scripted primetime content is p24. Virtually all movies are p24. p24 is the standard. You seem to be unaware of this. People want to emulate what they see. This is why all of Canon's competitors offer p24 capability in their cameras. Their potential customers want it and they offer it. Canon's potential customers want it, but Canon only sees lost Cx00 sales.



But does it matter any more? In this age of YouTube content, etc. who, apart from those actually projecting to old fashioned film, needs 24p?

I’m quite happy to be corrected if you’re producing professionally scripted prime time content on these cameras of course!


----------



## Kit. (Jul 24, 2019)

PGSanta said:


> It certainly is. You can cherry pick images on different bodies on a web site like that, or you can adapt the canon to a Sony body and see how they both really perform, and the GM is simply sharper, especially at center.
> 
> View attachment 185766
> View attachment 185767
> ...


I don't see how one can compare sharpness of lenses using images containing such obvious sharpening artifacts.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 29, 2019)

privatebydesign said:


> This is such bull. Not one person alive can tell the difference between 24p displayed at 3:2 at 60Hz and 24p displayed at 5:5 at 120Hz, not one.


Just because you can't see 3:2 cadence judder doesn't mean other people can't. The different is very obvious and apparent. Just keep your head in the sand of ignorance. Everything is going to be okay.



neuroanatomist said:


> That whooshing sound was the point sailing over your head. p24 doesn’t look like p24 when it’s interpolated up to 60/120/240 fps.


p24 displayed with a 5:5 cadence is not interpolated. Each p24 frame is displayed for five p120 frames. There are no new frames (unless someone turns that processing feature on too). Just a tip, you really should educate yourself about the stuff you pretend to be an expert about so you can at least appear to have even a basic understanding of them.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 29, 2019)

What pulldown are our brains accustomed to for a cinematic look? Is that approximated by a 60pTV?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 29, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Just a tip, you really should educate yourself


That’s probably why several people asked you to provide information on the topic. But you chose to withhold it, probably in some vain attempt to feel superior. Instead, it just made you look like an ass...an observation you continue to reinforce.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Just because you can't see 3:2 cadence judder doesn't mean other people can't. The different is very obvious and apparent. Just keep your head in the sand of ignorance. Everything is going to be okay.



If that was how it was computed and what I was suggesting then sure, you might have a point, but that isn't what I was suggesting.

10x3 : 15x2 is not the only way to cadence 25p to 60Hz, the traditional source of judder impacted frame rate shifting, just as 3:2 24p into 60Hz isn't. 

You are conflating 24p output to TV/monitor footage cadenced to replay on 60Hz, to 25p shot footage output to anything you want.

Nowadays much smarter techniques and algorithms can be used to achieve better results of converting native 25p into 60Hz playback environments even when accurate run times are demanded and audio pitch control needed.

I am talking about shooting in 25p then outputting to a suitable output for the relevant playback, this is done much more effectively and judder free than simple playback mismatched 3:2 or 10x3 : 15x2.

Everything would be OK if you got off your high horse and walked around with the plebs a bit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 30, 2019)

5:5 into 120Hz will work great when 120Hz reaches much broader acceptance, at the moment, like 4k and 8k, it is just another segment.

But this is all still missing my original point, I'd still like to find anybody that can detect any difference between footage shot at 24p or 25p and then exported/rendered specifically for a 60Hz playback. And that was my first question, again I am not talking about playback of mismatched output files on devices, I am specifically talking about playback of editing program output files specified for the relevant playback device while maintaining a 'cinematic look' having been shot in 24p or 25p.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 30, 2019)

stevelee said:


> What pulldown are our brains accustomed to for a cinematic look? Is that approximated by a 60pTV?


Real film in a theater was generally projected at either 48Hz or 72Hz. The bulb would flash behind each film cell either 2 or 3 times. It's not approximated by a 60Hz TV. A 60Hz TV alternates between 3 and 2 for every other frame and it gives motion an uneven pattern.

Digital projectors in commercial theaters operate at a multiple of 24. I think most are 72Hz, but I could be wrong.



neuroanatomist said:


> That’s probably why several people asked you to provide information on the topic. But you chose to withhold it, probably in some vain attempt to feel superior. Instead, it just made you look like an ass...an observation you continue to reinforce.


Oh, that's rich. You're lecturing someone else about a behavior you've mastered and exude in every single post. The projection is strong with this one. Every time you lose an argument on a technical fact or facts you revert to calling the other person names. You make a technically incorrect post, get corrected, and then start with the name calling. It's very becoming.



privatebydesign said:


> If that was how it was computed and what I was suggesting then sure, you might have a point, but that isn't what I was suggesting.
> 
> 10x3 : 15x2 is not the only way to cadence 25p to 60Hz, the traditional source of judder impacted frame rate shifting, just as 3:2 24p into 60Hz isn't.
> 
> ...


I'm not conflating anything. I'm still waiting for you to explain how you can convert p25 to 60Hz and get a smooth cadence. You keep talking about these advanced techniques and algorithms, but can't explain even at a basic level what these techniques are supposedly doing instead.

p24 content is converted to 720p60 with a 3:2 cadence and p24 content is converted to 1080i60 with a telecine. Where are these advanced techniques and algorithms? How come they're not used for any broadcast programming? It's exported specifically for playback at a different framerate yet doesn't use any of these advanced techniques and algorithms that you keep mentioning. Maybe they just don't know about them?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Oh, that's rich. You're lecturing someone else about a behavior you've mastered and exude in every single post. The projection is strong with this one. Every time you lose an argument on a technical fact or facts you revert to calling the other person names. You make a technically incorrect post, get corrected, and then start with the name calling. It's very becoming.



Let’s review, shall we? I posted a question, you didn’t reply. I then re-posted it:


neuroanatomist said:


> But I’m not a video guy, so I’ll pose the question again: in the context of viewing footage at home, what are the advantages of shooting in p24 and what can be done that is impossible to achieve with another frame rate?



That time, you did reply:


Stereodude said:


> You really need to up your trolling game if this is the best retort you've got. Other frames rates don't look like p24, which why you shoot at p24.



So yeah, you look like a sweet little forum angel there, don’t you?

Enjoy your day, I see no further need to respond to your inanity.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> Real film in a theater was generally projected at either 48Hz or 72Hz. The bulb would flash behind each film cell either 2 or 3 times. It's not approximated by a 60Hz TV. A 60Hz TV alternates between 3 and 2 for every other frame and it gives motion an uneven pattern.
> 
> Digital projectors in commercial theaters operate at a multiple of 24. I think most are 72Hz, but I could be wrong.



So you are shooting video to be shown on digital projectors in commercial theaters. OK, I see now. I don't do that with my G7X II, and am no more likely to do it with the III. I don't even do that with my DSLR. I wonder how many folks do. Enough that it will affect sales noticeably? Really?

As for a cinematic look on TV, that comes from the 3:2 pulldown, right? I think there are also filters that soften contrast, add grain, and maybe even add subtle scratches. Shooting handheld in black-and-white can give a cinéma verité effect that was popular with French film makers. But I don't think that works as well any more. People were accustomed to seeing newsreels in theaters, so imitating their style gave verisimilitude to those familiar with that. I'm barely old enough to remember seeing them when I was small, so I would expect the effect to be lost on everybody younger than I.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 30, 2019)

Hey. Any constructive discussion about what's coming at the end of august? Or do we have to continue to wade through page after page of pointless debate? Asking for a friend.


----------



## Stereodude (Jul 30, 2019)

neuroanatomist said:


> Enjoy your day, I see no further need to respond to your inanity.


Finally... Hopefully you stick to it. I'm pretty sure you won't be able to overcome your nature though.



stevelee said:


> So you are shooting video to be shown on digital projectors in commercial theaters. OK, I see now. I don't do that with my G7X II, and am no more likely to do it with the III. I don't even do that with my DSLR. I wonder how many folks do. Enough that it will affect sales noticeably? Really?


No, I didn't say that. That's an odd assumption to make. Regardless of whether it's actually displayed correctly or not, if you want to shoot video that has the same look on your display of choice as commercially produced cinematic (p24) content you need to be able to shoot at p24.



> As for a cinematic look on TV, that comes from the 3:2 pulldown, right?


No. First you can't really get a true cinematic look on a 60Hz TV. The 3:2 cadence is a deviation from that. This is why for 10+ years good flat panel TVs have had the ability to show p24 content at a refresh frequency that's a multiple of 24 instead of plain old 60. People did the same with some CRT based displays before this. This multiple of p24 refresh rate allows an accurate representation of the cinematic look that you see in theaters to be achieved at home.

Second the 3:2 cadence is not responsible for the cinematic look. If it was, an actual theater wouldn't have the cinematic look because they don't display p24 content with a 3:2 cadence. The slow shutter speeds, lower framerate, and perhaps duplicated frames are.



Aussie shooter said:


> Hey. Any constructive discussion about what's coming at the end of august? Or do we have to continue to wade through page after page of pointless debate? Asking for a friend.


Do you have new information to discuss? We're discussing the value of a likely missing feature from what's coming at the end of August. It might not be of interest to you, but it is relevant to the topic.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 30, 2019)

Stereodude said:


> No, I didn't say that. That's an odd assumption to make. Regardless of whether it's actually displayed correctly or not, if you want to shoot video that has the same look on your display of choice as commercially produced cinematic (p24) content you need to be able to shoot at p24.



OK, then I'm puzzled.



Stereodude said:


> No. First you can't really get a true cinematic look on a 60Hz TV. The 3:2 cadence is a deviation from that. This is why for 10+ years good flat panel TVs have had the ability to show p24 content at a refresh frequency that's a multiple of 24 instead of plain old 60. People did the same with some CRT based displays before this. This multiple of p24 refresh rate allows an accurate representation of the cinematic look that you see in theaters to be achieved at home.
> 
> Second the 3:2 cadence is not responsible for the cinematic look. If it was, an actual theater wouldn't have the cinematic look because they don't display p24 content with a 3:2 cadence. The slow shutter speeds, lower framerate, and perhaps duplicated frames are.



OK, then we are operating from different ideas of what constitutes a "cinematic look." I'm an old guy, and I grew up watching old movies on CRT TVs. Generally the look people supposedly want to avoid is the "soap opera effect" from higher frame rates. Slow shutter speeds and frame rates are one cure.

We could open even more cans of worms with the differences between drop frames and such. When is 30fps actually 30fps; and for that matter, when is 24fps really 24fps? Is it just a matter of color vs. black and white?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 30, 2019)

stevelee said:


> Is it just a matter of color vs. black and white?


Things just haven’t been the same since this whole fad of talkies started.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 31, 2019)

[QUOTE



Do you have new information to discuss? We're discussing the value of a likely missing feature from what's coming at the end of August. It might not be of interest to you, but it is relevant to the topic.
[/QUOTE]

No. This discussion is relevant to the topic of the Rp in which that feature is known to be missing. Even better. Start a thread entitled 'benefits of 24fps'. There you could discuss it in complete relevance to your hearts content.

On the actual subject though, is the sensor touted for the m62 likely to be the same sensor in the '90d' if that is what it will be called?


----------



## Joules (Jul 31, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> On the actual subject though, is the sensor touted for the m62 likely to be the same sensor in the '90d' if that is what it will be called?


There has been some talk of a new 24 MP design. But I guess that was either for lower end models or just misinformation. It would be weird if the M6 got a better sensor than the 80D.

The 32.5 sensor in the 80D successor seems to be pretty much guaranteed in my eyes. Canon has registered a DSLR with such a sensor quite a while ago:









Canon registers a 32.5mp APS-C DSLR in Taiwan


Last month we posted that a 32.5mp APS-C sensor was on the way and it looks likes that information has been confirmed through a Taiwanese certification agency.



www.canonrumors.com





I'm still sceptical about those supposed M6 specs. So maybe we will see that new 24 MP sensor in the M6, while M5 and 80D successor get the 32.5 MP one.


----------



## Aussie shooter (Jul 31, 2019)

Joules said:


> There has been some talk of a new 24 MP design. But I guess that was either for lower end models or just misinformation. It would be weird if the M6 got a better sensor than the 80D.
> 
> The 32.5 sensor in the 80D successor seems to be pretty much guaranteed in my eyes. Canon has registered a DSLR with such a sensor quite a while ago:
> 
> ...


Oh. Definitely skeptical about the m62 specs but if they are even close i will be impressed .


----------



## Joules (Jul 31, 2019)

Aussie shooter said:


> Oh. Definitely skeptical about the m62 specs but if they are even close i will be impressed .


I am optimistic about the sensor though.

We have heard numerous times now that the new APS-C cameras will shoot 4k without any additional crop. That alone points to Canon having made a big step in the right direction. And it could make those high Framerate claims somewhat realistic.

Also,why would talk about a new 24 MP sensor have come up at all? That only makes sense if the tech changed a good bit. Nobody but Canon refers to sensors as new if we've already seen ones with similar performance in previous models.


----------

